It's not clear what you're trying to imply. That it's a false flag? I think that's unlikely for a couple reasons: Why not go for a bigger impact and actually, for example, have the mail reach the...
It's not clear what you're trying to imply. That it's a false flag?
I think that's unlikely for a couple reasons:
Why not go for a bigger impact and actually, for example, have the mail reach the target's house? Hell, arrange for one of them to go off in a "safe" manner, that's a much stronger story.
Why target people like Soros and Holder? No one knows who they are outside of the (small) minority of people that are extremely online and into politics.
I also seriously reject the notion this was well coordinated and planned, so far it's looking like an extremely sloppy operation. Also, what indication was there that this was a group effort?
Given that the bombs had stickers saying "Git Er Done" in a faux ISIS font with silhouetted mudflap ladies I'm inclined to believe it was a radicalized boomer Qanon type. We'll probably know soon enough though, as you can bet the feds are tracing where these were posted from, where the supplies came from, etc, as we speak.
e:
I find it unlikely that they used the postal system.
They were found in a postal facility though, no? My understanding is that they were all mailed except the one to Soros which was hand-delivered.
I don't think it's clear that I'm implying anything. I just wanted to set up the information to have a discussion. That said, I think the information might suggest a false flag. I do not see your...
I don't think it's clear that I'm implying anything. I just wanted to set up the information to have a discussion.
That said, I think the information might suggest a false flag.
I do not see your counter points as compelling because....
The investigation is going to be looked into proportional to how bad it was. So if you don't want to be caught, you'd choose something that evokes a strong reaction of fear without bringing too much scrutiny.
Soros is the anti-christ for insane right wingers and everyone who's politically active is aware. You'd be hard pressed to find a better person than Soros as a victim to try to frame a group.
The proximity of the timing implies a group. That's a very safe assumption in my opinion.
And as for the stickers on the bombs..... I think you can figure out my counter argument.
--
Can you address what I presented as facts and how it's consistent with the accepted version of these events?
True to an extent, but once you reach "mailing bombs to former presidents" you've already basically guaranteed a national manhunt for you. Again, I think you're really overestimating how many...
The investigation is going to be looked into proportional to how bad it was.
True to an extent, but once you reach "mailing bombs to former presidents" you've already basically guaranteed a national manhunt for you.
Soros is the anti-christ for insane right wingers and everyone who's politically active is aware.
Again, I think you're really overestimating how many people know who George Soros is outside of the online far-right. If the point of the false flag is to make the right look bad why wouldn't you pick someone the left knows about?
The proximity of the timing implies a group. That's a very safe assumption in my opinion.
Why? Putting things in the mail doesn't take a group. I mean it may very well be a group, I just haven't seen anything that really strongly suggests it.
And as for the stickers on the bombs..... I think you can figure out my counter argument.
That it's dumb and reads like satire? The far-right has been satirizing itself for the past three years, just go look at a ben garrison comic.
Can you address what I presented as facts and how it's consistent with the accepted version of these events?
There's not an accepted version of events because it's an ongoing situation. At this instant I don't see much of a reason to think it's a false flag. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it because there certainly are people in the far-right, especially the Q people, who would be crazy and dumb enough to do this.
On Soros: Soros is one factor of many that imply a right wing group is responsible. You're right, it's not a smoking gun for the general public but it could be a smoking gun for people who are...
On Soros: Soros is one factor of many that imply a right wing group is responsible. You're right, it's not a smoking gun for the general public but it could be a smoking gun for people who are politically aware.
On the group: Yeah, fair enough. It may be unjustified to assume a group at this point.
On the sticker: I agree, given their culture, it seems plausible to me.
--
Isn't everyone except me so far assuming that a genuine right wing group or individual is responsible. That's the accepted version, hence this post.
You could absolutely find someone crazy enough to do this, but in every category of belief.
--
What about presenting the mail in person as a law? For the cases that used the mail system, they have video of person. Maybe it's just not public yet.
This was the closest to how I intended this thread to go so thank you for engaging it. But I also want to apologize for going about this so poorly. My original edit has an explanation.
This was the closest to how I intended this thread to go so thank you for engaging it.
But I also want to apologize for going about this so poorly. My original edit has an explanation.
The problem with saying it's a false flag is that the right has had a recent and/or general obsession with everything being a false flag, if the right runs with a false flag narrative then it's...
