Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

New York Explosion (ed. Car Crash p.3)

Confusing picture emerging of last night's events, at least on the news here. One explosion and another unexploded device found but 'no credible threat' to New York?

Plus a bomb near a race in New Jersey.

Family there and visiting for Christmas so does hit home quite a lot. Such a great city.
«13

Comments

  • edited September 2016
    Shit. Im off to NYC (and a few other places in the usa) in three weeks. Hope all Affected are ok
  • edited September 2016

    Never a good thing to see in the news though, regardless of intent behind it.
  • edited September 2016
    Strange one this. They quickly ruled out terrorism so they must know who's done it and why .
  • I'm not sure they have quite yet ruled out terrorism, they just have t announced yet that it is? May be wrong.
  • I wish political leaders in the West would stop treating their citizens as if they were stupid and stop instantly reacting to these events trying to assert that it is not a terrorist attack and everyone is safe when clearly they do not know and 99% of the time it turns out they are wrong.
  • edited September 2016

    I wish political leaders in the West would stop treating their citizens as if they were stupid and stop instantly reacting to these events trying to assert that it is not a terrorist attack and everyone is safe when clearly they do not know and 99% of the time it turns out they are wrong.

    You're right. They should, instead, instantly not react to them and let people draw their own conclusions. Which are just as likely to be wrong.
    You think whenever a political leader immediately comes out with these platitudes it stops people drawing their own conclusions?

    Political leaders should just assure people that the appropriate security forces are dealing with the situation and doing everything they can to ensure that the threat is contained and that the appropriate intelligence agencies have started investigations to assertain who was responsible.
  • So they've called this a terrorist act but said there's no indication it relates to international terrorism.

    Reasons for that are probably twofold, 1) no claim of responsibility thus far and it's been 15+hours. 2) this doesn't fit with the MO of major international terrorists.
  • edited September 2016
    SDAddick said:

    So they've called this a terrorist act but said there's no indication it relates to international terrorism.

    Reasons for that are probably twofold, 1) no claim of responsibility thus far and it's been 15+hours. 2) this doesn't fit with the MO of major international terrorists.

    What we know about the devices leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence that it is a home grown Radicalised US born Muslim male in his early 20s. But I might be completely wrong. I don't know. And neither do the political leaders immediately following one of these attacks. There is nothing wron with people coming to their own early conclusions based on what they know about previous terrorist attacks until the authorities issue fact based details based on their investigations.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I struggle to see how any incident of people planting bombs in New York, at least outside of a war, can be seen as anything other than terrorism. Unless what they really mean is it was a white guy...
  • SDAddick said:

    So they've called this a terrorist act but said there's no indication it relates to international terrorism.

    Reasons for that are probably twofold, 1) no claim of responsibility thus far and it's been 15+hours. 2) this doesn't fit with the MO of major international terrorists.

    What we know about the devices leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence that it is a home grown Radicalised US born Muslim male in his early 20s. But I might be completely wrong. I don't know. And neither do the political leaders immediately following one of these attacks. There is nothing wron with people coming to their own early conclusions based on what they know about previous terrorist attacks until the authorities issue fact based details based on their investigations.
    Sorry to ask but, how come you personally need to draw any conclusions at this stage?
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    SDAddick said:

    So they've called this a terrorist act but said there's no indication it relates to international terrorism.

    Reasons for that are probably twofold, 1) no claim of responsibility thus far and it's been 15+hours. 2) this doesn't fit with the MO of major international terrorists.

    What we know about the devices leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence that it is a home grown Radicalised US born Muslim male in his early 20s. But I might be completely wrong. I don't know. And neither do the political leaders immediately following one of these attacks. There is nothing wron with people coming to their own early conclusions based on what they know about previous terrorist attacks until the authorities issue fact based details based on their investigations.
    Sorry to ask but, how come you personally need to draw any conclusions at this stage?
    Because I am human? It is the basis of the advancement of civilisation. We observe things happening. We see events repeated. We observer patterns. We draw conclusions. We adjust those conclusions based on evidence.

    I drew the same conclusions immediately after the Nice attacks.

