Political Randomness

[em2nought]

What's the confusion?

If you mail a bomb(s) it doesn't matter whether it goes off or not you've got to know that you're permanently screwed, so why would you send fake bombs if you hated democrats enough to send them a bomb(s) in the first place? The person was smart enough to get the addresses he/she/it/ wanted to send these to so he/she/it is apparently not an idiot. Which according to you guys rules out Trump voters.

[Default]

I just hate to hear about these bombs - crazies + politics are a volatile mix.

I find it curious that none of the bombs went off. What are the odds that a technician could build that many devices and all of them failed? Not even a smoking detonator?

What use would a bomb that did not explode be? I don't get it.

What a strange post.

What is your issue here? That a guy smart enough to make a bomb but dumb enough to send it to secret service guarded people, was also dumb enough not to take the fact that all mail gets screened long before it gets anywhere near them?

That protections designed for exactly this scenario worked?

That CNN didn't lose their mailroom?

What's the confusion?

We're in the middle of an investigation. More details will be revealed in time. Save your conspiratorial speculation for Facebook.

A mailbomb is detonated by a specific action, not random jostling, otherwise it ain't much use as a mailbomb.

[Blackhawk]

Usually by the process of opening it or cutting into it.

[Skinypupy]

I just hate to hear about these bombs - crazies + politics are a volatile mix.

I find it curious that none of the bombs went off. What are the odds that a technician could build that many devices and all of them failed? Not even a smoking detonator?

What use would a bomb that did not explode be? I don't get it.

What a strange post.

What is your issue here? That a guy smart enough to make a bomb but dumb enough to send it to secret service guarded people, was also dumb enough not to take the fact that all mail gets screened long before it gets anywhere near them?

That protections designed for exactly this scenario worked?

That CNN didn't lose their mailroom?

What's the confusion?

We're in the middle of an investigation. More details will be revealed in time. Save your conspiratorial speculation for Facebook.

I read it as a “FALSE FLAG!!” implication. Which, sadly and predictably, is the narrative currently being pushed heavily by the usual conservative suspects.

[GreenGoo]

Hey, he's just asking questions.

[Kraken]

If the objective is to sow terror, a dud bomb can be as good as an explosion. Think about the shoe bomber who fizzled; we're still removing our shoes before boarding aircraft today. The threat is what matters.

One radio report tonight said that at least one of the bombs had what appeared to be a timing device...which seems like an oddly random method, what with the vagaries of mail pickup and delivery. But the same report said that they are not the work of an amateur who downloaded al Qaeda plans from the internet. Using plastic pipes and glass shrapnel to avoid metal detectors and reduce weight was said to be inspired and innovative.

I, too, am curious why none of them detonated, and I don't mean to insinuate anything by wondering. I'm sure we'll hear more about that.

[Combustible Lemur]

If the objective is to sow terror, a dud bomb can be as good as an explosion. Think about the shoe bomber who fizzled; we're still removing our shoes before boarding aircraft today. The threat is what matters.

One radio report tonight said that at least one of the bombs had what appeared to be a timing device...which seems like an oddly random method, what with the vagaries of mail pickup and delivery. But the same report said that they are not the work of an amateur who downloaded al Qaeda plans from the internet. Using plastic pipes and glass shrapnel to avoid metal detectors and reduce weight was said to be inspired and innovative.

I, too, am curious why none of them detonated, and I don't mean to insinuate anything by wondering. I'm sure we'll hear more about that.

An expert type guy on maddow explained the timer as a safe delivery switch. the timer keeps the bomb in safe mode until delivery the when it runs out arms the package for opening.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[GreenGoo]

There's a difference between being interested in the details of the events, including how they discovered them, the details of the bombs themselves (I'm more interested in the explosives used than why they didn't go off. Knowing that might even answer both questions), and who did it, versus pondering out loud "how odd that they didn't go off. What use is a bomb that doesn't explode dot dot dot <form your own conclusions here>. I'm just asking questions"

[GreenGoo]

If the objective is to sow terror, a dud bomb can be as good as an explosion. Think about the shoe bomber who fizzled; we're still removing our shoes before boarding aircraft today. The threat is what matters.