The problem with saying it's a false flag is that the right has had a recent and/or general obsession with everything being a false flag, if the right runs with a false flag narrative then it's pretty much just as likely to be a "false flag false flag" as it would be a regular false flag. Congrats on peak Idiocracy, hold on while I #walkaway (to the left) and remember to vote Democrat everyone.
I don't understand your mindset or why you said that. Saying it's a false flag by default is of course idiotic. That is irrelavant to this discussion because starting a discussion on how the facts...
I don't understand your mindset or why you said that.
Saying it's a false flag by default is of course idiotic.
That is irrelavant to this discussion because starting a discussion on how the facts seem to be inconsistent with the explanation, and what that may imply is not assuming the conclusion you want.
--
Can you engage the actual topic?
If you want to participate productively, address my points.
Frankly, I don't want to participate productively with someone who thinks this is a false flag. For starters, some of your facts aren't necessarily true in the first place. Assuming they are true,...
Frankly, I don't want to participate productively with someone who thinks this is a false flag. For starters, some of your facts aren't necessarily true in the first place. Assuming they are true, your conclusion still does not logically follow from the facts presented. Occam's razor has already been brought up, but I'd like to bring it up again. And finally, when the company you keep is of the likes of Alex Jones and /r/conspiracy, I'm less inclined to believe anything is a false flag. I can't think of a single actual false flag off the top of my head.
Golf of Tonkin would be the classic US 'false flag' example and it's not really certain. But if you've not read up on the history of the United Fruit Company & the Iranian coup... Well...
Golf of Tonkin would be the classic US 'false flag' example and it's not really certain. But if you've not read up on the history of the United Fruit Company & the Iranian coup... Well participating productively in discussions of world politics seems likely to be difficult.
The Russian Apartment Bombings that helped Putin cement power seem pretty cut and dried. But then that's an example our governments have no need to suppress.
If you read post WW2 history it's very clear that our governments aren't the "good guys". There are no good guys and it's not as though there has been an real change in how things work since then.
Oh trust me, I know the US ain't the good guys. On here, I haven't been very vocal about my opinions of the US as a whole yet, but that's cause there's much smaller and more focused discussion,...
Oh trust me, I know the US ain't the good guys. On here, I haven't been very vocal about my opinions of the US as a whole yet, but that's cause there's much smaller and more focused discussion, and much less leeway for me to relentlessly shitpost like I do on Reddit.
Speaking of shit posts. I really do apologize for this, I thought I could just entertain the idea but I did so really poorly. My original edit has more detail.
Speaking of shit posts. I really do apologize for this, I thought I could just entertain the idea but I did so really poorly. My original edit has more detail.
Don't worry about it. We did kinda dogpile you, and I do sorta feel bad about it. I just have a knee-jerk "eugh" reaction to anyone mentioning false flags these days.
Don't worry about it. We did kinda dogpile you, and I do sorta feel bad about it. I just have a knee-jerk "eugh" reaction to anyone mentioning false flags these days.
Okay, I understand. Is that because you're certain that you and I will not have our minds changed? Or that it's such an offensive idea that you're having trouble being civil. To address you...
Okay, I understand. Is that because you're certain that you and I will not have our minds changed? Or that it's such an offensive idea that you're having trouble being civil.
To address you productivly engaging me anyways:
On my facts. I only had a moderate level of certainty so I'm open to hearing your specific justifications for the claim that my facts aren't facts.
I'm also open to discussing your justification of your claim that given the assumptions, the conclusion is invalid.
But keep in mind, I haven't stated that my facts can logically conclude the conclusion.
You are saying your perception of the truth is warped by the opposing group. Isn't this a bias to be recognized? Ideas and logic can and should be discussed in isolation from personal bias.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'll say this much: you seem super on edge / defensive. For example, the poster above wasn't uncivil; they just explained why these types of posts might...
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'll say this much: you seem super on edge / defensive. For example, the poster above wasn't uncivil; they just explained why these types of posts might be dismissed out of hand (and why they personally would).
May I recommend:
Step back and look at this topic with the mindset that the people replying to you don't have predetermined beliefs on the topic. What I personally see is that several people here, myself included, are waiting for more facts to be gathered before actually forming a conclusive opinion. This shit is clearly still ongoing.
