Mail bombs sent to CNN / Dems

[Bentaycanada]

What does everyone think of this?

The list is pretty insane, including:

• Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

• Former President Barack Obama

• Former Vice-President Joe Biden

• Former CIA Director John Brennan, care of CNN

• Former Attorney General Eric Holder

• California Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters

• Actor Robert De Niro, via his restaurant

The Left are saying that Trump shares the blame for this with his "the press are the enemy of the people" comments at rallies. The Right appear to be saying that the President has no blame for this, and that the Left need to look internal.

There are even false flag conspiracies that appeared almost instantly, and have even been pushed by Limbaugh on his radio show.

What are peoples feelings on this?
Do left-wing media hold as much blame for the rhetoric as Trump or even his base / media alias?

 

[Randy]

The mistake the Left have been making is trying to fight this as a matter of 'who hit who first' because the fact is, I have my beliefs on this but regardless of what they are, Conservatives have been effective at 'whataboutizing' this issue with the stories about Rep. Scalise or the ricin that was sent out lately.

Never going to win a fight like this that way.

Likewise, the overarching narrative on this has become "Dems plant false flag bomb scare" on conservative outlets and "Republicans accuse Dems of planting false flag bomb scare" on the left. Both play into the narrative conservatives want leading to the midterm and likely give the bomber exactly what they want. It should be covered as an active criminal and likely domestic terror investigation, no more and no less.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

The mistake the Left have been making is trying to fight this as a matter of 'who hit who first' because the fact is, I have my beliefs on this but regardless of what they are, Conservatives have been effective at 'whataboutizing' this issue with the stories about Rep. Scalise or the ricin that was sent out lately.

Never going to win a fight like this that way.

Likewise, the overarching narrative on this has become "Dems plant false flag bomb scare" on conservative outlets and "Republicans accuse Dems of planting false flag bomb scare" on the left. Both play into the narrative conservatives want leading to the midterm and likely give the bomber exactly what they want. It should be covered as an active criminal and likely domestic terror investigation, no more and no less.

This.

 

[Bentaycanada]

Ok, so they shouldn't be making it about who hit first. But it cannot be ignored that the President has openly attacked several of the targets dozens of times, in Tweets and most importantly at live rallies. Not to mention Fox News, which literally claims ignorance on this.

According to CNN (who I personally dislike as much as Fox) these are some numbers on Trump / Fox News tweets / attacks. I think these numbers are worth looking at and considering regardless of how you feel about them:

* CNN in tweets - 63 times
* The press as "the enemy of the people" in speeches / tweets - 55 times
* "fake news" - 700 times
* Attacks on Clinton - 109 times
* Obama tweets - 137 times
* Maxine Waters in speeches, press statements and tweets - 73 times (since March)
* Hannity mentioned Clinton - 360 times
* Tucker Carlson mentioned Clinton - 290 times
* Eric Holder mentioned by Hannity and Carlson - 74 times

Trump has only been in office 677 days, and I think these numbers are staggering.

Now, my question is, has the other side been this consistent in their attacks on Trump?
Also, I don't think saying that the press, be it CNN or NY Time or whoever writing negative pieces on the President counts. He's the President and should be open to scrutiny from anyone.
So on that note, was Obama this bad about Fox or Bush?

 

[narad]

So on that note, was Obama this bad about Fox or Bush?

He wasn't even this bad about Fox when they were suggesting he was not even born in American. Obama just smoothly mocked how dumb it all was at the correspondence dinner.

btw, the Rory Scovel standup on this topic is hilarious.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

i'm not one for conspiracy theories but some of the photos i've seen of the bombs look fake af. they basically look like pipe bombs with digital timers attached to them, which makes no sense given that mail travel can vary greatly and most of these would have been opened by aides/secretaries. the unabomber would boobytrap his packages so they exploded upon opening, which is more what i would expect if people were actively trying to blow up politicians.
the idea that multiple bombs slipped through mail screening, but didn't detonate at any point, makes me question whether they were actual bombs and not just a fearmongering prank.
i'll have to talk to my eod buddies and see what they think of the bombs.

 

[Randy]

i'm not one for conspiracy theories but some of the photos i've seen of the bombs look fake af. they basically look like pipe bombs with digital timers attached to them, which makes no sense given that mail travel can vary greatly and most of these would have been opened by aides/secretaries. the unabomber would boobytrap his packages so they exploded upon opening, which is more what i would expect if people were actively trying to blow up politicians.
the idea that multiple bombs slipped through mail screening, but didn't detonate at any point, makes me question whether they were actual bombs and not just a fearmongering prank.
i'll have to talk to my eod buddies and see what they think of the bombs.

