6 ms·

Sending a warning before a bombing isn't that uncommon. It's less common (although not entirely unheard of) if the bombing is a terrorist attack. But if, as you

Sending a warning before a bombing isn't that uncommon. It's less common (although not entirely unheard of) if the bombing is a terrorist attack. But if, as you suggest, that target is infrastructure, the only real reason to not give a warning is tactical. WIthout knowing who is responsible for it, it is possible they wanted to inflict whatever damage they had in mind, without causing any loss of life or human injuries.

stevekemp 6y ago
The IRA often used to send out warnings for their terrorist attacks. (Not always of course, but it wasn't so unusual).
rorykoehler 6y ago
The IRA nearly always sent warnings in the 90s. Usually by calling a radio station with a code word.
- harperlee 6y ago
  Same with ETA in Spain. > It's less common (although not entirely unheard of) if the bombing is a terrorist attack. But if, as you suggest, that target is infrastructure A terrorist attack’s first objective is to cause terror, not to kill people. Thus warning in advance is also effective to instill terror. And separating terrorism from bombing infrastructure is a weird dichotomy...
  - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
    What about when countries bomb each other's infrastructure during war? That both causes terror in the populace and achieves a strategic objective... If causing terror were a hallmark of a terrorist attack, wouldn't every attack be a terror attack (even, for example, mass school shootings or shootings like the Las Vegas shooting, etc.)
    - erikpukinskis 6y ago
      Causing terror is the hallmark of terrorist attacks, it is what distinguishes it from normal guerrilla warfare. Certainly there can be a mixture of both tactical and terrorist motives in an attack... 9/11 was seemingly meant to both instill fear and to hobble the U.S. financial system. But what made it a terrorist attack, as opposed to an act of revolutionary war, is that it was intended to be very public and to frighten the populace. And yes, mass shootings are considered terrorist attacks for precisely this reason, they’re meant to instill fear. Consider: murdering a witness to stop them testifying against you. That has a primarily tactical objective. Not terrorism. Killing someone who owes you a debt, on the other hand, is terrorism because it serves no tactical purpose (you definitely won’t get your money) it is only meant to instill fear in your other debtors. There is certainly a lot of gray area here, but the that doesn’t render the underlying definitions pointless. I’d be curious to hear your definition of terrorism though, as it seems to differ from mine!
      - pksebben 6y ago
        If you went by what the American media tends to call "terrorist", it's attacks by brown people from countries whose resources are of strategic value, or attacks by anyone with an anticapitalist agenda. (9/11, unabomber). Terminology these days is less about meaning and more about political pressure. I'm sure this qualifies under group 2.
      - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
        >But what made it a terrorist attack, as opposed to an act of revolutionary war, is that it was intended to be very public and to frighten the populace. This was true of many of the events leading up to the American Revolution too. Tarring and feathering of tax collectors, the Boston Tea Party, etc. At the time, the vast majority of Americans were Loyalists and would have been made afraid by these acts (and in fact that was the point, this is why many of the participants of the Boston Tea Party dressed up as Native Americans, to instill fear through their "savage" appearance). If you want to say all these are terrorism too, then fine, I agree. Most people's definition of terrorism is a political one, where they can denounce acts they don't like and support those they do, and there's little consistency applied. If you're one who applies consistency, more power to you! >Consider: murdering a witness to stop them testifying against you. That has a primarily tactical objective. Not terrorism. >Killing someone who owes you a debt, on the other hand, is terrorism because it serves no tactical purpose (you definitely won’t get your money) it is only meant to instill fear in your other debtors. To play devil's advocate, isn't there a tactical objective primarily in the latter example as well? By instilling fear in your other debtors, you increase the profits of your lending enterprise.
  - generalizations 6y ago
    > terrorist attack’s first objective is to cause terror In the case of this bombing, then, I think calling the cuprits "terrorists" would be incorrect since they were attempting to take down infrastructure.