Don't reply to people like this: "If you want to participate productively, address my points." — It's rarely appropriate. Sometimes it can be; for example, if the person were using ad-hominems to attack you all while ignoring your posts. In this case they didn't, they just contextualized what you were saying. When you post something, you have to be willing to hear criticism of not just the substance but also the form of your post.
If you want to engage in substance with someone criticizing form, rephrase. Ask direct questions. Don't reply saying, essentially, "no what you say is irrelevant", it won't lead anywhere.
You're right. My post and interactions here were thoughtless and of poor quality. I reacted to some assumptions about my motives and beliefs emotionally and it led to me assuming a position in the...
You're right. My post and interactions here were thoughtless and of poor quality.
I reacted to some assumptions about my motives and beliefs emotionally and it led to me assuming a position in the argument that I absolutely don't support.
My original intention was to evaluate if what I heard on reddit was worth considering. I can now see how poorly I went about it.
I apologize and thank you for your tact and civility given the circumstances.
Alright I'll give this a shot. CX: At least one individual arranged to have Improvised Explosive Devices delivered to a number of likely politically-motivated targets. This is all we can knowingly...
Exemplary
Alright I'll give this a shot.
A group of people conspired to place explosives in the mailboxes of prominent liberals.
CX: At least one individual arranged to have Improvised Explosive Devices delivered to a number of likely politically-motivated targets.
This is all we can knowingly declare based on publicly available information. To my knowledge there is no publicly available information to suggest the existence of a group of people, and thus the existence of conspiracy, or that the mailboxes themselves were an intended end-destination.
The mail of people like Clinton, Obama, and Soros is given special attention by the post office.
Without a source, this statement can only ever be an assumption.
My assumption is that High-Profile Individuals are likely, but not guaranteed, to have some level of additional screening of their mail before it reaches them personally, if at all.
If US mail is over 13 oz and using stamps you must present it in person to a post office official. (This rule exists to prevent what is suggested to have happened).
Correct.
A number of the devices had explosives but weren't set up to function.
A lack of function does not imply a device wasn't set up to function.
Without evidence to suggest an intended lack of function it cannot be said this was intentional.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has called the devices "potentially destructive".
Former SAC of the Counterterrorism Division in Los Angeles, and current Security Consultant & News Contributor with ABC, Steven Gomez assess that the fact that none of the bombs blew up suggests they were built by an amateur.
Given these facts: I find it unlikely that a group conspired to go through this coordinated, well planned, immensely risky activity just to threaten these people.
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim. Its purpose can be said to be itself.
To say that threatening politically-motivated targets is a "just", implies a lack of understanding behind the motivations of Acts of Terror.
I find it unlikely that they used the postal system.
At least two packages were hand-delivered by a courier: the CNN package, and the Soros package. The rest are reported to have been through the mail system. For example, the Biden package was intercepted at a Delaware U.S. Postal Service facility, the Holder package was misaddressed and redirected to return to sender.
If they didn't use the postal system. They planted them and wanted it to look like they did use the postal system. Why?
This is a false premise, and your assumption is based on that.
The competence, motivations, and possible outcomes for the suggested perpetrator(s) are at odds.
You're going to need to expand upon this, because the support for this conclusion is highly lacking.
Thank you for the well written response. I went about this entire discussion poorly. I reacted badly to what I perceived as people assuming I was asserting a claim or had political motivations. In...
Thank you for the well written response. I went about this entire discussion poorly. I reacted badly to what I perceived as people assuming I was asserting a claim or had political motivations. In retrospect, I can now see why.
My intent was to discover if the information I presented had any merit and ended up supporting it far beyond my own beliefs.
Occam's razor. Given everything that's happened over the last few years, the most reasonable explanation with the fewest possible assumptions is that some radicalized, idiotic, amateur, would-be...
Occam's razor.
Given everything that's happened over the last few years, the most reasonable explanation with the fewest possible assumptions is that some radicalized, idiotic, amateur, would-be bomber really did attempt to use the post office.
Occams razor is used when someone suggests an event perceived to be unlikely. And while valid as an idea. It's not a meaningful counter point. Instead of calling a spade a spade we could accept...
Occams razor is used when someone suggests an event perceived to be unlikely.
And while valid as an idea. It's not a meaningful counter point.