If fear is the goal, the bombs working didn't matter. Either way, you can skew the intention of this to suit either narrative.

I don't think there's anything especially unfair or biased about taking this at face value until the investigation concludes. It's hard not to take the jumping to conspiracy as bias dictating conclusions rather than the other way around, considering how quick those conclusions seem to have been reached and on so little information either way.

 

[narad]

Btw I had a particularly good default rendering of one of the news pages as I was reading up on this topic:

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

The mistake the Left have been making is trying to fight this as a matter of 'who hit who first' because the fact is, I have my beliefs on this but regardless of what they are, Conservatives have been effective at 'whataboutizing' this issue with the stories about Rep. Scalise or the ricin that was sent out lately.

Never going to win a fight like this that way.

Likewise, the overarching narrative on this has become "Dems plant false flag bomb scare" on conservative outlets and "Republicans accuse Dems of planting false flag bomb scare" on the left. Both play into the narrative conservatives want leading to the midterm and likely give the bomber exactly what they want. It should be covered as an active criminal and likely domestic terror investigation, no more and no less.

Absolutely. The fact that people will always politicize stuff like this will never not be obnoxious as hell.

Ok, so they shouldn't be making it about who hit first. But it cannot be ignored that the President has openly attacked several of the targets dozens of times, in Tweets and most importantly at live rallies. Not to mention Fox News, which literally claims ignorance on this.

According to CNN (who I personally dislike as much as Fox) these are some numbers on Trump / Fox News tweets / attacks. I think these numbers are worth looking at and considering regardless of how you feel about them:

* CNN in tweets - 63 times
* The press as "the enemy of the people" in speeches / tweets - 55 times
* "fake news" - 700 times
* Attacks on Clinton - 109 times
* Obama tweets - 137 times
* Maxine Waters in speeches, press statements and tweets - 73 times (since March)
* Hannity mentioned Clinton - 360 times
* Tucker Carlson mentioned Clinton - 290 times
* Eric Holder mentioned by Hannity and Carlson - 74 times

Trump has only been in office 677 days, and I think these numbers are staggering.

Now, my question is, has the other side been this consistent in their attacks on Trump?
Also, I don't think saying that the press, be it CNN or NY Time or whoever writing negative pieces on the President counts. He's the President and should be open to scrutiny from anyone.
So on that note, was Obama this bad about Fox or Bush?

Yes, it can totally be ignored. Are you serious? Is the implication seriously that the right trash talking the left is encouraging a bombing?
Trump is an asshole. That's his schtick. Politicians and news outlets fling mud, that's what they do. It just so happens the cheetopope is way less subtle about it. How can you watch this stuff and not just roll your eyes?

It's the same as the other terror attacks mentioned above, probably just some dude that's just absolutely batshit insane who happened to be very "into" right wing politics and decided the only way to get what he wanted was to become a literal terrorist. Crazy.

 

[Bentaycanada]

Yes, it can totally be ignored. Are you serious? Is the implication seriously that the right trash talking the left is encouraging a bombing?
Trump is an asshole. That's his schtick. Politicians and news outlets fling mud, that's what they do. It just so happens the cheetopope is way less subtle about it. How can you watch this stuff and not just roll your eyes?

It's the same as the other terror attacks mentioned above, probably just some dude that's just absolutely batshit insane who happened to be very "into" right wing politics and decided the only way to get what he wanted was to become a literal terrorist. Crazy.

Yes it can be ignored, and largely that is the case. I never said he encouraged anything.
But we're not talking about just trash talking here. Calling the free press the enemy of the people is language heard from China or Syria. This resonates with crazy people very differently than your average flinging mud.

Look at the guy that harassed the family of the Sandy Hook child or that guy with the Pizzagate attack. Is Alex Jones responsible? No. But then does Alex Jones hold some place in the events that led these people to commit these twisted acts? Possibly, not definitely, but it warrants discussion.

Nowhere have I said the Trump is responsible, as I don't think he is. But are we then denying that the language used, and actions taken, do not in some manner deserve criticism when the very people he regularly attacks are then in turn attacked by a terrorist? Or at the very least discussion?

In the very same discussion, we can also ask, did some of these targeted individuals say or act in a manner that helped them become targets for these attacks? Like Clinton with the deplorable speech, or Walters openly saying people should harass Republicans?