I...don't understand this in the context of the current event.

Are you thinking that Obama will suddenly not implement Obamacare, or that Hilary will end her campaign for the presidency?

Or maybe that untargeted Dems in general will be cowed into voting for Kavanaugh?

Or that CNN will suddenly support Drumpf's policies?

Who is being terrorized by these bombs (dud or not)? To what end?

If you just think someone wants to fuck with people with little power to actually implement policy, then...sure. I guess? Clearly these targets are all big-time boogeymen for the GOP and/or the Prez, including CNN. But that's all they are at this point.

I don't think it's unreasonable at a first pass to presume that this is a low information unbalanced person who has gone after the people he views as the most dangerous to the country, as told to him by the GOP/Prez/Fox news. I'm not saying they are responsible for unbalanced person's actions, but they certainly provided him with targets.

We might find out different. Let's watch, shall we?

[Kraken]

If the objective is to sow terror, a dud bomb can be as good as an explosion. Think about the shoe bomber who fizzled; we're still removing our shoes before boarding aircraft today. The threat is what matters.

I...don't understand this in the context of the current event.

...

If you just think someone wants to fuck with people with little power to actually implement policy, then...sure. I guess? Clearly these targets are all big-time boogeymen for the GOP and/or the Prez, including CNN. But that's all they are at this point.

I don't think it's unreasonable at a first pass to presume that this is a low information unbalanced person who has gone after the people he views as the most dangerous to the country, as told to him by the GOP/Prez/Fox news. I'm not saying they are responsible for unbalanced person's actions, but they certainly provided him with targets.

We might find out different. Let's watch, shall we?

I didn't mean that these pipe bombs are on the same scale as the shoe bomber, just that the principle is the same -- the body count is not the point; intimidation and fear are the point. The fate of the bomb recipients is secondary to affecting the general population.

Maybe it's some lone Unabomber whackjob trying to influence the midterms, just because everything political is about the midterms right now. Maybe it's a bona fide terrorist. The sophistication of the bombs (as I understand it) implies that he is not stupid and might not be an amateur.

But yeah, we're both speculating. We shall see.

[GreenGoo]

I understood that you meant general terror, I just don't understand why you would think that.

Is the general populace terrorised because these specific, related targets were threatened?

That makes no sense to me. Unless you're Michelle Obama or a CNN producer why on earth would this make you afraid for your own life in any way, shape or form?

I guess I'm confused as to how this is terrifying in the way you suggest.

[Holman]

Annnnd... here's Trump blaming CNN for being so Fake News that they make people bomb them.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9270716418

[Holman]

I understood that you meant general terror, I just don't understand why you would think that.

Is the general populace terrorised because these specific, related targets were threatened?

That makes no sense to me. Unless you're Michelle Obama or a CNN producer why on earth would this make you afraid for your own life in any way, shape or form?

I guess I'm confused as to how this is terrifying in the way you suggest.

Sometimes the point of terror is radicalize the susceptible or make other violence seem more possible.

Everyone who heard the bomb news and isn't appalled just got that much closer to normalizing extremes.

[GreenGoo]

Maybe, but that's a stretch in this case. Who do you think would be radicalised by this?

Manson was more likely to start a race war than the left are to "radicalise" in the sense you suggest.

As for normalizing violence, I mean, that's the opposite of terror imo, and an even stranger interpretation of these acts.

[malchior]

It's like telling Democrats, "Hey, that other guy may have been out of line but you did deserve some of it by having those beers and wearing that suggestive skirt."

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1 ... 3613826048

[Daehawk]

Such an un presidential president.

[Holman]

Maybe, but that's a stretch in this case. Who do you think would be radicalised by this?

Manson was more likely to start a race war than the left are to "radicalise" in the sense you suggest.

