In message
-sept
ember.org, at 21:21:18 on Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Recliner
remarked:
And as with other attacks, there may be a bomb-making cell behind it.
We can laugh at their incompetence with this bomb, but they may get it
right with a second one.

Hence the sharp increase in security resources now being devoted to finding
them, as after 21/7.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/15/four-lions-factor-how-terrorist-incompetence-is-saving-lives

"initial examination of the device led explosives experts to
conclude it was 'viable', meaning it was meant to explode more
fully."

Is that really what 'viable' means? I'd always thought it meant
"constructed in such a way that it would in fact usually explode",
rather than merely wishful thinking on the part of the bomb-maker who
meant it to explode, had it been constructed properly.

cf: "capable of working successfully"
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 21:21:18 on Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Recliner
remarked:
And as with other attacks, there may be a bomb-making cell behind it.
We can laugh at their incompetence with this bomb, but they may get it
right with a second one.

Hence the sharp increase in security resources now being devoted to finding
them, as after 21/7.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/15/four-lions-factor-how-terrorist-incompetence-is-saving-lives

"initial examination of the device led explosives experts to
conclude it was 'viable', meaning it was meant to explode more
fully."

Is that really what 'viable' means? I'd always thought it meant
"constructed in such a way that it would in fact usually explode",
rather than merely wishful thinking on the part of the bomb-maker who
meant it to explode, had it been constructed properly.

cf: "capable of working successfully"

My reading of it is that the igniter/detonator went off, but that for some
reason (obviously not disclosed) it failed to set off the main bomb. Had
the latter gone off, the effects would have been far worse.

Obviously I don't know why the main bomb didn't go off, and will refrain
from speculating.

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 15:01:08 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Fri, 15 Sep 2017 08:50:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:13:33 on Fri, 15 Sep
2017, Graeme Wall remarked:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41278545

Lithium battery inside something? Injuries cause by the panic, not
the
'device'.

It looks like it was a very-improvised explosive device that
fortunately
didn't go off properly. But it does seem to have burned some
passengers,
while other injuries were indeed caused by the panic evacuation.

One of the people waiting for her train on the station was the main
presenter of BBC London news, so I guess she'll have extensive reports
on
it in today's bulletins.

She's just said she was 15 minutes away.

It seems the Wimbledon Branch is closed for the day. I passed Wimbledon
(on
my way from Waterloo to Bournemouth) about 12:45 and there were 4 District
Line trains in the bay platforms showing their tail lights. So they
weren't
going anywhere soon.

While I think we can be grateful (like on 21/7) that making viable
explosive
devices isn't as easy as many people think, I see the threat level has
been
raised to critical, presumably because the culprit is at large and may
have
other weaponry.

And as with other attacks, there may be a bomb-making cell behind it.
We can laugh at their incompetence with this bomb, but they may get it
right with a second one.

as is said

they only need to get lucky once

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 21:21:18 on Fri, 15 Sep 2017, Recliner
remarked:
And as with other attacks, there may be a bomb-making cell behind it.
We can laugh at their incompetence with this bomb, but they may get it
right with a second one.

Hence the sharp increase in security resources now being devoted to
finding
them, as after 21/7.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/15/four-lions-factor-how-terrorist-incompetence-is-saving-lives

"initial examination of the device led explosives experts to
conclude it was 'viable', meaning it was meant to explode more
fully."

Is that really what 'viable' means? I'd always thought it meant
"constructed in such a way that it

yes

would in fact usually explode",
rather than merely wishful thinking on the part of the bomb-maker who
meant it to explode, had it been constructed properly.

in these terms Viable means - is made up of the correct parts to cause an
explosion - if it has been constructed correctly

The salient point being that a viable device is one that has to be handled
very carefully by the disposal people, because it still has the capacity to
explode in their faces if they handle it incorrectly

tim