Explosion in NYC: No Casualties Reported

[DrClaude]

There has been an explosion in NYC. Thankfully, it appears no one has been killed.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/09/17/us/new-york-explosion/

 

[Drakkith]

Thank god no one was killed!

 

[Astronuc]

Initially, there was no clear indication of a 'terrorist' act, although the bombing was considered an intentional or deliberate act. This weekend, evidence suggested a link between the explosion in Chelsea and another in Seaside Park, New Jersey.

On Sunday, five explosive devices were discovered at an Elizabeth, New Jersey train station. One of five devices found at the train station exploded while a bomb squad robot attempted to disarm it. No one was injured.

FBI and police are now finding an apparent connection to foreign influence.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/authorities-probe-ties-between-blasts-devices-two-states-060032685.html

Police and FBI are searching for Ahmad Khan Rahami, a 28-year old naturalized U.S. citizen from Afghanistan with an address in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Police consider him to be armed and dangerous.

 

[berkeman]

Looks like they found him and were able to take him alive (despite two officers being injured by gunfire)...

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...sey-blasts-manhunt-suspect-ahmad-khan-rahami/

 

[mheslep]

Initially, there was no clear indication of a 'terrorist' act, although the bombing was considered an intentional or deliberate act.

How does a bombing have no indication as a terrorist act? Do you mean there was no initial indication of a foreign connection?

 

[russ_watters]

How does a bombing have no indication as a terrorist act? Do you mean there was no initial indication of a foreign connection?

While somewhat rare, it does happen; Columbine comes to mind. Not every [attempted] mass murder is terrorism.

 

[Astronuc]

How does a bombing have no indication as a terrorist act?

Yes - other than the conclusion that the act was deliberate, it was not initially clear that it was a terrorist act. It could have been an act of retaliation or an intentional act to maim or cause death for some unknown reason.

Do you mean there was no initial indication of a foreign connection?

Correct. It was not clear that the perpetrator was domestic or that there was foreign influence.

A number of years ago, in Dutchess County, NY, there were several mailbox bombings. Eventually, a group of teenagers was identified. At the same time, a wooden cross was burned in the front yard of an African-American family, and there was a separate incident of Swastika symbols painted on at least one business reportedly owned by a Jewish family. They were not necessarily treated as acts of terrorism, although that's how the victims perceived it, and many of us in the community were alarmed that certain families/people were targeted. The teenagers behind the cross burning did it as a prank, and apparently indicated they did not understand the significance of their act, which is hard to fathom.

Members of the community established a community roundtable comprised of civic leaders to address the matter.

 

[kyphysics]

Anyone want to venture a guess as to how this affects the elections?

Does Trump get a bump from terrorist-phobes?

Does Hillary get a bump from showing a calm and cool head vs. Trump coming out and declaring stuff without all the facts in?

 

[nsaspook]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/file/894396/download

Federal charges.

 

[StatGuy2000]

The question of whether the bombing is a terrorist act or not hinges on what definition you are using for terrorism.

The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

Both definitions share the theme of the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/pages/welcome.aspx

So the issue is the intent, rather than the method.

That's why hate crimes of the sort that Astronuc described targeting African Americans and Jews can be considered as acts of terrorism, since the perpetrators were committing these actions to instigate a specific social goal (namely, the harassment or oppression of African Americans and Jews).

Now investigators will need to determine whether the actions of Ahmad Khan Rahami were motivated to commit those bombings by specific political/social goals (e.g. whether he was motivated to commit those bombs by commitment to Islamic extremism and jihad, whether he had contacts/connections to ISIS or Al-Qaeda, etc.), or whether his motives were different. Certainly his actions are suggestive of an act of terrorism, but one should be careful of speculating without knowing more of the facts.

 

[mheslep]

Does Hillary get a bump from showing a calm and cool head ...

