Are we back to the Six Week Cycle again where the FBI arrests someone before they can pull off a "terrorist attack?" Were the bombs in question legit bombs that could have blown up or is this another case of an undercover FBI agent convincing someone with disaffected sentiments to "take action" and even provided them with inert pipe bombs and a realistic looking triggering device? The FBI has been documented to pull this scam with regularity to justify their budgets; the No Agenda Show podcast has covered this over the years calling it the "Six Week Cycle" because you can almost set you watch by the regularity of it happening (and frequently with the post script of "Thank God this domestic terrorist didn't know how to make a bomb that worked!).

> convincing someone with disaffected sentiments to "take action"

It's good that the FBI got to them before someone with 'legit' bombs did.

His beef:

> "All telecommunication containing immoral content must be stopped. This includes cursing, the transmission of pornography, and all manner of indecent communication."

By that logic all pens and pencils ought to be banned because they can be used to create "naughty content."

Maybe affordable mental health services aren't widely available in Michigan.

I know they aren't here in southern states and our loudest news seems to be a constant reminder of that.

Gotta get rid of the stigma of going as well. I doubt this guy realized he needed help.

Guides on how to build a bomb with household materials get to stay up though.

That's a blast from the past. He's one of the mid 90's model puritans. You can tell because the newer models replace pornography with misinformation.

Reminds me of the R/V explosion near the AT&T building last December. Seems like weird fringe guys who haven't found a way to connect to each other yet.

Was there ever any more development on that case? Last data I saw was that his father worked at the building he blew up, but no explanation for his motivation.

Maybe if they used cell phones they could more easily connect with each other...

I'm hopeful that people on the violent fringe never do figure out how to connect with each other or we're going to end up with far more serious and coordinated attacks.

Why is the alleged perpetrator's age relevant? Seems like a headline intended to provoke an emotional response.

This is a surprisingly harshly debated topic.

Recently, here in Switzerland, police departments argued the pros and cons of naming suspect nationality.

If you do it, readers can actually get a clear picture of the demographics of criminals. However, the media can cherry pick those suspects that fit their custom brand of racism.

If you don't do it, racist/ageist/whatever prejudices can simply fill the minds of the readers with their preconceived notions of what the suspect "must be like", which isn't better.

This already happens in the US. If the perp is male he likely gets named. If he or she is of the majority “race” they’ll likely be mentioned, otherwise it’s a more bland description at which point people guess that since those attributes weren’t mentioned then the perp is likely not of the majority population.

On the other hand some publications will publish gender, race, religion, age etc regardless.

For clarification, I was talking about the police department's media speakers, who are (at that point in time) the only people that have that information.

IIRC it varies on a state-by-state basis (much like for Florida Man) which data they have to or can publish.

Point being: if the police department only publishes "43 year old female", the media can't publish race, religion, etc..

With ‘citizen journalists’ who get footage from Twitter or NextDoor, that information can come from alternate non official sources.

I’ve seen quite informative descriptions by people: height, build, age, color of clothes but purposely leave out another physical characteristic. I’ve also seen it when someone does include this characteristic you will find people who complain that including this information furthers stereotypes (altho when video is included it’s kind of nonsensical to say that, unless it’s poor quality or at night), but when it’s a majority suspect you’ll have comments like, oh, just another *guy. Like zero self awareness.

So really, the problem with the news is the people reading it.

It’s extremely unusual for senior citizens to commit violent crimes against strangers. It’s news like “man bites dog.”

Surprise is an emotion, and it's surprising that someone so old decided to become a domestic terrorist.

It's someone who doesn't fit the mold that people expect for this kind of attack. For both the buckets of right wing extremists and religious extremists, it tends to be younger people, at least on the ground.

Almost certainly an FBI-planned and directed "conspiracy".

Thought the same thing, but it was brought to the FBI's attention by the stores who found the packages. Unless they're doing some heroic omissions in their press release, which is not out of the question.

This guy is old enough to appreciate the golden age of domestic US terrorism, when we had 400+ domestic terror attacks/yr (circa 1970). It's been historically quiet since the mid 1970s[1].

[1]after the Pentagon Papers scandal forced the FBI to quit compulsive domestic surveillance and refocus on actual law enforcement

ref: https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/

You were probably downvoted because of Poe's Law[1]. Mods didn't detect your satirism when you spoke of a golden age of domestic terror. Circa 1970 was also a golden age of domestic terror in other countries too, notably the IRA bombings of English interests. ;-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

EDIT: I hope my own satirical post doesn't put me on some 3-letter agency watchlist. You can't be too careful nowadays.

> Mods didn't detect your satirism when you spoke of a golden age of domestic terror.

I'd agree the positive connotations are a juxtaposition but everything else fits the descriptor.

Based on experience, I'd guess the downvotes are from folks who advocate a mindset that we live in a dangerous time of imminent terrorism - one that demands endless heightened awareness.

In contrast, I found that historical US domestic terror stats show that since ~1975 we have been about as safe as is possible. I suggest we math-up and embrace our ongoing safety.

> I hope my own satirical post doesn't put me on some 3-letter agency watchlist. You can't be too careful nowadays.

In as far as this might be true, government has fully lost it's way.