Instead of calling a spade a spade we could accept the principle of Occams Razor and still productivly evaluate what I'm saying.
Let's address my logic instead.
There is no logic to address within your original statement. Of your four "facts", none of which are sourced. Only the first can be automatically taken as true, the remaining three are either...
There is no logic to address within your original statement. Of your four "facts", none of which are sourced. Only the first can be automatically taken as true, the remaining three are either dubious or irrelevant.
The mail of people like Clinton, Obama, and Soros is given special attention by the post office.
I believe it's actually screened by the mailrooms of the receiving buildings. This is backed up by the fact that the devices were detected at said screenings.
If US mail is over 13 oz and using stamps you must present it in person to a post office official. (This rule exists to prevent what is suggested to have happened).
13 oz is roughly the weight of a full soda can. Electronics don't weigh all that much, so I would question the relevance of this information.
A number of the devices had explosives but weren't set up to function.
I would request a source on this, but once you've provided it, I would attribute this to incompetence.
Given these facts: I find it unlikely that a group conspired to go through this coordinated, well planned, immensely risky activity just to threaten these people.
Okay, I find it likely that a group conspired to go through it. What now?
I find it unlikely that they used the postal system.
Well given that your third statement is only questionably relevant, this is moot.
If they didn't use the postal system. They planted them and wanted it to look like they did use the postal system. Why?
Probably because they used the postal system.
The competence, motivations, and possible outcomes for the suggested perpetrator(s) are at odds.
You didn't say anything about the competence, motivation or possible outcomes. You just said a bunch of vague implications.
Occam's razor is "the explanation that requires the least number of assumptions is usually the correct one." Your explanation is entirely assumption. The explanation that, in this case, emerges from taking things purely at face value is the one that Occam's razor indicates to be correct.
Not that it means it IS the correct one, but in order for there to be an actual discussion, which is what you apparently want, you need to provide actual meat for a conversation, not the wisps and fragments of a newly formed conspiracy theory.
My intent was to see if what I heard elsewhere had merit. But I was quite thoughtless and went way to far arguing a claim that doesn't reflect my beliefs. I didn't mean to take it so far. I was...
Exemplary
My intent was to see if what I heard elsewhere had merit.
But I was quite thoughtless and went way to far arguing a claim that doesn't reflect my beliefs.
I didn't mean to take it so far. I was just offended by what I saw as people assuming that I fully supported a claim or had political motivation.
It is, deliberately. I don't think the overall topic being removed necessarily means that nobody should be able to comment, if they want to reply back in conversations they were already having or...
It is, deliberately. I don't think the overall topic being removed necessarily means that nobody should be able to comment, if they want to reply back in conversations they were already having or similar cases. As a more specific case, it's quite common for something to get removed and an explanation for why to get posted, I think people (especially the OP) should be able to reply to that.
If it's necessary to totally stop replies, the thread can be both removed and locked.
Incorrect. Occam's razor is the principle that, given two competing explanations, the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be the correct one. My counter-point is that it's far more...
Occams razor is used when someone suggests an event perceived to be unlikely.
Incorrect. Occam's razor is the principle that, given two competing explanations, the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.
And while valid as an idea. It's not a meaningful counter point.
My counter-point is that it's far more likely that rather than there being some alternative explanation, where there's no indication of there being any, the explanation I've posited is the correct one.
Let's address my logic instead.
You stated that "The competence, motivations, and possible outcomes for the suggested perpetrator(s) are at odds." That is, verbatim, your closing statement and the crux of your argument. I provided the alternative suggestion that a focus on the "competence" part would account for the deficiencies in the "motivations" and "possible outcomes" parts.
I understand your argument. I just disagree with it and am using Occam's razor as the simplest counter-point.
I'm trying to move on from this thread so I don't have a response other than that I agree. I regret my behavior here and apologize for it. I don't truly support the claim. I reacted badly to some...
I'm trying to move on from this thread so I don't have a response other than that I agree. I regret my behavior here and apologize for it.
I don't truly support the claim. I reacted badly to some responses and took the idea I was representing way too far as a result.
I'm not a trained bomb investigator and I doubt you are either. I think it is too early for even professionals to have a clear understanding. From what I do know, catching mail bombers is a...
I'm not a trained bomb investigator and I doubt you are either. I think it is too early for even professionals to have a clear understanding. From what I do know, catching mail bombers is a daunting investigatory task that is best left to professionals.
