this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
428 points (99.5% liked)

politics

20427 readers
6179 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

An anti-Trump conservative summit in Washington, DC, was evacuated Sunday due to a “credible bomb threat” allegedly sent by an account claiming to represent Enrique Tarrio, former Proud Boys leader.

The threat, which named several high-profile attendees, remains unverified by police. Tarrio, who was arrested over the weekend, denied involvement and threatened legal action.

The event, an alternative to CPAC, featured prominent anti-Trump conservatives and ex-law enforcement officers who had clashed with Tarrio earlier.

DC tensions were heightened amid the CPAC gathering and related protests.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

Creating a bomb leaves a trail and the FBI has a pretty good record domestically of finding where they've come from. Couple that with the fact that any time there's a threat detected then will places evacuate. Anyone who would actually call in a threat, after placing bombs would only result in becoming hunted by the FBI, so on that point you're right: these threats are always hollow. At least until people stop evacuating after receiving a threat. Once that happens it will increase the likelihood that real bombs will start being placed.

But to be clear, a lot of places do get bombed. In 2023 there were 320 bombings in the US. During the same year there were 3,203 threats. So, we're looking at 0.1% ... That would likely go up if people stopped taking the threats seriously.

EDIT: I'm not sure anyone noticed, but my math was off by a factor of 10, er 100. Sorry about that! Also, source: https://tripwire.dhs.gov/reports/298701

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’d like to know of some of the places on US soil that got bombed…. For political reasons.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I had meant to include my source: https://tripwire.dhs.gov/reports/298701

It doesn't look like it specifies exactly where these bombings were, however it does break it out by state and under the Recoveries section it lists the various 'target types' for devices that were recovered (the majority being residential - though this includes more than just criminal bombing).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So yeah it’s not a very complete document.

Terrorists don’t announce a bomb. They don’t threaten. Threats are made by maga pussies who wanna feel big.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I had typed up a reply, but honestly, at this point I'm done with you. Enjoy yelling into the void.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 day ago

There are lots of people here with me in this “void,” and none of us are scared of a “bomb threat” by a pussy-ass-maga-bitch.

You’re the odd one out.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That math says 10%. But regardless, I think the core of the argument really is that those who actually intend to plant bombs don't make bomb threats. By the time you escalate to the level where you're convinced blowing people to pieces is actually a reasonable course of action, you're not likely to be giving warnings. You either want people dead, or you don't.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Simply not true. Many organizations gave warning before bombing.

The Israeli military does that now, for example.

Looking to history, the IRA usually gave warning when they planted a bomb.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 hours ago

We're not dealing with organized terrorist groups and national militaries here. We're talking about lone wolves. The IRA or the IDF don't choose bombing targets based on rumors they read on Facebook.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree, and I think a bomb 'threat' is actually just a way to disrupt things. I do think that if we started ignoring threats though, it would lead to an increase in actual bombings.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The relevant question should be "what portion of bombers previously issued bomb threats prior to escalating to actual bombings?" That is the question to ask.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Might want to recheck your math there

[–] grue 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In 2023 there were 320 bombings in the US. During the same year there were 3,203 threats. So, we're looking at 0.1%

Um... that's 10%, not 0.1%.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There were less than 20 real bombing. There were over 320 bomb threats. I'd like to see where you got these numbers. They are off.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

there were 320 bombings in the US.

there were 3,203 threats.

https://www.atf.gov/file/193656/download

You are confusing fatalities with events... And not following who is commenting vs quoting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago

Thank you. I think I had a brain fart.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

Am I missing something? 320/3203 is more like 10%