  - willis936 6y ago
    Well, there are gradations. Destroying a telecommunications hub via rapid unscheduled disassembly of a city street sends a different message than painting an Olympics party red. The goal of the Nashville bombing was likely not to instill terror on individuals fearing for their safety.
  - matt-attack 6y ago
    Imagine for the sake of discussion that the bomber was highly dissatisfied with ATT for whatever reason. He wanted revenge at that company. They over charged him for long distance minutes, or applied a data cap one too many time. In retribution he plans to bomb one of their Central Offices. He has no intention to harm any humans in this scenario. Why do you think it’s wrong to NOT classify this as “terrorism”? Protest actions aren’t necessarily “terrorism”. Instilling fear is simply the furthest from this hypothetical person’s mind. He’s getting revenge on a company the he perceives as having wrong him in some way. We need to deepen our critical thinking a bit and evolve past “bomb = terrorism” naïveté.
- lumberingjack 6y ago
  This
pjc50 6y ago
Warnings tend to come with political bombings. But in this case we have a bombing with no manifesto - yet. A lot of effort for unclear purpose.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  Hard not to jump to the conclusion that it was some Q-Anon inspired attack on "5G".
  - willis936 6y ago
    I don’t think Qanon conspiracy theorists are capable of tying their own shoelaces, let alone knowing how to pick a good telecoms target, choosing an appropriate explosive and quantity, assembling a bomb, planning timing and logistics of the actual bombing, and completing it without getting caught by the FBI or stopped by local authorities with minimal collateral. Nothing about this says “dumbfuck theorist”. I’m just an armchair detective though. I’ll wait for the Netflix special (complete with composite characters and fake events).
    - jonny_eh 6y ago
      You don't have to be an idiot to be a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    A news organization is now reporting this hypothesis too: https://twitter.com/JFinleyreports/status/1343038998848090112?s=19 https://twitter.com/JFinleyreports/status/134303899884809011...
- nine_k 6y ago
  Maybe massive connectivity loss was the purpose. While something interesting was offline, maybe with security infrastructure disabled or weakened, likely at many places across the area, something interesting could have been done.
- ksdjhfjkdhfsk 6y ago
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Targeting infrastructure can be terrorism as well, it does not require aiming at killing people. Terrorism is unlawfully using violence, especially against civilians, to achieve a political aim.
- capableweb 6y ago
  > Terrorism is unlawfully using violence, especially against civilians, to achieve a political aim. Important to note that there is not one single definition of "terrorism" that everyone agrees on. For some, "terrorism" is a label assigned to your opposing groups, for others it's about violence for political or religious purposes. If it's from another nation-state, it's usually not labeled terrorism, even if it's against civilians for political/religious purposes. Some groups are labeled "terrorists" even without any recorded history of violence, and so on. I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding that what "terrorism" is, is not as black-and-white as you put it.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    There is a general definition that you will find in dictionaries and that is generally accepted. So I think there is a definition that everyone agrees on when there are not pushing an agenda. Then there is the use of the term for rhetorical and political purposes... This is what obviously varies according to the interests of those using the term. Obviously the terrorists are always the 'other guys'. Note that the definition I gave, which is nothing more than the Oxford dictionary one, includes a crucial word, "unlawful". This is very important to differentiate between warfare and terrorism. A sovereign state uses violence for political aims, this is warfare and it is 'lawful' (it may be unlawful under international law, though). This is why action by nation-states are usually not labelled 'terrorism'.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      I agree fully with you, again! Just adding a bit more context as your previous comment seemed "sure" in that you're proclaiming "X is Y" while reality is not that black-and-white. Again, I agree with this and your previous comment.