Clinton's pitch IMO is the *appearance* of calm and cool via the spin that there's nothing really going on in the US; that these attacks are just so much harmless noise, nothing is going to hurt you, which I think is what many people want one hear. Actual calm and cool would be to confront problems leading to violent attacks and address them, regardless of what people would like to think. Giuliani's press conferences immediately following 911 are the archetype.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Clinton's pitch IMO is the *appearance* of calm and cool via the spin that there's nothing really going on in the US; that these attacks are just so much harmless noise, nothing is going to hurt you, which I think is what many people want one hear. Actual calm and cool would be to confront problems leading to violent attacks and address them, regardless of what people would like to think. Giuliani's press conferences immediately following 911 are the archetype.

mheslep, I'm afraid you're expressing your right-wing bias here regarding Clinton. Since when has Clinton ever specifically said that there is nothing really going on in the US, that these attacks are harmless noise? The fact that (at least from the news reports I've been hearing) Clinton is not immediately jumping to conclusions should be viewed as a positive.

(I do agree with you about Giuliani's press conferences immediately following 911, as well as his overall conduct as mayor during the immediate aftermath of the attack.)

 

[russ_watters]

mheslep, I'm afraid you're expressing your right-wing bias here regarding Clinton. Since when has Clinton ever specifically said that there is nothing really going on in the US, that these attacks are harmless noise? The fact that (at least from the news reports I've been hearing) Clinton is not immediately jumping to conclusions should be viewed as a positive.

(I do agree with you about Giuliani's press conferences immediately following 911, as well as his overall conduct as mayor during the immediate aftermath of the attack.)

We're talking about perceptions here, not direct statements. Do you agree with kyphysics's statement that Hillary portrayed a "calm and cool head"? Do you agree that Trump overhypes problems? Do you agree that an incumbent party's representative would be shooting him/erself in the foot by overhyping problems that she/they should have already dealt with?

Add those realities together and the calmness disparity works against her, not for her. I mean, this is the whole point of how Trump got here, right?!

Hillary is doing a better job recently of addressing terrorism in her speeches than Obama in my opinion, but she is still trapped by her ties to him and her own past sins (Benghazi).

 

[StatGuy2000]

We're talking about perceptions here, not direct statements. Do you agree with kyphysics's statement that Hillary portrayed a "calm and cool head"? Do you agree that Trump overhypes problems? Do you agree that an incumbent party's representative would be shooting him/erself in the foot by overhyping problems that she/they should have already dealt with?

Add those realities together and the calmness disparity works against her, not for her. I mean, this is the whole point of how Trump got here, right?!

Hillary is doing a better job recently of addressing terrorism in her speeches than Obama in my opinion, but she is still trapped by her ties to him and her own past sins (Benghazi).

Let me address each of these points as follows:

1. Yes, I agree with kyphysics's statement that Hillary portrayed a "calm and cool head", a characteristic which isn't foreign to her.

2. Yes, I broadly agree that Trump overhypes problems. However Trump he does far more than this -- he lies about problems that are either non-existent (e.g. the whole "birther" controversy regarding Obama's birth certificate, amongst many others) and generally resorts to scapegoating and demagoguery among a host of others.

3. If we're talking about perceptions, then yes I agree that an incumbent party's representative would be hurting their own credibility by exaggerating problems that they should have supposedly dealt with (although I have seen plenty of politicians, both Democratic and Republican have done this over the decades that I've observed American politics).

4. Clinton's problem, as far as I see it, has nothing to do with her calm and cool demeanor (which is actually a plus) but a perception that she is dishonest and untrustworthy, a perception which is somewhat unfair (as many of the accusations against Clinton are without factual basis, with Benghazi being the best example), but not entirely unwarranted (the controversies regarding the e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation feed into that perception).

5. Trump's ability to win the Republican presidential nomination is due, in large part, to his ability to (a) tap into a sense of anger among a significant percentage of the electorate who feel that the American political system and the mainstream political parties (both Republican and Democrat) have failed to represent them, and (b) appeal to the darker forces of xenophobia and intolerance that exists within the American populace.

 

[mheslep]

...

4. Clinton's problem, as far as I see it, has nothing to do with her calm and cool demeanor (which is actually a plus) but a perception that she is dishonest and untrustworthy, a perception which is somewhat unfair (as many of the accusations against Clinton are without factual basis, with Benghazi being the best example), but not entirely unwarranted (the controversies regarding the e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation feed into that perception).

It is not the FBI "controversy" that creates the perception, it is the Clinton lie about absolution from the FBI.

Politifac's
"All False statements involving Hillary Clinton"
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

The bull about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia is not included on their list, but it's on mine.

