I consider myself quite well versed in crazy bombings and shootings in American history. I have watched probably hundreds of hours of footage from 9/11, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Columbine etc.
But never once have I heard about this bombing, and never once in my 26 years on this earth have I ever imagined that a state fire marshall would be willing to stand next to a live bomb to examine it.
The IRA usually (plenty of exceptions and changes over time) phoned ahead, they wanted the impact of terrorism without the bad press of civilian killings. Not a particular relevant example in modern times though.
I wonder if it's more about phsycology, someone making a bomb threat is seeking attention for some reason and ignoring it might make their behavior escalate.
The IRA also phoned about many of their bombs. The Omagh bombing is mostly notable because their phone-call didn't accurately identify where the bomb would detonate, and so got people killed.
Plenty of terrorist groups have recognized that killing innocent bystanders isn't good PR.
The Weather Underground planned one of its bombings to take place at night to minimise casualties, although they ended up killing some poor grad student who was working late.
That's not limited to any one bombing -- it was pretty typical of them to time their bombs would go off at night, as well as phone them in. They would also locate the bombs in places where they were relatively unlikely to hurt people: in the floor drain of a restroom, in a disused room, up in the ceiling.
There's a fascinating history of the militant revolutionary movements that cropped up around 60s, Days of Rage by Bryan Burrough.
Agree, that's pretty scary to see someone go to that extent of planning. This is our peers that are being targeted for violence over the general state of the technology industry.
People continuing to work for Facebook after they have demonstrated the harm that they cause is also an example of “the problem”, if you insist on there being only one.
Fake bomb threats, regardless of how you feel about them, are not violence unless they are accompanied by a demand or seek to compel in some way.
TBH as long as there are no real bombs and no one is physically harmed or coerced, I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus.
Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described.
I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner.
Perhaps you could explain to me how my thoughts are harming other people.
> Yes, absolutely. Nonviolent terrorism is justified in many cases. Simply slapping the “terrorism” label on something to villify it doesn’t change the nature of the thing being described.
> I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner.
This is one of the most disgusting and disturbing comments I've read in 10 years on Hacker News, sneak. Calling in fake bomb threats isn't harmless or nonviolent and it increases the deadliness of real threats by diminishing their seriousness. I suggest you read the folktale "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Furthermore, people have died as a result of false swatting and I don't doubt people have also died as a result of fake bomb threats. Calling it a nonviolent form of protest is disturbing.
I strongly suggest you find more productive ways to voice your opinions.
Consider the case in which an employee sees what they think is an explosive device and alerts authorities and the building is evacuated, but it turns out that they are mistaken. Is that a violent act?
The presence or absence of malicious intent cannot turn a nonviolent act into a violent one, or vice versa.
I did not call it a protest or a form of protest.
I contend that the things that Facebook does as a matter of course (enabling racial discrimination, connecting hate groups, simplifying election interference, easing human trafficking, et c), which make the entire human society worse, are no more or less violent than someone making a fake bomb threat, which makes the facebook campus worse.
In both cases the action can be reduced to “sending some IP packets out of the building”.
We can't know the full details of this particular case because nothing seems to have been independently verified yet, but there's a distinction between
1) Someone finding a suspicious package and falsely thinking it's a bomb, and
2) Someone calling the police and saying, "I'm going to bomb Facebook" (when they actually aren't)
All of your arguments thus far have pertained to 2. You have repeatedly cited the definition of "threat" underneath that context, and scenario 2 perfectly satisfies that definition. Furthermore, so does "terrorism", because a bomb threat, real or not, causes terror and has high potential for real physical harm.
Under your definition, someone threatening to shoot you in the street wouldn't be a threat unless they actually shot you. In reality, intent is almost always impossible to discern and doesn't excuse reckless behavior. Should you not be charged if you didn't happen to kill anyone while driving home drunk?
You may disagree with Facebook's influence on this world, but advocating for methods that only cause chaos, potential harm, and disinformation is not acting in the world's best interest.
There is a difference between expressing a positive opinion in a discussion forum for an action already taken by someone and advocating for others to undertake new actions in the future.
I encourage you to re-read what I wrote, because you have conflated the former with the latter, and made a false statement as a result of your confusion. I have advocated for nothing.
(Additionally, your call to the mods to hinder others from reading my words that you “don’t like” has some parallels to the very thing you condemn, if you choose to see them.)
Neither; by definition. Violence must involve physical force or action, or threat. Sometimes it can be extended to the realm of coercion without use of actual force, through threat of same.
A fake bomb threat where there is no real physical danger, and that threat is not being used to coerce or compel someone, simply isn’t a violent act.
You could make the argument that they are being coerced into leaving the building/stopping work, which would be a valid criticism of my viewpoint, but that is a stretch itself, on top of the already stretched definition of the term.
I did not intend to troll anyone; my comment was sincere.
I am well aware of the rules and refuse, now as ever, to participate in pointless flaming on HN. I don’t think anyone wants that.
I will err on the side of not commenting in the future if I am unable to estimate people’s potential upset responses. (I hope you can understand the potential error bars around such an undertaking; one person’s sincere opinion is another person’s “trollish”.)