As for normalizing violence, I mean, that's the opposite of terror imo, and an even stranger interpretation of these acts.

The victims aren't the ones being radicalized.

A bomber targeting the left might radicalize other susceptible people on the right.

Terrorism is also an attempt at recruitment.

[LordMortis]

Annnnd... here's Trump blaming CNN for being so Fake News that they make people bomb them.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9270716418

And there it is. Back to new normal

[Max Peck]

Another day, another lib gets put on notice.

A suspect package similar to those sent to CNN and senior Democrats has been sent to a New York restaurant owned by the actor Robert De Niro, US media say.

Citing police sources, NBC said a device had arrived at the Tribeca Grill early on Thursday local time.

If linked to previous packages, this would be the ninth explosive device sent to perceived critics of President Donald Trump this week.

De Niro is a vocal Trump opponent, and once called him "a national disaster".

When the Oscar-winner criticised him at the Tony Awards in June, the president responded by calling De Niro a "very low IQ individual".

The New York Police Department said the restaurant building was empty at the time the suspicious device arrived, NBC reports.

Shortly after the news broke, President Trump appeared to pin the blame on the media, tweeting: "A very big part of the Anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News."

He made no direct reference to the device found at the restaurant, or any of the earlier incidents.

[GreenGoo]

Terrorism is also an attempt at recruitment.

The bombs are an attempt to recruit like-minded people.

I give up.

Have at it, America.

[Holman]

Terrorism is also an attempt at recruitment.

The bombs are an attempt to recruit like-minded people.

I give up.

Have at it, America.

I'm not sure I understand you. Are you saying acts of terror aren't (also) intended to inspire future acts of terror? Because that's how it works.

[GreenGoo]

No, no, you're right. These bombs are a recruitment drive.

[Max Peck]

Reuters is reporting that Joe Biden also made the hit list.

[LawBeefaroni]

Just want to point out that I'm not terrorized by these bombs. I'm appalled and aghast, but not terrorized. They were sent to high ranking officials and a media corporation. Congress people are rightfully terrorized, despite their multi layers of protection. Their aides and secretaries must be scared out of their minds. But honestly I'd be more terrorized if these were just random packges sent to random people.

So all these calls of unity by our officials are really just calls of, "hey, us important people are being targeted! This is a big deal!!!". And then I see the NYPD dog and pony show where they send in 30 SWAT guys with rifles with the bomb specialist to what...shoot a pipe bomb? And I'm reminded of the sage words of a former Chief of Staff.



I don't buy the false flag theory but I have no doubt that in those hallowed halls on both sides this is being looked at as opportunity.

[Holman]

No, no, you're right. These bombs are a recruitment drive.

Honestly, I don't get your snarkiness, GreenGoo.

[Blackhawk]

Is nobody considering the other possibility with the bombs? That it's one guy who's batshit insane striking out without it being part of some grand plan?

[GreenGoo]

Because I can't get from "bombs to high profile Democrats/people critical of Drumpf" to "hopefully my bombs will inspire others to do likewise/join our club" as a reasonable conclusion.

As Lawbeef points out, at least for him personally, and I would think most people, there is no general population terror here. So that leaves that sort of terrorism out. I get that high level Dems (and the people close to them) are going to be seriously concerned right now. I don't get that any of the typical reasons or motives for terrorism are at play. Are all attempts to assassinate high visibility targets terrorism?

At what point does attempted murder become terrorism? When the mail system is used? When there are more than 1 target? When the target(s) is/are high profile?

I have been confused by America's desire to call everything terrorism for awhile now, and this just continues that confusion.

At the same time I'm willing to accept that the goal here *might* be terrorism, but I have serious doubts that they will be.

If terrorism is simply the act of making people feel unsafe, rather than the specific desired outcome, then chicago is a terrorist hub, as are documentaries on air disasters.

Is it the fact that bombs were used? If each of these people were victims of drive-bys, would it still be terrorism? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Holman]

Is nobody considering the other possibility with the bombs? That it's one guy who's batshit insane striking out without it being part of some grand plan?

