[dap]

This is explicitly mentioned in the article:

> Though some have questioned why anyone intending to blow up a plane would broadcast the word bomb, many terrorist acts have relied on the threat of a bomb as leverage during attempted hijackings or hostage situations.

[bugufu8f83]

It still makes absolutely no sense. First of all, this is not currently a bomb threat up until someone actually makes a threat. Second of all, in the event that somebody does make a threat, the existence of a Bluetooth device named "Bomb" doesn't make the threat any more credible or serious.

[frankacter]

>First of all, this is not currently a bomb threat up until someone actually makes a threat.

It makes sense from the perspective of zero tolerance. Any mention or reference is perceived as a threat regardless of additional actions taken.

[dap]

It doesn’t have to be an intentional threat to be worth responding to. One might reasonably think they’d stumbled on an (admittedly poorly executed) attack.