    Sorry for asking but, how come you feel the need to question my instinct to draw an early conclusion? What is your point?
  • edited September 2016
    JiMMy 85 said:

    Honestly, I don't think you do need to draw any conclusions. It's an ongoing investigation. People better trained and qualified than you will draw conclusions that, I hope, they'll share with us. If not, I'd presume there's good reason and we have to trust them on that.

    You've got literally no evidence, and frankly no business investigating this from your armchair. It sounds a bit self-important to me.

    SDAddick said:

    So they've called this a terrorist act but said there's no indication it relates to international terrorism.

    Reasons for that are probably twofold, 1) no claim of responsibility thus far and it's been 15+hours. 2) this doesn't fit with the MO of major international terrorists.

    There is nothing wron with people coming to their own early conclusions based on what they know about previous terrorist attacks until the authorities issue fact based details based on their investigations.
    When the Boston bombings occurred, Reddit users decided to carry out their own investigation, pouring over videos and images before coming to the conclusion that one Sunil Tripathi was the guilty party.

    He wasn't, and tragically committed suicide soon after, most probably as a result of the Internet detectives who blamed him for murder, leading to a witch hunt. Try telling his family there's no harm in people with no connection to the event drawing their own conclusions because they saw an episode of Columbo once and decided it's their God-given right to get involved.

    Why not just let the experts do their thing? It might be human nature to find intrigue, but surely we're bright enough to get over that basic instinct and not come to unqualified conclusions? What good could you possibly do otherwise?
    The stories about the student committing suicide because of the Reddit posts are rubbish. He had a history of mental health problems and was missing for a month before the bombings. Is there a shred of evidence linking his suicide to the mis-identification on Reddit? Are you, and many other people just drawing a conclusion? Which of course you are entitled to do.

    There are many good things about the Internet and the unfettered access everyone has to information and access to means to voice and share reactions to events. There are of course also many bad things about it. But one of the good things is that people in authority no longer have complete control over what information its citizens have access to and they can no longer control the conversations and discussions that their citizens choose to have about that information

  • SDAddick said:

    JiMMy 85 said:

    Honestly, I don't think you do need to draw any conclusions. It's an ongoing investigation. People better trained and qualified than you will draw conclusions that, I hope, they'll share with us. If not, I'd presume there's good reason and we have to trust them on that.

    You've got literally no evidence, and frankly no business investigating this from your armchair. It sounds a bit self-important to me.

    SDAddick said:

    So they've called this a terrorist act but said there's no indication it relates to international terrorism.

    Reasons for that are probably twofold, 1) no claim of responsibility thus far and it's been 15+hours. 2) this doesn't fit with the MO of major international terrorists.

    There is nothing wron with people coming to their own early conclusions based on what they know about previous terrorist attacks until the authorities issue fact based details based on their investigations.
    When the Boston bombings occurred, Reddit users decided to carry out their own investigation, pouring over videos and images before coming to the conclusion that one Sunil Tripathi was the guilty party.

    He wasn't, and tragically committed suicide soon after, most probably as a result of the Internet detectives who blamed him for murder, leading to a witch hunt. Try telling his family there's no harm in people with no connection to the event drawing their own conclusions because they saw an episode of Columbo once and decided it's their God-given right to get involved.

    Why not just let the experts do their thing? It might be human nature to find intrigue, but surely we're bright enough to get over that basic instinct and not come to unqualified conclusions? What good could you possibly do otherwise?
    Agreed. And not just that, but in a 24 hours news cycle, there is SO much inaccuracy in the first 24-48 hours. Red I do get where you're coming from, and I've worked with people in the intelligence community and have often grilled them on various matters because I'm quite intrigued, but I think it's worth noting that speculation should be treated as just that.

    This includes if you're the twitter account of a police station:

    http://kdvr.com/2016/07/08/dallas-police-slammed-on-social-media-for-tweeting-picture-of-innocent-suspect/
    When I post my conclusions or anyone else posts conclusions in the early moments after an event like this nobody thinks they are anything other than pure speculation.
  • JiMMy 85 said:

    Honestly, I don't think you do need to draw any conclusions. It's an ongoing investigation. People better trained and qualified than you will draw conclusions that, I hope, they'll share with us. If not, I'd presume there's good reason and we have to trust them on that.

