That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
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. 
A mailbomb is detonated by a specific action, not random jostling, otherwise it ain't much use as a mailbomb.GreenGoo wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:00 pmWhat a strange post.Yojimbo wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:11 pm 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 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 wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 9:00 pmWhat a strange post.Yojimbo wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:11 pm 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 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.
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.Kraken wrote: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.
I...don't understand this in the context of the current event.Kraken wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:24 pm 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 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.GreenGoo wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 12:18 amI...don't understand this in the context of the current event.Kraken wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 10:24 pm 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.
...
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?
Sometimes the point of terror is radicalize the susceptible or make other violence seem more possible.GreenGoo wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:01 am 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.
https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1 ... 3613826048$iljanus wrote: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:28 pm 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."
The victims aren't the ones being radicalized.GreenGoo wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:54 am 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.
And there it is. Back to new normalHolman wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 7:41 am Annnnd... here's Trump blaming CNN for being so Fake News that they make people bomb them.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9270716418
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.
The bombs are an attempt to recruit like-minded people.
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.
Honestly, I don't get your snarkiness, GreenGoo.
Of course. It's probably a lone wolf, and would-be mass murders tend to be insane.Blackhawk wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:05 am 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.Blackhawk wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:05 am 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?
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.GreenGoo wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:10 am 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?
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.Holman wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:19 am 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?
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.GreenGoo wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:10 am 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?
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.gilraen wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:34 am 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.
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 wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:05 am 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?
+1000000Blackhawk wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:05 am 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?
A lot depends on how we define politically targeted violence apparently motivated by extremist political rhetoric -without- calling it terrorism.ImLawBoy wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 10:49 am 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.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex ... er-n924166Holman wrote: Thu Oct 25, 2018 11:10 am I kind of expect, though, that his browser history will eventually make this all crystal clear.
I think the safe bet at this point is: Alt-Right TerroristA 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.