That said, my suspicion is that it's probably a right-wing kook(s) of some sort. I acknowledge this position may be incorrect. Nonetheless, indulging in elaborate conspiracy theories plays into a paranoid, toxic, and, frankly, somewhat fascist worldview.
I hope you have found this conversation to be valuable.
I only meant to speculate but I can see how I did so was pretty thoughtless. You're right and I apologize, it's a potentially harmful way to think. Thank you.
I only meant to speculate but I can see how I did so was pretty thoughtless. You're right and I apologize, it's a potentially harmful way to think. Thank you.
You’re commenting here arguing with everyone who says they don’t think it’s a false flag. It’s irrelevant that you didn’t actually say “it’s a false flag operation” because you’re still making the...
You’re commenting here arguing with everyone who says they don’t think it’s a false flag. It’s irrelevant that you didn’t actually say “it’s a false flag operation” because you’re still making the arguments for it being such. Please try to be a bit less disingenuous with your comments, you’re free to interpret the information how you see fit but it’s discouraging to see this kind of behavior in a discussion.
The fact that it arrived at its destination is evidence that they didn't screen the contents. It would have been confiscated had they checked. The USPS isn't exactly well staffed - they search an...
The fact that it arrived at its destination is evidence that they didn't screen the contents. It would have been confiscated had they checked. The USPS isn't exactly well staffed - they search an extremely small percentage of packages. They also need probable cause and a warrant before they can open one up.
Their funds are also in something of a declining death spiral. Given the state of any large 'organization' on life-support I'm sure they can't do most of the things they are supposed to do, and...
Their funds are also in something of a declining death spiral. Given the state of any large 'organization' on life-support I'm sure they can't do most of the things they are supposed to do, and couldn't even check all the packages going to a single block if they wanted to. When did the USPS go from being something Americans could take pride in to a spam and bomb delivery system? Even our elected officials seem to treat the post office as a joke nowadays. It's depressing.
I'll look forward to the Feds nailing the idiots who did this to the wall. Leave the post office out of it, thanks. Life's hard enough for them already without partisan bullshit and bombs.
A big factor in this is a 2006 political decision (the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act), a late addition to which (compelled by the White House) forced USPS to pre-fund 75 years of their...
When did the USPS go from being something Americans could take pride in to a spam and bomb delivery system? Even our elected officials seem to treat the post office as a joke nowadays.
A big factor in this is a 2006 political decision (the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act), a late addition to which (compelled by the White House) forced USPS to pre-fund 75 years of their retiree health benefits, unlike any other public or private entity. Between 2007 and 2016 they were required to set aside $5.5b per year -- as a result (and compounded by the recession), they've had to cut massive amounts of staff, go into debt to put that money up, and deal with the consequential liabilities from that debt.
When congress decided to cripple the post office with debt at what would have been the most important time for it to modernize. Now the post office struggles to keep up with demand, relying on the...
When did the USPS go from being something Americans could take pride in to a spam and bomb delivery system?
When congress decided to cripple the post office with debt at what would have been the most important time for it to modernize. Now the post office struggles to keep up with demand, relying on the sacrifices of postal workers to keep it going.
It's not clear what you're trying to imply. That it's a false flag?
I think that's unlikely for a couple reasons:
Why not go for a bigger impact and actually, for example, have the mail reach the target's house? Hell, arrange for one of them to go off in a "safe" manner, that's a much stronger story.
Why target people like Soros and Holder? No one knows who they are outside of the (small) minority of people that are extremely online and into politics.
I also seriously reject the notion this was well coordinated and planned, so far it's looking like an extremely sloppy operation. Also, what indication was there that this was a group effort?
Given that the bombs had stickers saying "Git Er Done" in a faux ISIS font with silhouetted mudflap ladies I'm inclined to believe it was a radicalized boomer Qanon type. We'll probably know soon enough though, as you can bet the feds are tracing where these were posted from, where the supplies came from, etc, as we speak.
e:
They were found in a postal facility though, no? My understanding is that they were all mailed except the one to Soros which was hand-delivered.
I don't think it's clear that I'm implying anything. I just wanted to set up the information to have a discussion.
That said, I think the information might suggest a false flag.
I do not see your counter points as compelling because....