    You've got literally no evidence, and frankly no business investigating this from your armchair. It sounds a bit self-important to me.

    SDAddick said:

    So they've called this a terrorist act but said there's no indication it relates to international terrorism.

    Reasons for that are probably twofold, 1) no claim of responsibility thus far and it's been 15+hours. 2) this doesn't fit with the MO of major international terrorists.

    There is nothing wron with people coming to their own early conclusions based on what they know about previous terrorist attacks until the authorities issue fact based details based on their investigations.
    When the Boston bombings occurred, Reddit users decided to carry out their own investigation, pouring over videos and images before coming to the conclusion that one Sunil Tripathi was the guilty party.

    He wasn't, and tragically committed suicide soon after, most probably as a result of the Internet detectives who blamed him for murder, leading to a witch hunt. Try telling his family there's no harm in people with no connection to the event drawing their own conclusions because they saw an episode of Columbo once and decided it's their God-given right to get involved.

    Why not just let the experts do their thing? It might be human nature to find intrigue, but surely we're bright enough to get over that basic instinct and not come to unqualified conclusions? What good could you possibly do otherwise?
    Oh the hypocrisy.

    Of course people are going to come to their own - often wrong - conclusions, as Red says, it's human nature.
  • It wasn't that long ago we had a shooting in Germany, and in a rather awkward fashion, those who were banging on about it being Islamist related had to retract their statements as it was quite the opposite.

    For what it's worth, I'd suspect this was Islamist related due to Amaq claiming ISIS responsibility for the shopping mall stabbings. However, I will say that those who immediately point fingers towards Islam are as dangerous as those who refuse to accept that Islam has an issue.
  • Sponsored links:


  • LuckyReds said:

    It wasn't that long ago we had a shooting in Germany, and in a rather awkward fashion, those who were banging on about it being Islamist related had to retract their statements as it was quite the opposite.

    For what it's worth, I'd suspect this was Islamist related due to Amaq claiming ISIS responsibility for the shopping mall stabbings. However, I will say that those who immediately point fingers towards Islam are as dangerous as those who refuse to accept that Islam has an issue.

    So when the Mayor of New York says it was an 'intentional act' but not terrorism and I, along with many people, conclude no, it was a terrorist attack and probably an Islamic terrorist attack we are being as dangerous as people who refuse to accept Islam has an issue?
  • LuckyReds said:

    It wasn't that long ago we had a shooting in Germany, and in a rather awkward fashion, those who were banging on about it being Islamist related had to retract their statements as it was quite the opposite.

    For what it's worth, I'd suspect this was Islamist related due to Amaq claiming ISIS responsibility for the shopping mall stabbings. However, I will say that those who immediately point fingers towards Islam are as dangerous as those who refuse to accept that Islam has an issue.

    So when the Mayor of New York says it was an 'intentional act' but not terrorism and I, along with many people, conclude no, it was a terrorist attack and probably an Islamic terrorist attack we are being as dangerous as people who refuse to accept Islam has an issue?
    He has confused me there. If someone intentionally places a bomb in a popular area at a peak time, i can only register that as "not a terrorist act" if it was planted by Jeremy Beadle....?
  • LuckyReds said:

    It wasn't that long ago we had a shooting in Germany, and in a rather awkward fashion, those who were banging on about it being Islamist related had to retract their statements as it was quite the opposite.

    For what it's worth, I'd suspect this was Islamist related due to Amaq claiming ISIS responsibility for the shopping mall stabbings. However, I will say that those who immediately point fingers towards Islam are as dangerous as those who refuse to accept that Islam has an issue.

    So when the Mayor of New York says it was an 'intentional act' but not terrorism and I, along with many people, conclude no, it was a terrorist attack and probably an Islamic terrorist attack we are being as dangerous as people who refuse to accept Islam has an issue?
    Politicians speak bollocks, that's no shock. The amount of reluctance before using the "T" word in particular is ridiculous, if someone intentionally tried to blow people up then clearly it was terrorism.