 

[KnightBrolaire]

If fear is the goal, the bombs working didn't matter. Either way, you can skew the intention of this to suit either narrative.

I don't think there's anything especially unfair or biased about taking this at face value until the investigation concludes. It's hard not to take the jumping to conspiracy as bias dictating conclusions rather than the other way around, considering how quick those conclusions seem to have been reached and on so little information either way.

"Officials declined to say whether the devices were intended to detonate or were meant to scare people, but they repeatedly urged the public to view them as if they could pose a threat.
'We are treating them as live devices,” said O’Neill, urging people not to touch packages they deem suspicious. “This is something that should be taken seriously.”

"The devices — clearly aiming to shake up the political landscape just two weeks before the midterm elections — were so poorly constructed that at least one source involved in the investigation told The Miami Herald that they could not detonate. Whether they were intentionally designed that way was not known."
.....“The way they were constructed they were not going to go off,” one law enforcement official told the Herald. “You could not compare them to the Boston Marathon bomber.”
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article220621360.html

Law enforcement officials said the devices, containing timers and batteries, were not rigged like a booby-trapped package bomb that would explode upon opening. But the officials were still uncertain whether the devices were poorly designed or never intended to cause physical harm. A search of a postal database suggested at least some of packages may have been mailed from Florida, one official said.-https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/10/25/political-strain-grows-pipe-bombs-target-democrats-cnn/JkeRPRieuWRPt7YM4hPQLP/story.html

Officials described the devices as PVC pipes stuffed with what appeared to be fireworks powder and glass. Electrical wires leading out of the pipe attached to an electric timer taped to the side, according to law enforcement officials speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the investigation. Most of the devices appeared to have been sent through the mail system.
-from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...uilding/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.88d37eb1b8e6

NYPD police commissioner James P. O’Neill characterized the devices as suspected explosives, but declined to go into detail as to their characteristics or whether any were found to be functional. All have been sent to an FBI facility in Quantico, Va., for examination. from: https://variety.com/2018/politics/news/fbi-cnn-bomb-scare-bill-de-blasio-1202994464/

"There have been no injuries. None of the devices detonated, and there have been no reports of injuries." ... "Law enforcement officials have not said whether the devices are indeed real bombs." - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/nyregion/new-york-today-mail-bombs.html

"No injuries from the explosives have been reported so far, but several have been "proactively detonated" by bomb squads, proving that they were intended to harm, and not merely to frighten, their recipients." -https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/25/robert-de-niros-nyc-restaurant-reportedly-receives-suspected-mail-bomb-similar-to-those-sent-to-top-democrats-and-cnn.html
TLDR: basically there's mixed reports about whether the pipe bombs were actually functional. It's pretty bizarre, you'd think the cops would want to stress the fact that the were not live bombs if they actually didn't function.

 

[Ordacleaphobia]

Yes it can be ignored, and largely that is the case. I never said he encouraged anything.
But we're not talking about just trash talking here. Calling the free press the enemy of the people is language heard from China or Syria. This resonates with crazy people very differently than your average flinging mud.

Look at the guy that harassed the family of the Sandy Hook child or that guy with the Pizzagate attack. Is Alex Jones responsible? No. But then does Alex Jones hold some place in the events that led these people to commit these twisted acts? Possibly, not definitely, but it warrants discussion.

Nowhere have I said the Trump is responsible, as I don't think he is. But are we then denying that the language used, and actions taken, do not in some manner deserve criticism when the very people he regularly attacks are then in turn attacked by a terrorist? Or at the very least discussion?

In the very same discussion, we can also ask, did some of these targeted individuals say or act in a manner that helped them become targets for these attacks? Like Clinton with the deplorable speech, or Walters openly saying people should harass Republicans?

I'm not sure it does. I'm not trying to get too far into this because we seem to disagree on this type of language policing on a fundamental level, but I think this type of thing is a bit of a reach.
Sure, I see your argument- but I think if you take a step back and look at what you're saying on a macro scale, it doesn't really hold water. You can draw connections to everything.

I'll certainly concur that that type of language could potentially communicate a different message to deranged people like this compared to the normal type of political shade. But lets not pretend this is comparable to what you'd see from an oppressive government.
And I know you didn't say Trump is responsible and I apologize if it came off like I was trying to put words in your mouth; but what I was getting was it sounds like you're implying that Trump and republican media are [unknowingly?] egging something like this on, to the point where we should gossip about it. Which to me personally, sounds ridiculous.

it sounds like it was probably nothing

Kinda figures the type of person to do something like this wasn't smart enough to get it done.