The investigation is going to be looked into proportional to how bad it was. So if you don't want to be caught, you'd choose something that evokes a strong reaction of fear without bringing too much scrutiny.
Soros is the anti-christ for insane right wingers and everyone who's politically active is aware. You'd be hard pressed to find a better person than Soros as a victim to try to frame a group.
The proximity of the timing implies a group. That's a very safe assumption in my opinion.
And as for the stickers on the bombs..... I think you can figure out my counter argument.
--
Can you address what I presented as facts and how it's consistent with the accepted version of these events?
True to an extent, but once you reach "mailing bombs to former presidents" you've already basically guaranteed a national manhunt for you.
Again, I think you're really overestimating how many people know who George Soros is outside of the online far-right. If the point of the false flag is to make the right look bad why wouldn't you pick someone the left knows about?
Why? Putting things in the mail doesn't take a group. I mean it may very well be a group, I just haven't seen anything that really strongly suggests it.
That it's dumb and reads like satire? The far-right has been satirizing itself for the past three years, just go look at a ben garrison comic.
There's not an accepted version of events because it's an ongoing situation. At this instant I don't see much of a reason to think it's a false flag. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it because there certainly are people in the far-right, especially the Q people, who would be crazy and dumb enough to do this.
On Soros: Soros is one factor of many that imply a right wing group is responsible. You're right, it's not a smoking gun for the general public but it could be a smoking gun for people who are politically aware.
On the group: Yeah, fair enough. It may be unjustified to assume a group at this point.
On the sticker: I agree, given their culture, it seems plausible to me.
--
Isn't everyone except me so far assuming that a genuine right wing group or individual is responsible. That's the accepted version, hence this post.
You could absolutely find someone crazy enough to do this, but in every category of belief.
--
What about presenting the mail in person as a law? For the cases that used the mail system, they have video of person. Maybe it's just not public yet.
This was the closest to how I intended this thread to go so thank you for engaging it.
But I also want to apologize for going about this so poorly. My original edit has an explanation.
The problem with saying it's a false flag is that the right has had a recent and/or general obsession with everything being a false flag, if the right runs with a false flag narrative then it's pretty much just as likely to be a "false flag false flag" as it would be a regular false flag. Congrats on peak Idiocracy, hold on while I #walkaway (to the left) and remember to vote Democrat everyone.
I don't understand your mindset or why you said that.
Saying it's a false flag by default is of course idiotic.
That is irrelavant to this discussion because starting a discussion on how the facts seem to be inconsistent with the explanation, and what that may imply is not assuming the conclusion you want.
--
Can you engage the actual topic?
If you want to participate productively, address my points.
Frankly, I don't want to participate productively with someone who thinks this is a false flag. For starters, some of your facts aren't necessarily true in the first place. Assuming they are true, your conclusion still does not logically follow from the facts presented. Occam's razor has already been brought up, but I'd like to bring it up again. And finally, when the company you keep is of the likes of Alex Jones and /r/conspiracy, I'm less inclined to believe anything is a false flag. I can't think of a single actual false flag off the top of my head.
Golf of Tonkin would be the classic US 'false flag' example and it's not really certain. But if you've not read up on the history of the United Fruit Company & the Iranian coup... Well participating productively in discussions of world politics seems likely to be difficult.
The Russian Apartment Bombings that helped Putin cement power seem pretty cut and dried. But then that's an example our governments have no need to suppress.
If you read post WW2 history it's very clear that our governments aren't the "good guys". There are no good guys and it's not as though there has been an real change in how things work since then.
Oh trust me, I know the US ain't the good guys. On here, I haven't been very vocal about my opinions of the US as a whole yet, but that's cause there's much smaller and more focused discussion, and much less leeway for me to relentlessly shitpost like I do on Reddit.
Speaking of shit posts. I really do apologize for this, I thought I could just entertain the idea but I did so really poorly. My original edit has more detail.
Don't worry about it. We did kinda dogpile you, and I do sorta feel bad about it. I just have a knee-jerk "eugh" reaction to anyone mentioning false flags these days.
Okay, I understand. Is that because you're certain that you and I will not have our minds changed? Or that it's such an offensive idea that you're having trouble being civil.
To address you productivly engaging me anyways:
On my facts. I only had a moderate level of certainty so I'm open to hearing your specific justifications for the claim that my facts aren't facts.