Of course. It's probably a lone wolf, and would-be mass murders tend to be insane.

But *political* mass murderers also see themselves as warriors in some kind of uprising, and it's very unlikely that someone targeting Trump's enemies list doesn't see himself as part of some underground patriot army. All he has to do is spend time on right-wing social media, and it declares itself to him every day.

[GreenGoo]

Is nobody considering the other possibility with the bombs? That it's one guy who's batshit insane striking out without it being part of some grand plan?

In fairness, it could be one batshit insane guy hellbent on terrorizing. Terrorism doesn't need a cabal.

In any case, everyone is free to jump to whatever conclusions they want. I've stated why I think some of those conclusions are less probable than others, but that doesn't make them impossible. I mostly got involved because those conclusions seem so foreign to my perceptions of this (these) incident that they caught me off guard.

Have at it.

[Blackhawk]

To be honest, 'inspire others to act' was one of the first things that jumped to my mind, too. The tension has been building before, and when that happens, it's often a single incident that causes the dam to crack. I could absolutely see someone trying to create that incident. Rational? No. But someone sent bombs to a huge number of public figures. Rationality isn't a given.

[Holman]

Because I can't get from "bombs to high profile Democrats/people critical of Drumpf" to "hopefully my bombs will inspire others to do likewise/join our club" as a reasonable conclusion.

As Lawbeef points out, at least for him personally, and I would think most people, there is no general population terror here. So that leaves that sort of terrorism out. I get that high level Dems (and the people close to them) are going to be seriously concerned right now. I don't get that any of the typical reasons or motives for terrorism are at play. Are all attempts to assassinate high visibility targets terrorism?

What about the fact that the far-right *talks* about the need for political violence every day? The drumbeat of the fantasy is very real and very constant, and the only thing that has changed since 2016 is the shift from resisting [Obama's] government to defending [Trump's] America against domestic enemies.

It's a narrative that calls for political violence day in and day out. Now someone appears to have heeded that call and acted on it. (And we know that the bomb-maker is aware of right-wing social media because he referenced right-wing social media memes on at least one of the bombs.)

Given all that, why is it difficult to believe that the perpetrator acting on this narrative also hopes to inspire others to do the same?

[GreenGoo]

What about the fact that the far-right *talks* about the need for political violence every day? The drumbeat of the fantasy is very real and very constant, and the only thing that has changed since 2016 is the shift from resisting [Obama's] government to defending [Trump's] America against domestic enemies.

It's a narrative that calls for political violence day in and day out. Now someone appears to have heeded that call and acted on it. (And we know that the bomb-maker is aware of right-wing social media because he referenced right-wing social media memes on at least one of the bombs.)

Given all that, why is it difficult to believe that the perpetrator acting on this narrative also hopes to inspire others to do the same?

It's not impossible to believe, just difficult, and unlikely in the face of more basic motives. You then use these difficult to believe motives as the reason (at least in part) that these acts are terrorism, which is where the conversation started. It's too wide a net based on too little probability imo. It doesn't mean you're wrong, I just don't see it as probable, especially when motives that I feel are more probable are available for discussion.

In any case, cult leaders inspire others to do their bidding. Cult members do it. Cult members aren't motivated by the desire to inspire others, typically, so even if your scenario were exactly true up to the point of making and sending the bombs, I *still* think it's unlikely that the desire here was to motivate others to do similarly. And that motive was the reason (at least one of them) that you used to support the idea that this is terrorism.

I have no doubt that police/bomb guys view this as terrorism. There is literally no difference in how the police/bomb guys treat a terrorist's bomb vs. an assassin's. It's all the same to them. I also have no doubt that the media will (has) called this terrorism. Or that political leadership will (have) termed it as such. None of that makes it true however.

[gilraen]

If terrorism is simply the act of making people feel unsafe, rather than the specific desired outcome, then chicago is a terrorist hub, as are documentaries on air disasters.