 

[Bentaycanada]

I'm not sure it does. I'm not trying to get too far into this because we seem to disagree on this type of language policing on a fundamental level, but I think this type of thing is a bit of a reach.
Sure, I see your argument- but I think if you take a step back and look at what you're saying on a macro scale, it doesn't really hold water. You can draw connections to everything.

I'll certainly concur that that type of language could potentially communicate a different message to deranged people like this compared to the normal type of political shade. But lets not pretend this is comparable to what you'd see from an oppressive government.
And I know you didn't say Trump is responsible and I apologize if it came off like I was trying to put words in your mouth; but what I was getting was it sounds like you're implying that Trump and republican media are [unknowingly?] egging something like this on, to the point where we should gossip about it. Which to me personally, sounds ridiculous.

No one is language policing, this is not a matter of free speech. I haven't said that Trump can't say the things he's said, nor have I said that he shouldn't. I think he should be able to say whatever he wants, and in turn he can be criticized for it. Same goes for Fox, CNN or anyone else.

I never implied anything, all I did was ask questions as this is an interesting topic.

 

[narad]

And I know you didn't say Trump is responsible and I apologize if it came off like I was trying to put words in your mouth; but what I was getting was it sounds like you're implying that Trump and republican media are [unknowingly?] egging something like this on, to the point where we should gossip about it. Which to me personally, sounds ridiculous.

If you call someone that punches a journalist "my kind of guy" you are condoning violence against the media. It's obviously not the same as condoning the threat of serious injury or murder, but when you're a head of state, a public figure, and a representative of the people, you have to think about how people might interpret your comments. And that's not even a particularly spicy comment by Trump's standards. It's not surprising that someone could act in this way and genuinely believe that he's helping the president.

 

[USMarine75]

Particularly relevant here... an excerpt from "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by Loewen:

At home, [President Woodrow] Wilson's racial policies disgraced the office he held. His Republican predecessors had routinely appointed blacks to important offices, including those of port collector for New Orleans and the District of Columbia and register of the treasury. Presidents sometimes appointed African Americans as postmasters, particularly in southern towns with large black populations. African Americans took part in the Republican Party's national conventions and enjoyed some access to the White House. Woodrow Wilson, for whom many African Americans voted in 1912, changed all that. A southerner, Wilson had been president of Princeton, the only major northern university that refused to admit blacks. He was an outspoken white supremacist—his wife was even worse—and told "darky" stories in cabinet meetings. His administration submitted a legislative program intended to curtail the civil rights of African Americans, but Congress would not pass it. Unfazed, Wilson used his power as chief executive to segregate the federal government. He appointed southern whites to offices traditionally reserved for blacks. Wilson personally vetoed a clause on racial equality in the Covenant of the League of Nations. The one occasion on which Wilson met with African American leaders in the White House ended in a fiasco as the president virtually threw the visitors out of his office. Wilson's legacy was extensive: he effectively closed the Democratic Party to African Americans for another two decades, and parts of the federal government remained segregated into the 1950s and beyond." In 1916 the Colored Advisory Committee of the Republican National Committee issued a statement on Wilson that, though partisan, was accurate: "No sooner had the Democratic Administration come into power than Mr. Wilson and his advisors entered upon a policy to eliminate all colored citizens from representation in the Federal Government."