I'm also open to discussing your justification of your claim that given the assumptions, the conclusion is invalid.
But keep in mind, I haven't stated that my facts can logically conclude the conclusion.
You are saying your perception of the truth is warped by the opposing group. Isn't this a bias to be recognized? Ideas and logic can and should be discussed in isolation from personal bias.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but I'll say this much: you seem super on edge / defensive. For example, the poster above wasn't uncivil; they just explained why these types of posts might be dismissed out of hand (and why they personally would).
May I recommend:
If you want to engage in substance with someone criticizing form, rephrase. Ask direct questions. Don't reply saying, essentially, "no what you say is irrelevant", it won't lead anywhere.
You're right. My post and interactions here were thoughtless and of poor quality.
I reacted to some assumptions about my motives and beliefs emotionally and it led to me assuming a position in the argument that I absolutely don't support.
My original intention was to evaluate if what I heard on reddit was worth considering. I can now see how poorly I went about it.
I apologize and thank you for your tact and civility given the circumstances.
Don't sweat it, no need to overcorrect. ;)
Alright I'll give this a shot.
CX: At least one individual arranged to have Improvised Explosive Devices delivered to a number of likely politically-motivated targets.
This is all we can knowingly declare based on publicly available information. To my knowledge there is no publicly available information to suggest the existence of a group of people, and thus the existence of conspiracy, or that the mailboxes themselves were an intended end-destination.
Without a source, this statement can only ever be an assumption.
My assumption is that High-Profile Individuals are likely, but not guaranteed, to have some level of additional screening of their mail before it reaches them personally, if at all.
Correct.
A lack of function does not imply a device wasn't set up to function.
Without evidence to suggest an intended lack of function it cannot be said this was intentional.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has called the devices "potentially destructive".
Former SAC of the Counterterrorism Division in Los Angeles, and current Security Consultant & News Contributor with ABC, Steven Gomez assess that the fact that none of the bombs blew up suggests they were built by an amateur.
Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people; or fear to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim. Its purpose can be said to be itself.
To say that threatening politically-motivated targets is a "just", implies a lack of understanding behind the motivations of Acts of Terror.
At least two packages were hand-delivered by a courier: the CNN package, and the Soros package. The rest are reported to have been through the mail system. For example, the Biden package was intercepted at a Delaware U.S. Postal Service facility, the Holder package was misaddressed and redirected to return to sender.
This is a false premise, and your assumption is based on that.
You're going to need to expand upon this, because the support for this conclusion is highly lacking.
Thank you for the well written response. I went about this entire discussion poorly. I reacted badly to what I perceived as people assuming I was asserting a claim or had political motivations. In retrospect, I can now see why.
My intent was to discover if the information I presented had any merit and ended up supporting it far beyond my own beliefs.
Occam's razor.
Given everything that's happened over the last few years, the most reasonable explanation with the fewest possible assumptions is that some radicalized, idiotic, amateur, would-be bomber really did attempt to use the post office.
Let's call a spade a spade.
Occams razor is used when someone suggests an event perceived to be unlikely.
And while valid as an idea. It's not a meaningful counter point.
Instead of calling a spade a spade we could accept the principle of Occams Razor and still productivly evaluate what I'm saying.
Let's address my logic instead.
There is no logic to address within your original statement. Of your four "facts", none of which are sourced. Only the first can be automatically taken as true, the remaining three are either dubious or irrelevant.
I believe it's actually screened by the mailrooms of the receiving buildings. This is backed up by the fact that the devices were detected at said screenings.
13 oz is roughly the weight of a full soda can. Electronics don't weigh all that much, so I would question the relevance of this information.
I would request a source on this, but once you've provided it, I would attribute this to incompetence.
Okay, I find it likely that a group conspired to go through it. What now?
Well given that your third statement is only questionably relevant, this is moot.
Probably because they used the postal system.
You didn't say anything about the competence, motivation or possible outcomes. You just said a bunch of vague implications.
Occam's razor is "the explanation that requires the least number of assumptions is usually the correct one." Your explanation is entirely assumption. The explanation that, in this case, emerges from taking things purely at face value is the one that Occam's razor indicates to be correct.
Not that it means it IS the correct one, but in order for there to be an actual discussion, which is what you apparently want, you need to provide actual meat for a conversation, not the wisps and fragments of a newly formed conspiracy theory.