5. Trump's ability to win the Republican presidential nomination is due, in large part, to his ability to (a) tap into a sense of anger among a significant percentage of the electorate who feel that the American political system and the mainstream political parties (both Republican and Democrat) have failed to represent them, ...

There's always anger born of dissatisfaction swirling around elections. IMO, Trump's success stems from persuading people that he can actually break up the establishment, an ability enabled by being an outsider, a non-politician, and a clear refusal to speak in the bland manner of establishment politicians.

 

[StatGuy2000]

It is not the FBI "controversy" that creates the perception, it is the Clinton lie about absolution from the FBI.

Politifac's
"All False statements involving Hillary Clinton"
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/

The bull about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia is not included on their list, but it's on mine.

I said that the issues regarding the e-mail server feeds into the perception that Clinton is untrustworthy (i.e. it reinforces opinions people already have that Clinton is untrustworthy), not that the e-mail server issue creates the perception. Subtle difference. The bottom line is that Clinton there is some justification to some of the charges levelled against her. However, if I have to assess her qualifications in totality, she is still the best qualified candidate running, and I will be voting for her for this election (in fact, I've already filed my absentee ballot already).

There's always anger born of dissatisfaction swirling around elections. IMO, Trump's success stems from persuading people that he can actually break up the establishment, an ability enabled by being an outsider, a non-politician, and a clear refusal to speak in the bland manner of establishment politicians.

I think we're both stating the same thing -- that he's tapping into the anger that exists in the electorate and convince people that he can break up the "establishment" (which of course he can't, at least based on what he's promised).

And you are right -- he doesn't speak like an "establishment" politician. He speaks like a populist demagogue, and populist demagogues have generally proved to be disasters (Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, of whom Trump resembles, is a great recent example).

 

[russ_watters]

4. Clinton's problem, as far as I see it, has nothing to do with her calm and cool demeanor (which is actually a plus) but a perception that she is dishonest and untrustworthy, a perception which is somewhat unfair (as many of the accusations against Clinton are without factual basis, with Benghazi being the best example), but not entirely unwarranted (the controversies regarding the e-mail server and the Clinton Foundation feed into that perception).

You just agreed with every step of the logic and then when you got to the conclusion, jumped to a completely different topic instead of finishing with the conclusion. Yes, Clinton's dishonesty perception is a problem, but it is a different problem from the one we were discussing. Back on topic: The logic we just went through demonstrates how/why "calmness" can be a problem for her. Right? If you still disagree, tell me where in the line of logic you need to change a "yest" to a "no"! (major caveat being that as @Vanadium50 said in another thread, the same message can have different effects on different audiences)

Regarding Benghazi, it hasn't gotten a ton of press because it was swamped by email stuff, but Hillary's email scandal (which grew from the Benghazi investigation) did indeed demonstrate that the primary complaints of the Republicans were accurate, and both relate to the topic we were discussing:
1. Hillary's state department ignored repeated requests for additional security and even reduced security not long before the attack. The security situation was an obvious problem that her department exacerbated. There is no other way to take that than she/her department didn't take the threat seriously enough.
2. The Obama administration crafted and forwarded a narrative of a motive/events they knew to be false (again, downplaying the terrorism aspect). Hillary emails from while the attack was underway confirmed that she was clear that it was a self-contained terrorist attack and there never was any demonstration for the attack to grow from.

The only explanation that makes any sense for why he/she did these things is that it was 2 months before his re-election and Obama needed to downplay the terrorism risk to boost his poll numbers. That is following Clinton here.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/28/final-benghazi-report-blames-clinton-disregarding-witnesses/

 

[mheslep]

...
And you are right -- he doesn't speak like an "establishment" politician. He speaks like a populist demagogue, and populist demagogues have generally proved to be disasters (Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, of whom Trump resembles, is a great recent example).

The demagogue tally goes to Clinton if I'm counting, populist to Trump. Take another look at the some of the False cases in the Politifac list. I don't mean the deception but the demagoguery present in claims like "vast right wing conspiracy", and to announce in a debate that "Republicans" were the enemy she was most proud to have. Not Bin Laden. Not even Assad who she said "must go". Republicans.