Omitting or absolving [President Woodrow] Wilson's racism goes beyond concealing a character blemish. It is overtly racist. No black person could ever consider Woodrow Wilson a hero. Textbooks that present him as a hero are written from a white perspective. The coverup denies all students the chance to learn something important about the interrelationship between the leader and the led. White Americans engaged in a new burst of racial violence during and immediately after Wilson's presidency. The tone set by the administration was one cause. Another was the release of America's first epic motion picture.21 The filmmaker David W. Griffith quoted Wilson's two-volume history of the United States, now notorious for its racist view of Reconstruction, in his infamous masterpiece The Clansman, a paean to the Ku Klux Klan for its role in putting down "black-dominated" Republican state governments during Reconstruction. Griffith based the movie on a book by Wilson's former classmate, Thomas Dixon, whose obsession with race was "unrivaled until Mein Kampf." At a private White House showing, Wilson saw the movie, now retitled Birth of a Nation, and returned Griffith's compliment: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so true." Griffith would go on to use this quotation in successfully defending his film against NAACP charges that it was racially inflammatory.22 This landmark of American cinema was not only the best technical production of its time but also probably the most racist major movie of all time. Dixon intended "to revolutionize northern sentiment by a presentation of history that would transform every man in my audience into a good Democrat! . . . And make no mistake about it—we are doing just that."2 ' Dixon did not overstate by much. Spurred by Birth of a Nation, William Simmons of Georgia reestablished the Ku Klux Klan. The racism seeping down from the White House encouraged this Klan, distinguishing it from its Reconstruction predecessor, which President Grant had succeeded in virtually eliminating in one state (South Carolina) and discouraging nationally for a time. The new KKK quickly became a national phenomenon. It grew to dominate the Democratic Party in many southern states, as well as in Indiana, Oklahoma, and Oregon. During Wilson's second term, a wave of antiblack race riots swept the country. Whites lynched blacks as far north as Duluth.24 If Americans had learned from the Wilson era the connection between racist presidential leadership and like-minded public response, they might not have put up with a reprise on a far smaller scale during the Reagan-Bush years." To accomplish such education, however, textbooks would have to make plain the relationship between cause and effect, between hero and followers. Instead, they reflexively ascribe noble intentions to the hero and invoke "the people" to excuse questionable actions and policies. According to Triumph of the American Nation: "As President, Wilson seemed to agree with most white Americans that segregation was in the best interests of black as well as white Americans." Wilson was not only antiblack; he was also far and away our most nativist president, repeatedly questioning the loyalty of those he called "hyphenated Americans," "Any man who carries a hyphen about with him," said Wilson, "carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready."26 The American people responded to Wilson's lead with a wave of repression of white ethnic groups; again, most textbooks blame the people, not Wilson. The American Tradition admits that "President Wilson set up" the Creel Committee on Public Information, which saturated the United States with propaganda linking Germans to barbarism. But Tradition hastens to shield Wilson from the ensuing domestic fallout: "Although President Wilson had been careful in his war message to state that most Americans of German descent were 'true and loyal citizens,' the anti-German propaganda often caused them suffering." Wilson displayed little regard for the rights of anyone whose opinions differed from his own.

tl;dr The connection between leaders and the led - the people often take their social and moral cues from their leaders (be it politicians, or today from social media "stars"). Or more apropos, a cycle between popularism, leaders, and the led. LGBTQ rights become a majority held view, leaders like Biden and then Obama become "enlightened", and then this becomes a socially acceptable norm for many. Trump is a nationalist, xenophobe, and what many consider to be a racist -> white nationalists come out from the dark.

 

[Edika]

^I was going to make the same argument. Public figures that hold power and have hundreds or millions of devoted followers have to be really careful at what they're communicating. A small percentage of unstable followers will interpret this as a green light to take action to their own hands and recent history has proven that the individuals closer to the extreme right curve of the Gauss distribution are more prone to take violent action, especially when they feel validated and recognized by your "supreme" leader.

It's like when Brexit was voted in the UK. From the moment it was voted reports of racial based attacks and threats increased dramatically as all those covert racists felt validated that they can throw out all the "foreign scum" stealing their "jobs". Not that they weren't racists before the event and some of them didn't engage in violence but the sudden surge of "nationalistic" pride went over their head. A labor MP was shot dead by one of those loony's too. Did the heads of the Brexit campaign bare no fault for repeating the same lies over and over and over until you could see the barely literate spewing them over like good little parrots in every chance they had?

 

[Kaura]

Call me a nut but I don't think the false flag conspiracy theory is too off the charts crazy. I mean, what a coincidence that none of the bombs went off and most of the people lke Clintons and Soros weren't even home when the bombs were found. Although, I must say that I haven't spend too much time researching this whole escapade so I don't claim the be an expert on this case.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

Call me a nut but I don't think the false flag conspiracy theory is too off the charts crazy. I mean, what a coincidence that none of the bombs went off and most of the people lke Clintons and Soros weren't even home when the bombs were found. Although, I must say that I haven't spend too much time researching this whole escapade so I don't claim the be an expert on this case.

These folks are former/current high level politicians, world famous actors, millionaires and billionaires. Do you think these folks actually open their own mail? Have a single residence?

At worst, this was going to get a low level aid or security employee killed.

 

[vilk]

I fire a gun at someone but miss, does it mean I was just trying to scare them?

 

[ihunda]

I kept reading the title as nailbombs sent to CNN / Dems...