My intent was to see if what I heard elsewhere had merit.
But I was quite thoughtless and went way to far arguing a claim that doesn't reflect my beliefs.
I didn't mean to take it so far. I was just offended by what I saw as people assuming that I fully supported a claim or had political motivation.
I apologize for my behavior.
@Deimos testing if it is possible to reply in deleted topics
It is, deliberately. I don't think the overall topic being removed necessarily means that nobody should be able to comment, if they want to reply back in conversations they were already having or similar cases. As a more specific case, it's quite common for something to get removed and an explanation for why to get posted, I think people (especially the OP) should be able to reply to that.
If it's necessary to totally stop replies, the thread can be both removed and locked.
Incorrect. Occam's razor is the principle that, given two competing explanations, the one with the fewest assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.
My counter-point is that it's far more likely that rather than there being some alternative explanation, where there's no indication of there being any, the explanation I've posited is the correct one.
You stated that "The competence, motivations, and possible outcomes for the suggested perpetrator(s) are at odds." That is, verbatim, your closing statement and the crux of your argument. I provided the alternative suggestion that a focus on the "competence" part would account for the deficiencies in the "motivations" and "possible outcomes" parts.
I understand your argument. I just disagree with it and am using Occam's razor as the simplest counter-point.
I'm trying to move on from this thread so I don't have a response other than that I agree. I regret my behavior here and apologize for it.
I don't truly support the claim. I reacted badly to some responses and took the idea I was representing way too far as a result.
Amateur internet investigators determining that something may be a "false flag" within a day sure seems like some valuable conversation to me.
I didn't claim to determine anything. Your comment is reductive and misrepresenting my post.
--
Feel free to address the actual topic.
I'm not a trained bomb investigator and I doubt you are either. I think it is too early for even professionals to have a clear understanding. From what I do know, catching mail bombers is a daunting investigatory task that is best left to professionals.
That said, my suspicion is that it's probably a right-wing kook(s) of some sort. I acknowledge this position may be incorrect. Nonetheless, indulging in elaborate conspiracy theories plays into a paranoid, toxic, and, frankly, somewhat fascist worldview.
I hope you have found this conversation to be valuable.
I only meant to speculate but I can see how I did so was pretty thoughtless. You're right and I apologize, it's a potentially harmful way to think. Thank you.
No worries. I'm sorry as well, my response is overly snarky.
You’re commenting here arguing with everyone who says they don’t think it’s a false flag. It’s irrelevant that you didn’t actually say “it’s a false flag operation” because you’re still making the arguments for it being such. Please try to be a bit less disingenuous with your comments, you’re free to interpret the information how you see fit but it’s discouraging to see this kind of behavior in a discussion.
You're quite right. I apologize for my conduct here, I really did this poorly. My edit on the original post has more detial
I’ve mailed beer through USPS that I presented pre-packaged in person at a post office. They don’t check the contents.
Okay, so you're on camera doing that.
You know they didn't check the contents while you were there. Or did you see them physically sent it out?
The fact that it arrived at its destination is evidence that they didn't screen the contents. It would have been confiscated had they checked. The USPS isn't exactly well staffed - they search an extremely small percentage of packages. They also need probable cause and a warrant before they can open one up.
Their funds are also in something of a declining death spiral. Given the state of any large 'organization' on life-support I'm sure they can't do most of the things they are supposed to do, and couldn't even check all the packages going to a single block if they wanted to. When did the USPS go from being something Americans could take pride in to a spam and bomb delivery system? Even our elected officials seem to treat the post office as a joke nowadays. It's depressing.
I'll look forward to the Feds nailing the idiots who did this to the wall. Leave the post office out of it, thanks. Life's hard enough for them already without partisan bullshit and bombs.
A big factor in this is a 2006 political decision (the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act), a late addition to which (compelled by the White House) forced USPS to pre-fund 75 years of their retiree health benefits, unlike any other public or private entity. Between 2007 and 2016 they were required to set aside $5.5b per year -- as a result (and compounded by the recession), they've had to cut massive amounts of staff, go into debt to put that money up, and deal with the consequential liabilities from that debt.
When congress decided to cripple the post office with debt at what would have been the most important time for it to modernize. Now the post office struggles to keep up with demand, relying on the sacrifices of postal workers to keep it going.