(Note that I think moderating such on-topic discussion harms the overall range of thought on HN, but it’s your site and your rules and I endeavor to obey them. I am sorry for taking up your time.)
I appreciate the comment and believe you about your intent. I use the word "trollish" in a context like this because the effects are unfortunately much the same even if you didn't intend them, and thus weren't strictly trolling.
Maybe, at the same time, given these trucks are everywhere, I have no idea whether the photo in the parent is a truck blocking the highway out or a random picture of truck somewhere.
Nowadays Facebook has so many enemies, State and non-State actors, that it is even impossible to determine who is behind this, unless the ones behind it, are willing to tell us. There is even an interesting opportunity to falsely accuse. Who are we going to appoint as being responsible? This is an excellent opportunity to black mouth a political adversary. Who are we going to pick?
41 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 30.3 ms ] threadIt seems odd to me that one would go to the trouble of making a bomb, placing it, then calling it in...
But never once have I heard about this bombing, and never once in my 26 years on this earth have I ever imagined that a state fire marshall would be willing to stand next to a live bomb to examine it.
1980 must have been a different time!
I wonder if it's more about phsycology, someone making a bomb threat is seeking attention for some reason and ignoring it might make their behavior escalate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Melville#Bombings
The IRA also phoned about many of their bombs. The Omagh bombing is mostly notable because their phone-call didn't accurately identify where the bomb would detonate, and so got people killed.
Plenty of terrorist groups have recognized that killing innocent bystanders isn't good PR.
Is it terrorism if they take active steps to prevent terror?
Attacking the enemy and avoiding collateral damage is usually called making war.
There's a fascinating history of the militant revolutionary movements that cropped up around 60s, Days of Rage by Bryan Burrough.
TBH as long as there are no real bombs and no one is physically harmed or coerced, I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus.
Bomb threats are terrorism.
> I fully support this sort of nonviolent disruption of the surveillance apparatus
The way you think actively harms people.
I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner.
Perhaps you could explain to me how my thoughts are harming other people.
> I am not trying to diminish how serious this is; I find this to be an admirable innovation in nonviolent disruption of those that would harm our society. It is surprising it hasn’t happened more or sooner.
This is one of the most disgusting and disturbing comments I've read in 10 years on Hacker News, sneak. Calling in fake bomb threats isn't harmless or nonviolent and it increases the deadliness of real threats by diminishing their seriousness. I suggest you read the folktale "The Boy Who Cried Wolf." Furthermore, people have died as a result of false swatting and I don't doubt people have also died as a result of fake bomb threats. Calling it a nonviolent form of protest is disturbing.
I strongly suggest you find more productive ways to voice your opinions.
The presence or absence of malicious intent cannot turn a nonviolent act into a violent one, or vice versa.
I did not call it a protest or a form of protest.
I contend that the things that Facebook does as a matter of course (enabling racial discrimination, connecting hate groups, simplifying election interference, easing human trafficking, et c), which make the entire human society worse, are no more or less violent than someone making a fake bomb threat, which makes the facebook campus worse.
In both cases the action can be reduced to “sending some IP packets out of the building”.
If one is violent, then the other is as well.
1) Someone finding a suspicious package and falsely thinking it's a bomb, and
2) Someone calling the police and saying, "I'm going to bomb Facebook" (when they actually aren't)
All of your arguments thus far have pertained to 2. You have repeatedly cited the definition of "threat" underneath that context, and scenario 2 perfectly satisfies that definition. Furthermore, so does "terrorism", because a bomb threat, real or not, causes terror and has high potential for real physical harm.
Under your definition, someone threatening to shoot you in the street wouldn't be a threat unless they actually shot you. In reality, intent is almost always impossible to discern and doesn't excuse reckless behavior. Should you not be charged if you didn't happen to kill anyone while driving home drunk?
You may disagree with Facebook's influence on this world, but advocating for methods that only cause chaos, potential harm, and disinformation is not acting in the world's best interest.
Could you take a look at this post, which advocates for bomb threats against companies he doesn't like?
I encourage you to re-read what I wrote, because you have conflated the former with the latter, and made a false statement as a result of your confusion. I have advocated for nothing.
(Additionally, your call to the mods to hinder others from reading my words that you “don’t like” has some parallels to the very thing you condemn, if you choose to see them.)
ok
A fake bomb threat where there is no real physical danger, and that threat is not being used to coerce or compel someone, simply isn’t a violent act.
You could make the argument that they are being coerced into leaving the building/stopping work, which would be a valid criticism of my viewpoint, but that is a stretch itself, on top of the already stretched definition of the term.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I am well aware of the rules and refuse, now as ever, to participate in pointless flaming on HN. I don’t think anyone wants that.
I will err on the side of not commenting in the future if I am unable to estimate people’s potential upset responses. (I hope you can understand the potential error bars around such an undertaking; one person’s sincere opinion is another person’s “trollish”.)
(Note that I think moderating such on-topic discussion harms the overall range of thought on HN, but it’s your site and your rules and I endeavor to obey them. I am sorry for taking up your time.)
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/04/09/1466758/0/...
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22deletefacebook%22+%22truc...