stevekemp 6y ago

The IRA often used to send out warnings for their terrorist attacks. (Not always of course, but it wasn't so unusual).

rorykoehler 6y ago

The IRA nearly always sent warnings in the 90s. Usually by calling a radio station with a code word.

harperlee 6y ago
Same with ETA in Spain. > It's less common (although not entirely unheard of) if the bombing is a terrorist attack. But if, as you suggest, that target is infrastructure A terrorist attack’s first objective is to cause terror, not to kill people. Thus warning in advance is also effective to instill terror. And separating terrorism from bombing infrastructure is a weird dichotomy...
- notsureaboutpg 6y ago
  What about when countries bomb each other's infrastructure during war? That both causes terror in the populace and achieves a strategic objective... If causing terror were a hallmark of a terrorist attack, wouldn't every attack be a terror attack (even, for example, mass school shootings or shootings like the Las Vegas shooting, etc.)
  - erikpukinskis 6y ago
    Causing terror is the hallmark of terrorist attacks, it is what distinguishes it from normal guerrilla warfare. Certainly there can be a mixture of both tactical and terrorist motives in an attack... 9/11 was seemingly meant to both instill fear and to hobble the U.S. financial system. But what made it a terrorist attack, as opposed to an act of revolutionary war, is that it was intended to be very public and to frighten the populace. And yes, mass shootings are considered terrorist attacks for precisely this reason, they’re meant to instill fear. Consider: murdering a witness to stop them testifying against you. That has a primarily tactical objective. Not terrorism. Killing someone who owes you a debt, on the other hand, is terrorism because it serves no tactical purpose (you definitely won’t get your money) it is only meant to instill fear in your other debtors. There is certainly a lot of gray area here, but the that doesn’t render the underlying definitions pointless. I’d be curious to hear your definition of terrorism though, as it seems to differ from mine!
    - pksebben 6y ago
      If you went by what the American media tends to call "terrorist", it's attacks by brown people from countries whose resources are of strategic value, or attacks by anyone with an anticapitalist agenda. (9/11, unabomber). Terminology these days is less about meaning and more about political pressure. I'm sure this qualifies under group 2.
    - notsureaboutpg 6y ago
      >But what made it a terrorist attack, as opposed to an act of revolutionary war, is that it was intended to be very public and to frighten the populace. This was true of many of the events leading up to the American Revolution too. Tarring and feathering of tax collectors, the Boston Tea Party, etc. At the time, the vast majority of Americans were Loyalists and would have been made afraid by these acts (and in fact that was the point, this is why many of the participants of the Boston Tea Party dressed up as Native Americans, to instill fear through their "savage" appearance). If you want to say all these are terrorism too, then fine, I agree. Most people's definition of terrorism is a political one, where they can denounce acts they don't like and support those they do, and there's little consistency applied. If you're one who applies consistency, more power to you! >Consider: murdering a witness to stop them testifying against you. That has a primarily tactical objective. Not terrorism. >Killing someone who owes you a debt, on the other hand, is terrorism because it serves no tactical purpose (you definitely won’t get your money) it is only meant to instill fear in your other debtors. To play devil's advocate, isn't there a tactical objective primarily in the latter example as well? By instilling fear in your other debtors, you increase the profits of your lending enterprise.
- generalizations 6y ago
  > terrorist attack’s first objective is to cause terror In the case of this bombing, then, I think calling the cuprits "terrorists" would be incorrect since they were attempting to take down infrastructure.
- willis936 6y ago
  Well, there are gradations. Destroying a telecommunications hub via rapid unscheduled disassembly of a city street sends a different message than painting an Olympics party red. The goal of the Nashville bombing was likely not to instill terror on individuals fearing for their safety.
- matt-attack 6y ago
  Imagine for the sake of discussion that the bomber was highly dissatisfied with ATT for whatever reason. He wanted revenge at that company. They over charged him for long distance minutes, or applied a data cap one too many time. In retribution he plans to bomb one of their Central Offices. He has no intention to harm any humans in this scenario. Why do you think it’s wrong to NOT classify this as “terrorism”? Protest actions aren’t necessarily “terrorism”. Instilling fear is simply the furthest from this hypothetical person’s mind. He’s getting revenge on a company the he perceives as having wrong him in some way. We need to deepen our critical thinking a bit and evolve past “bomb = terrorism” naïveté.
lumberingjack 6y ago
This

pjc50 6y ago

Warnings tend to come with political bombings. But in this case we have a bombing with no manifesto - yet. A lot of effort for unclear purpose.

jonny_eh 6y ago
Hard not to jump to the conclusion that it was some Q-Anon inspired attack on "5G".
- willis936 6y ago
  I don’t think Qanon conspiracy theorists are capable of tying their own shoelaces, let alone knowing how to pick a good telecoms target, choosing an appropriate explosive and quantity, assembling a bomb, planning timing and logistics of the actual bombing, and completing it without getting caught by the FBI or stopped by local authorities with minimal collateral. Nothing about this says “dumbfuck theorist”. I’m just an armchair detective though. I’ll wait for the Netflix special (complete with composite characters and fake events).
  - jonny_eh 6y ago
    You don't have to be an idiot to be a batshit crazy conspiracy theorist.
- pjc50 6y ago
  A news organization is now reporting this hypothesis too: https://twitter.com/JFinleyreports/status/1343038998848090112?s=19 https://twitter.com/JFinleyreports/status/134303899884809011...
nine_k 6y ago
Maybe massive connectivity loss was the purpose. While something interesting was offline, maybe with security infrastructure disabled or weakened, likely at many places across the area, something interesting could have been done.
ksdjhfjkdhfsk 6y ago

mytailorisrich 6y ago

Targeting infrastructure can be terrorism as well, it does not require aiming at killing people. Terrorism is unlawfully using violence, especially against civilians, to achieve a political aim.

capableweb 6y ago
> Terrorism is unlawfully using violence, especially against civilians, to achieve a political aim. Important to note that there is not one single definition of "terrorism" that everyone agrees on. For some, "terrorism" is a label assigned to your opposing groups, for others it's about violence for political or religious purposes. If it's from another nation-state, it's usually not labeled terrorism, even if it's against civilians for political/religious purposes. Some groups are labeled "terrorists" even without any recorded history of violence, and so on. I'm not disagreeing with you, just adding that what "terrorism" is, is not as black-and-white as you put it.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  There is a general definition that you will find in dictionaries and that is generally accepted. So I think there is a definition that everyone agrees on when there are not pushing an agenda. Then there is the use of the term for rhetorical and political purposes... This is what obviously varies according to the interests of those using the term. Obviously the terrorists are always the 'other guys'. Note that the definition I gave, which is nothing more than the Oxford dictionary one, includes a crucial word, "unlawful". This is very important to differentiate between warfare and terrorism. A sovereign state uses violence for political aims, this is warfare and it is 'lawful' (it may be unlawful under international law, though). This is why action by nation-states are usually not labelled 'terrorism'.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    I agree fully with you, again! Just adding a bit more context as your previous comment seemed "sure" in that you're proclaiming "X is Y" while reality is not that black-and-white. Again, I agree with this and your previous comment.