Occupy Maine shaken by bomb blast

Thanks for putting words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort. And you could have saved us both some time if you had said up front that you didn't want to talk about the RW infatuation with violence.

 

And I don't want to talk about the abundance of left wing violence either because when it is all over, it is not connected to the lw/rw. 99.999% is just violence and you will never believe it.

BTW, I hope you enjoyed my words.

 

Well, we all know that the press has indeed covered this incident and this is a good thing. I would have felt rather badly as a former member of the print media if it had not covered it. I am surprised that the television media did not jump all over it as it loves to cover fires as they are so colorful and dramatic that they make for good television.

The vehicle that was seen in the area circling the encampment immediately before the attack was, according to the NY Times, a 4-door silver sedan. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ical_attack_explosive_liquid_thrown_at_c.html
It is possible that teens could have been driving it but that is typically not the kind of vehicle that most of them drive. It is more likely that the persons who did this were young adult males who were angry at the protesters for protesting in that location. The motivation for this incident was clear as witnesses in the area heard the passengers in car shouting the following words, "Get a job," and, "You communist."

I would hardly call this incident a "prank" as it could be assumed that any explosive thrown into a kitchen area with an open flame could kill or maim people. The fact that it is said to have only resulted in one known injury at present, the temporary hearing loss of one person who told the press that she experienced that problem, does not mitigate the seriousness of the offense as the intent to do harm was clearly evident.

At the conclusion of that NY Times article it was stated that another bomb was also set off in Portland that night too and that because of police believe that Maine's protesters were not the only ones targeted. So much, again, for the thought that this was just a bunch of disorganized teenagers or a "prank."

Given the way the laws are now written, this would indeed be considered to be an act of domestic terrorism as well as perhaps a hate crime. There would be heavy charges for something like this as it could have injured or killed people.

I dislike any violence and especially violence against people who are trying to be like gandi and Martin Luther King in their non violence. It is frankly barbaric and that barbarism would be the same in my eyes whether or not those who did this were Conservative or Liberal/ Democrat or Republican (and by the way they are not the same thing as there are many Conservative Democrats just as there are many Liberal Republicans).

I am hoping that these people get caught as I fear that they will attempt more acts of violence. If those in the silver 4-door sedan were indeed responsible for the attack on these people, it is clear that they have already slipped into the sad rhelm of those who define those who have different beliefs as the horrible "other", the ones "not like us" who must be taught a lessen, injured or killed to make them change. (rather than seeing those who have divergent beliefs as brothers and sisters, members of the same family who are entitled to their own opinions.)

Unfortunately talk radio announcers and some news opinion announcers often do their best to instill anger in their audiences as they are trying their hardest to destabilize their audiences so that they will hold on until the next commercials and be more likely to cave to the advertisers. As one of my friends, a radio station engineer, told me, "Advertising works best when people are not aware that there is advertising and also when they believe that advertising is not powerful over them." The advertisers support most the announcers who are capable of bring them increased profits. Those who foster the most anger and immoral outrage often are well rewarded for their efforts but they harm their listeners by elevating their blood pressure causing undue stress on the heart; ruining their relationships even with members of their own family and their friends and associates who happen to have differing views of reality, and yes, even at times fanning the flames of hatred enough to cause violence. I have no proof that one of these television or radio shows influenced those who committed this act of terrorism but do believe that it is highly possible.

 

Interesting, but the police disagree with you conclusions;

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20124833/chemical-bomb-thrown-at-occupy-maine-camp/

 

I'd like to know who in the right wing is saying that "if they would get jobs like decent people, they wouldn't be targets for stuff like this". Please reference this comment.

 

More importantly, when you have Fox droning on and on about the supposed violence by the OWS protesters, you create people that feel justified in committing violence against the protesters. I guess we have reached the point when those against the protesters have begun to fight them. Look out winning, here they come.

 

Throwing a chemical bomb is easily defined as terrorism. Not even a stretch. People have been convicted of terrorism for far less.

 

OK, so that I may understand your logic a little better, please allow me a moment to bury my head in the sand...

There... now I'm ready.

If a kid at school throws a stink bomb, you would define it as an "act of terrorism". After all a stink bomb is simply household matches containing the chemicals phosphorous sesquisulfide and potassium chlorate. Mix those with ammonia and you have a stink bomb.

I still don't understand why you don't wait until the facts are presented in a case before you jump to conclusions. You're really bad about doing that. Why don't we wait until we find out the facts on whether or not this was a prank or an act of terrorism? Does that not make sense to you?

 

No reason to take my opinion or yours. Lets just go straight to the law's definition.

UNITED STATES CODE: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331

The term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended—
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002331----000-.html

 

Regardless of what one thinks the motive might have been this was a seriouse attack the fact remains that someone threw a container of explosive liquid that could have resulted in a fatality now that is somewhat different to the school kid tossing a stink bomb.
This device was thrown into a kitchen area what do they use to cook with? more than likely bottled gas also present would be cooking oil and other flamable objects
If this had happend at a mainstream political event (left or right) then it would have been proclaimed from the roof tops as Domestic terrorism as it stands it should be viewed as nothing less than attempted murder

 

We have one of the members of this forum proclaiming its "domestic terrorism" and another proclaiming its "attempted murder". Let's find out the facts before making a judgment.

 

I'm so peeved that all those little, stink-bomb-throwing rapscallions aren't rotting in jail right now. I hope the warden takes away their Kool-Aid boxes and won't let them have peanut-butter-and-jelly sandwiches for a year.

 

You have got to be kidding me.

What part of throwing an exploding bomb into a crowd doesn't seem like an intent to do harm.



If you think that throwing something like this into a crowd of people isn't a serious crime then you should see a psychiatrist because you have some real issues.

What possible fact would make this NOT a serious crime?

 

There is a big difference between a stink bomb and a Drano bomb which throws toxic lye, shrapnel and concussive force into a crowd. Do you honestly think this is not a serious issue?

 

Really? Is that what the bottle looked like? Do you have evidence of that? Are you on the forensic team investigating this incident? If so, can you tell us exactly what chemicals were in the bottle? Please tell us the amount of each chemical. Or, if it's still under investigation, I understand that you can't release that information yet.

 

Did I ever say it WASN'T a serious issue? No, I'm simply saying that one should not jump to conclusions without facts.

 

How interesting. You demean me for my southern education and then you quote my school to prove your point!

Problem with all you logic is that you have absolutely no proof that anything "(B) appear to be intended—" except in you mind.

 

I don't have to be on the investigation team. This detail is everywhere and the instructions for how to make these bombs is all over the Internet.

BTW if you want the component list look it up yourself. I am not going to spread the details of a device designed for violence.

 

When you advocated burning down the Wisconsin State House, would doing so have been termed "domestic terrorism"?

 

You mean the fact that throwing a bomb into a crowd is a deliberate act designed to bring harm. What fact could possible mitigate that fact? Did somebody accidentally make a bomb, put in their car, drive to a meeting and accidentally throw it into a crowd. Any other stream of actions makes it an attempt to hurt people.