Is it the fact that bombs were used? If each of these people were victims of drive-bys, would it still be terrorism? If so, why? If not, why not?

You are right in that it's about the desired outcome - more specifically, it's about the motive and intent of the perpetrator. The federal definition of "terrorism" comes straight out of the Patriot Act: there has to be a conscious attempt to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." There are many things that can boil down to "intimidation" of civilian population - so that's a pretty wide definition.

Either way, there isn't a federal charge associated with "domestic terrorism", so those would be up to the state (but my understanding is that law enforcement rarely charges someone with that specifically, they usually just pile on "regular" charges).

[GreenGoo]

You are right in that it's about the desired outcome - more specifically, it's about the motive and intent of the perpetrator. The federal definition of "terrorism" comes straight out of the Patriot Act: there has to be a conscious attempt to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping." There are many things that can boil down to "intimidation" of civilian population - so that's a pretty wide definition.

Related, I think it's important to realize that not everyone's definition (outside any legal definition) of terrorism is going to be the same, as it's a somewhat nebulous concept to begin with. That could be in part what is separating me from those who believe it is terrorism.

[ImLawBoy]

Maybe it's because I'm one of those Americans who is so used to Americans calling everything terrorism, but I don't see a problem with labeling the attempted mass assassinations of American political leaders (and, apparently, Robert DeNiro) as terrorism, particularly when all of those political leaders (and actor) fall on one side of the aisle. It falls well within my personal definition, but as GG points out, different people are going to have different definitions.

[Defiant]

Is nobody considering the other possibility with the bombs? That it's one guy who's batshit insane striking out without it being part of some grand plan?

I've certainly considered that possibility - there have definitely been cases like that (like earlier this year in Austin). Though given the targets, it isn't the first thing that comes to mind.

[Blackhawk]

At this point, I don't think we're trying to come to a conclusion anyway, just discuss possibilities from likely to remote. We don't have all the info (nobody does), and discussing possibilities, even slim ones, is valuable.

[noxiousdog]

Is nobody considering the other possibility with the bombs? That it's one guy who's batshit insane striking out without it being part of some grand plan?

+1000000

It's no different than the guy going to a softball game shooting Republicans.

Some people are crazy.

[Holman]

Maybe it's because I'm one of those Americans who is so used to Americans calling everything terrorism, but I don't see a problem with labeling the attempted mass assassinations of American political leaders (and, apparently, Robert DeNiro) as terrorism, particularly when all of those political leaders (and actor) fall on one side of the aisle. It falls well within my personal definition, but as GG points out, different people are going to have different definitions.

A lot depends on how we define politically targeted violence apparently motivated by extremist political rhetoric -without- calling it terrorism.

We don't call Squeaky Fromme a terrorist because the Manson cult wasn't a serious political movement.
We don't call Lee Harvey Oswald a terrorist because he appears to have been an angry lone wolf of murky politics.
I never hear James Earl Ray called a terrorist, but we probably should.
The Unabomber seems kind of borderline because few others shared his politics.
It's very clear that Timothy McVeigh was a domestic political terrorist.

I think the question today is whether our bomber is more Unabomber or McVeigh. If he was somehow acting in isolation from prevalent far-right calls for violence (or if it turns out he believes his targets were all space aliens here to steal our potato supply), he's a Unabomber.

I kind of expect, though, that his browser history will eventually make this all crystal clear.

[Sepiche]

I kind of expect, though, that his browser history will eventually make this all crystal clear.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex ... er-n924166

A senior law enforcement official said that the image contained on the Brennan device that appears to be an ISIS flag is in fact a mocking parody of it. The official confirmed that the words “Get ‘Er Done” were on the device.

The “Get ‘Er Done” flag was originally created in 2014 by the right-wing parody site World News Bureau, for an article titled “ISIS Vows Retribution for Counterfeit Flags.” It has since been shared as a meme on right-wing websites and forums.

I think the safe bet at this point is: Alt-Right Terrorist