Wave of terror attacks?

In light of the fire and then explosion at the fertiliser plant in West, TX

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/fertilizer-plant-just-exploded-waco-texas/64337/

I'm wondering whether this is not part of a wave of right-wing domestic terror attacks.

You had the Boston bombings on April 15th, tax day. And then the following day, the ricin letters sent to President Obama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_ricin_attacks

And then a fire causing a huge explosion a day before the 20th anniversary of the violent end branch Davidian Waco siege in 1993, only a few miles north of the compound.

The Waco siege was itself the event that prompted/provoked the OKC bombings in 1995, and was (and remains) a huge issue of resentment in far-right circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

The FBI says that they don't know of any link between the ricin poisoned letters and the Boston bombings, but considering it's been about a decade since the last ricin poison letter to a politician, and over a decade since the last terrorist attack on the US mainland, it doesn't seem illogical to question whether there is a link between the two.

Adding in the explosion in West, TX it does seem like there's been an extraordinary wave of attacks / possible attacks in the space of three days.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1

Three Mile Sprint

14

Im going to wait until more information comes to light before making any judgments here.

I don't think there is enough to connect any of this yet.

Reply 2

miser

20

It's easy to see patterns when we look for them, but who knows what's caused these events. I think it's more likely that they occurred independently - for them all to have been perpetrated by the same group would have required exceptional planning, commitment, financing and organisation. It's still possible, but we'll find out soon enough.

Reply 3

Drewski

19

A fertilizer factory is a bomb making factory, essentially. While it's too early to really speculate on anything I'd be surprised if that was anything more than a massive accident.

The guy sending the ricin is just plain stupid. Stupid criminals are not something to be sweated.

Reply 4

Rascacielos

19

So far I've heard them say that there is no link between the Boston bombings and the fertiliser plant explosion, and no link between the letters and the Boston bombings. I haven't heard anything about a link between the letters and the fertiliser plant explosion - although I'm guessing they've ruled that out (for the moment) because they don't think the fertiliser plant explosion was a terrorist attack. How they can tell that 'for sure' in the space of about 12 hours, I don't know. I think we should wait for more information to come to light - although I am feeling cynical today, so my subconscious is saying that there is a link. :holmes:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 5

AlexandrTheGreat

OP

How they can tell that 'for sure' in the space of about 12 hours, I don't know. I think we should wait for more information to come to light - although I am feeling cynical today, so my subconscious is saying that there is a link.

Well said.

It's also asinine for all these people to be saying, "There's clearly no link".

There was no clear link between the first and the second plane crashes into the WTC on 9/11, and yet much could be inferred from the fact they occurred so close together.

The fact that there has been no ricin attack for a decade, no bomb attack in the US for a decade and a half, the fact that this is the 20th anniversary of the Waco Siege, is more than enough to say it's possible there's a link.

Besides, most these people weren't even aware of the Waco Siege as a historical fact, let alone the circumstances of the OKC bombing in 1995.

Reply 6

zeropoint

13

Possible but improbable.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 7

Kiss

2

I think the Texas incident was merely an accident waiting to happen. But until more facts come out I can't judge fully.

Reply 8

AlexandrTheGreat

OP

Original post by zeropoint

To borrow from Isaac Asimov: There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

Clearly. But I have a strong suspicion that half the people on here saying, "We just don't know" we be saying, "It's clearly X" if the media told them so.

Just like people did on 9/11. On 9/11, it was reasonable to infer that a second plane crash meant that this was a terrorist attack. It was reasonable to infer based on historical data that Bin Laden was responsible.

Equally, here it's reasonable to infer that there's a possibility, considering the extreme historical rarity of these types of events and the historical link in the history of US domestic terrorism to the date April 19th and the city of Waco, that there is some link.

I suppose it does require a slightly greater degree of knowledge of recent US history to have an instinct and a hunch about these things.

Reply 9

AlexandrTheGreat

OP

Original post by zeropoint

Possible but improbable.