    That's not the same as theorising about the individuals behind the attack and their motive though. With increasing regularity, and usually within minutes of an incident, you quickly see two types of people:

    (a) those who hope it was a middle class white man to prove a point about other people being capable of the evils that Islamism seem to evoke;

    (b) those who immediately take it upon themselves to point the finger towards certain parts of the community before any evidence is heard.

    Both are dangerous for different reasons. (A) is a horrific mentality that avoids confronting a very real problem within the Muslim community, and (B) tends to whip up a reactive frenzy without any basis.
  • To use the term correctly, it is 'self-aggrandising' to judge and comment on the right of people to react and draw particular conclusions to the type of attack which has been happening regularly in US and European cities over the last few years.
  • edited September 2016

    To use the term correctly, it is 'self-aggrandising' to judge and comment on the right of people to react and draw particular conclusions to the type of attack which has been happening regularly in US and European cities over the last few years.

    Interesting, but I think the following was far more self-aggrandising: "What we know about the devices leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence that it is a home grown Radicalised US born Muslim male in his early 20s.".

    Also, I know how to use it correctly, thanks.. I never attempted to shoehorn it into this discussion though. Which makes that entire post a bit bizarre to be quite honest.
  • LuckyReds said:

    To use the term correctly, it is 'self-aggrandising' to judge and comment on the right of people to react and draw particular conclusions to the type of attack which has been happening regularly in US and European cities over the last few years.

    Interesting, but I think the following was far more self-aggrandising: "What we know about the devices leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence that it is a home grown Radicalised US born Muslim male in his early 20s.".

    Also, I know how to use it correctly, thanks.. I never attempted to shoehorn it into this discussion though. Which makes that entire post a bit bizarre to be quite honest.
    It's 'cos I used the phrase. I was trying to find a way of saying the wonderful availability of information via the interwebs doesn't mean Red_in_SE8 is doing good by wildly speculating about stuff he knows nothing about. Sadly it allowed that point to be missed.

    Normally I'd say each to their own, but when such stuff is damaging an unhelpful, I think it's fair to call it out.
  • LuckyReds said:

    To use the term correctly, it is 'self-aggrandising' to judge and comment on the right of people to react and draw particular conclusions to the type of attack which has been happening regularly in US and European cities over the last few years.

    Interesting, but I think the following was far more self-aggrandising: "What we know about the devices leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence that it is a home grown Radicalised US born Muslim male in his early 20s.".

    Also, I know how to use it correctly, thanks.. I never attempted to shoehorn it into this discussion though. Which makes that entire post a bit bizarre to be quite honest.
    Did I state you used the term? It was Jimmy85 who used it about me. And I was responding.

    If you think anyone expressing a view is guilty of self-aggrandising then everyone posting on this forum is guilty of it every time they post.

  • JiMMy 85 said:

    LuckyReds said:

    To use the term correctly, it is 'self-aggrandising' to judge and comment on the right of people to react and draw particular conclusions to the type of attack which has been happening regularly in US and European cities over the last few years.

    Interesting, but I think the following was far more self-aggrandising: "What we know about the devices leads me to conclude with high degree of confidence that it is a home grown Radicalised US born Muslim male in his early 20s.".

    Also, I know how to use it correctly, thanks.. I never attempted to shoehorn it into this discussion though. Which makes that entire post a bit bizarre to be quite honest.
    It's 'cos I used the phrase. I was trying to find a way of saying the wonderful availability of information via the interwebs doesn't mean Red_in_SE8 is doing good by wildly speculating about stuff he knows nothing about. Sadly it allowed that point to be missed.

    Normally I'd say each to their own, but when such stuff is damaging an unhelpful, I think it's fair to call it out.
    Ah, that makes far more sense - I was pretty confused!

    Personally, whenever these situations occur I've been posting quite heavily about them - a combination of social media access, a messed up sleep pattern and interest in current affairs means I end up seeing quite a bit of the news as they develop. I've always try to draw the line under wild speculation though, and where I have speculated I've generally provided a bit of background or a quote.

    With the Internet it's all too easy to put 2 + 2 together and accidentally further misinformation unfortunately, and that often incites quite a nasty reaction. For that reason, I totally agree with you.
Sign In or Register to comment.