 

[StatGuy2000]

You just agreed with every step of the logic and then when you got to the conclusion, jumped to a completely different topic instead of finishing with the conclusion. Yes, Clinton's dishonesty perception is a problem, but it is a different problem from the one we were discussing. Back on topic: The logic we just went through demonstrates how/why "calmness" can be a problem for her. Right? If you still disagree, tell me where in the line of logic you need to change a "yest" to a "no"! (major caveat being that as @Vanadium50 said in another thread, the same message can have different effects on different audiences)

I don't disagree with the logic of why "calmness" can be a problem for some voters (while at the same time it could also be interpreted by other voters as a strength -- in essence following Vanadium 50's logic). What I'm asserting is that, from the reading I'm getting, that it isn't the main problem with Clinton as a candidate.

Regarding Benghazi, it hasn't gotten a ton of press because it was swamped by email stuff, but Hillary's email scandal (which grew from the Benghazi investigation) did indeed demonstrate that the primary complaints of the Republicans were accurate, and both relate to the topic we were discussing:
1. Hillary's state department ignored repeated requests for additional security and even reduced security not long before the attack. The security situation was an obvious problem that her department exacerbated. There is no other way to take that than she/her department didn't take the threat seriously enough.
2. The Obama administration crafted and forwarded a narrative of a motive/events they knew to be false (again, downplaying the terrorism aspect). Hillary emails from while the attack was underway confirmed that she was clear that it was a self-contained terrorist attack and there never was any demonstration for the attack to grow from.

The only explanation that makes any sense for why he/she did these things is that it was 2 months before his re-election and Obama needed to downplay the terrorism risk to boost his poll numbers. That is following Clinton here.
http://nypost.com/2016/06/28/final-benghazi-report-blames-clinton-disregarding-witnesses/

Among the most extreme accusations levelled against Clinton allege that the death of diplomat Chris Stevens can be blamed on her as Secretary of State because (I have heard rhetoric stating that Clinton has "blood on her hands"). And it is troubling why mid-ranking officials at the State Department declined requests for more security, but it is always easy to look in retrospect on what should have been done, when at the time, these officials may well have assessed (wrongly, as it turns out) that the security situation in Libya was stable enough that security was sufficient. And there is no specific evidence that Clinton herself can be implicated in any way.

Ultimately, does any of this ultimately matter? Probably not, since those who distrust Clinton will find reasons to do so irrespective of the reports of Benghazi. And her actions, IMHO there only indicate that she's fallible, not unqualified for higher office.

At any rate, here is an article on the Economist discussing the House committee findings on Benghazi:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/06/bitter-end

 

[Astronuc]

I heard (on NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, 5 minutes, 20 seconds into the program) that the bomber, Rahami, used his own personal smart (cell) phone as a triggering device for one of the bombs (the one in the pressure cooker that didn't explode). Police used it to quickly identify the suspect. The phone also include selfies and other evidence.

The two men found a travel bag in Chelsea in which a bomb (unexploded one above) had been placed. They removed the bomb and took (stole?) the bag. In removing the bomb, they jostled it and apparently inadvertently disarmed it!
Sept 28 - 2 Men Who Found Unexploded Bomb in Chelsea Are Identified
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/n...-in-travel-bag-in-chelsea-are-identified.html
Sept 23 - Hunt Continues for 2 Men Who Found Suitcase Containing Bomb in Chelsea
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/n...ound-suitcase-containing-bomb-in-chelsea.html

Pretty strange developments.

 

[russ_watters]

What I'm asserting is that, from the reading I'm getting, that it isn't the main problem with Clinton as a candidate.

I certainly agree with that. Here's a poll that says that her biggest character problem is the dishonesty thing:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...hate-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump/487418/

Note, the poll was about character issues, not political issues, so "doesn't take terrorism seriously" is not on the list. But I would agree with you that even if issues were on the list, that one wouldn't be on top.

Among the most extreme accusations levelled against Clinton allege that the death of diplomat Chris Stevens can be blamed on her as Secretary of State because (I have heard rhetoric stating that Clinton has "blood on her hands"). And it is troubling why mid-ranking officials at the State Department declined requests for more security, but it is always easy to look in retrospect on what should have been done, when at the time, these officials may well have assessed (wrongly, as it turns out) that the security situation in Libya was stable enough that security was sufficient.

