It's illustrative of why simplistic right/left labeling is at best useless. You have to evaluate individuals - and media orgs - at a much more granular level. At minimum, three dimensions - natsec/defense, economics, social.
Nonetheless this seems too coordinated and well executed to be some random hate group, so I agree with you there. Especially with the evacuation messages.
Anybody know if e.g. the Nexus group or similar SSAE data centers had some issues?
Nobody's flaming me, so if it were flamebait I'd deserve some kind of award for most astonishingly-ineffective flamebait in history.
You ought to call it what it is: dissident speech. Dissonant, too.
Does dissident speech get people banned from HN?
PS, I admit that the (one) ascii-art text banner was silly and inappropriate.
Definitions aside, please don't post any more comments like that. We want substantive, thoughtful conversation on HN. Comments like "racist racist racist Fascist racist" are obviously not acceptable, quite apart from ascii art (though what you did with that was also not cool, and you did it at least three times).
Please don't post any more unsubstantive comments like these either:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25435883
Ever heard of Metcalf sniper attack, too, taking down a California power station a couple years back? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalf_sniper_attack
Crippling a country’s energy and telecom capabilities could align with the motives of another nation.
Why the inauguration?
>This attack screams anti-government militia
What about it screams anything identifiable?
Are you sure your biases aren't creeping into your analysis?
I already listed some things that stood out to me in another comment.
I call out the inauguration because it's literally about to happen? Its the next the largest event in American politics on the calendar. And obviously my assumptions that this is tied to anti government efforts means those involved would likely be stirred up by whatever is currently happening in politics. Everyone's bias creeps into everything they do. Neither of us are immune to that. So calling it out here in such a uselessly rhetorical manner isn't some logical fallacy flag, it's a derailment of the discussion. I'm not even sure what bias you're accusing me of, I guess leftist politics?
I hope all congressional representatives and local government officials are reviewing their safety plans.
I know I likely don't have to tell this to the experts out there, but it might first be advisable to have your counter terrorism guys review "all congressional representatives and local government officials". No one minds fighting a war, at the same time, no one wants to charge out of a foxhole and be shot in the back.
Where are the other infrastructure attacks? Or targeted assassinations?
Both stopped by intelligence services, but that doesn't stop them being data points for people being extremists.
Not saying there is a guarantee this was people with the same objectives, but it seems like a plausible theory. I wouldn't make strong assertions as though it was fact, but I also wouldn't act like there hasn't been a trend recently.
Where is the line drawn between stochastic crimes and free speech?
> A derivation of Dr Woo's stochastic terrorism model was proffered by an anonymous blogger posting on Daily Kos in 2011 to describe public speech that can be expected to incite terrorism without a direct organizational link between the inciter and the perpetrator.[31][32] The term "stochastic" is used in this instance to describe the random, probabilistic nature of its effect: whether or not an attack actually takes place. And, although the actual perpetrator of a planned attack and its timing is not under the control of the stochastic terrorist, their actions nevertheless serve to increase the probability that a terrorist attack will occur.[33] The stochastic terrorist in this context does not direct the actions of any particular individual or members of a group. Rather, the stochastic terrorist gives voice to a specific ideology via mass media with the aim of optimizing its dissemination.[33]
So if 'stochastic terrorism' is speech that will probabilistically inspire acts of violence when it reaches a large number of people, why can't this be generalized to crimes other than terrorism? If the (now banned) subreddit r/shoplifting publishes messages glorifying shoplifting to a large number of people, it will likely inspire some portion of those exposed to commit these crimes themselves. Does that make the subreddit a form of 'stochastic theft'?
What part of the technique indicates "anti-government militia"?
They are also not a "militia" as I understand the term.
Why would you follow up "it screams" with "hard to say anything definitive"? Those seem quite contradictory to me.
I don't think I said the IRA were a militia, I drew a conclusion that this incident, which I speculate as being tied to anti government militia groups in the US, shares similarities with other destructive anti government groups seen in Ireland and Spain. I don't think I said those groups were militia groups specifically, and I don't think the comparison is such a stretch since there are other commenters making the exact same leap to the IRA.
My contradictory wording is likely to be a subconscious defense mechanism of sharing my opinion on the internet. I have not claimed any specific knowledge or authority over this event or even in defense of my own speculation here. In full transparency, the only reason I posted was because people were going all in on the "heist" theory, which I find ridiculous.
What makes you think this? Vehicle bombs have been used by Islamic bombers, IRA bombers. Doesn’t seem that unique to me.
I read that story you mentioned about the energy grid plot, but it seems like bizarrely pathetic larping that was stopped before any substantive action was taken [0]. One part of the article I couldn't help but laugh at:
> The affidavit says the Ohio teen put Nazi flags in his room, but his mother told him to take them down.
[0] - https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/fbi-w...
I'm not sure why you think that is obvious. Without knowing the motive we have no means of assessing the decision making process of the attacker(s).
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/train-carrying-cru...
https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/press-release/file/1341141...
Note particularly the "INDIGENOUS LAND" emblem on page 5 of the indictment. Pretty obviously not the only two people who are part of that group.
The target and the means (RV stuffed with explosives) would sort of fit the pattern. Broadcasting an advance warning would be rather atypical for US right wing (or islamic, for that matter) terrorists, though, and rigging up a speaker that actually works would stretch the technical abilities of a typical US militia group.
The groups who did operate that way (weather people, IRA, RAF, etc) are not presently active in the US (unless some snowbird weather people decided to come out of retirement).
If the rumors of this being a suicide bombing pan out, a single disgruntled person with some technical skill probably would have the financial and technical means to carry this out, and a company like AT&T probably enrages thousands of technical people a year for various reasons — power laws would suggest that occasionally one of them might become enraged to the point of terrorism.
Or, for wilder speculation, maybe some foreign state level actor has an interest in causing extra chaos? With leadership of various security services in near constant turmoil, and new appointees being installed primarily with partisan domestic objectives, now is as good a time to carry out such an act as any.
It's probably best not to jump to conclusions, and be wary of any authorities looking to take this incident as a pretext to expand any of their ample existing powers.
Edit: thank you (both)
(note: not the OP)
https://bgr.com/2018/06/16/att-time-warner-merger-brands-wha...