So...I'm not sure why you think the accusation is extreme given what you say after it -- which I agree with. But if the "mid-ranking officials" part was key:

And there is no specific evidence that Clinton herself can be implicated in any way.

I'm sure the CEO of Wells Fargo had hoped he could sell that too. But unfortunately for him and her, being in charge means being responsible.

Ultimately, does any of this ultimately matter? Probably not, since those who distrust Clinton will find reasons to do so irrespective of the reports of Benghazi.

I don't really think that's true except in a narrow sense that Hillary has a broad body of work in this regard, so that's just one piece. But that is a fairly recent and significant piece of that body of work. And does it matter in the more direct sense? Yeah, I think it matters a lot that Hillary is willing to downplay security risks to the point where it gets people killed, if it serves her politically. And, of course, it may matter enough that she only ends up with 44% of the vote!

And her actions, IMHO there only indicate that she's fallible, not unqualified for higher office.

Of course. The following is a list of qualifications required for being President:
1. [this space intentionally left blank]
End of list.

She's completely qualified.

At any rate, here is an article on the Economist discussing the House committee findings on Benghazi:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2016/06/bitter-end

I hadn't seen this one before, from that article:

Since the report’s publication some conservative pundits have seized on its stories of tragic squabbling and dithering, including an account of how a team of Marines from a Fleet Anti-terrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in an American airbase in southern Spain for three hours and changed in and out of their uniforms four times, while the Americans in Libya were under attack. This was the result of a disagreement between Pentagon and State Department officials about whether it would be provocative for the FAST team to arrive in Libya in American uniforms, with State preferring plain clothes.

The Republican report claims, plausibly, that the idea of Americans in uniform flying into Libya amounted to an image problem for a government that had assured the public that there would be no “boots on the ground” in that country.

Even the liberal "Economist" calls it "plausible" that Hillary's State Dept (presumably her, directly) worried more about the administration's image than fulfilling their duty to their soldiers/citizens. Lots of other bad stuff in the article, but that one's the worst because in the middle of an attack, politics should be put on hold. If she can't put politics on hold to do her job in the middle of an attack, can there be any scenario where doing her job would take precedence over protecting her image?

 

[StatGuy2000]

I'm sure the CEO of Wells Fargo had hoped he could sell that too. But unfortunately for him and her, being in charge means being responsible.

I certainly agree that the CEO of Wells Fargo is responsible for Wells Fargo, and needs to be held to account for criminal activities that take place under the company's name. Of course, the circumstance of Clinton as Secretary of State is different because she is not actually in charge -- Obama as President is. Clinton was a senior administrator, but ultimately all decisions carried on under the State Department occur under the President's watch. To what extent should Clinton be held to account for decisions made by Obama is a worthy debate (but which I won't get into, as that is worthy of a whole another thread).

I don't really think that's true except in a narrow sense that Hillary has a broad body of work in this regard, so that's just one piece. But that is a fairly recent and significant piece of that body of work. And does it matter in the more direct sense? Yeah, I think it matters a lot that Hillary is willing to downplay security risks to the point where it gets people killed, if it serves her politically. And, of course, it may matter enough that she only ends up with 44% of the vote!

Even the liberal "Economist" calls it "plausible" that Hillary's State Dept (presumably her, directly) worried more about the administration's image than fulfilling their duty to their soldiers/citizens. Lots of other bad stuff in the article, but that one's the worst because in the middle of an attack, politics should be put on hold. If she can't put politics on hold to do her job in the middle of an attack, can there be any scenario where doing her job would take precedence over protecting her image?

Look russ, if you're arguing that Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate, you'll get no argument from me. If I had my preference, we would have had a different Democratic Presidential candidate (Bernie Sanders, even Martin O'Malley or Lawrence Lessig). Likewise, if I had my preference, we would have had a different Republican Presidential candidate (John Kasich would have been my top choice, with Marco Rubbio or even Rand Paul being my second choice, basically anyone other than Trump).

Unfortunately, we have the candidates we have, and if it comes down to the choice, of who is the least worst candidate of the two on all of the issues (including issues of security/terrorism), with all of their baggage they carry, Clinton is without doubt the best pick for the presidency.

(Please note: I am deliberately ignoring third party candidates such as Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, since with the US political system as it currently exists, these 2 stand zero chance of actually winning, so frankly voting for these two are tantamount to wasting your vote).