Why improbable? You're speculating far beyond what you know, considering you don't know what actually happened. Especially as all three events are extremely improbable in and of themselves, being part of an orchestrated attack actually is more probable than coincidence, if you understand probability.

Clearly your own personal bias is clouding your judgement. As you say, not enough data to make a judgement.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 10

the mezzil

3

Original post by AlexandrTheGreat

Why improbable? You're speculating far beyond what you know, considering you don't know what actually happened. Especially as all three events are extremely improbable in and of themselves, being part of an orchestrated attack actually is more probable than coincidence, if you understand probability.

Clearly your own personal bias is clouding your judgement. As you say, not enough data to make a judgement.

Then why are YOU making a judgement if you say there is not enough data to do so?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 11

zeropoint

13

Original post by AlexandrTheGreat

Why improbable? You're speculating far beyond what you know, considering you don't know what actually happened. Especially as all three events are extremely improbable in and of themselves, being part of an orchestrated attack actually is more probable than coincidence, if you understand probability.

Clearly your own personal bias is clouding your judgement. As you say, not enough data to make a judgement.

I initially said that there was not enough data for a meaningful answer, and while that is true, I don't think its the most reasonable thing I could say.

I'm sure you're aware that it is human nature to search out for patterns in the world, even when these patterns are just the result of random events.

As you say, each event is improbable by itself, but the fact they occurred in a short time with each other does not then require they are related.

Reply 12

SnoochToTheBooch

17

based on hardly any information I'm putting my money on it not being terror related

Reply 13

AlexandrTheGreat

OP

Original post by the mezzil

Then why are YOU making a judgement if you say there is not enough data to do so?

Posted from TSR Mobile

You seem to be confused. You should re-read my posts.

Reply 14

AlexandrTheGreat

OP

Original post by zeropoint

As you say, each event is improbable by itself, but the fact they occurred in a short time with each other does not then require they are related.

Well, it depends on what basis you're calculating that.

What do you think would be more likely? That four airliners would randomly and accidentally crash into buildings on the one day, or that a terrorist plot would cause four airliners to crash into buildings in one day?

The involvement of human agency driving one of the options as opposed to blind chance in the other, means that the likelihood is not equal.

Having regard to the historical and geographic context, quite a few people were able to say on 9/11 that they were reasonably sure that it's Bin Laden.

Now, I'm not saying that all these three incidents are linked, I'm simply saying that it's not unlikely, and in the absence of facts, such an analysis seems more valid than claiming it must be coincidence for reasons that you aren't really able to articulate.

Edit: Respectable publications are making the obvious link to the Waco siege and the OKC bombing, not just because it's the 20th anniversary of Waco, but because it occurred close to Waco, because the OKC bombing, which was a fertiliser bomb and done as revenge for the Waco Siege etc. Anyone reasonably aware of recent American history, as this New Yorker journalist and the locals are, would immediately make this connection.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/04/a-fertilizer-plant-explodes-near-waco.html

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 15

Rascacielos

19

I thought I just heard on the news that they're now treating the fertiliser plant explosion as a crime scene... Not sure whether that's just precautionary until they have more evidence though.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 16

Dragonfly07

18

It seems like a silly connection to make. I don't think the fertiliser fire was an act of terror. I don't think it was related to the Boston bombing either.

Reply 17

Drewski

19

Original post by Rascacielos

I thought I just heard on the news that they're now treating the fertiliser plant explosion as a crime scene... Not sure whether that's just precautionary until they have more evidence though.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Police on the scene have said

"the blast site was being treated as a crime scene, but that this was procedural and that there were no indications this was anything other than an accidental fire"

Reply 18

scrotgrot

16

So that's why the Machine Head song (1994) is called "Davidian"!!

Reply 19

gateshipone

10

Original post by AlexandrTheGreat

What do you think would be more likely? That four airliners would randomly and accidentally crash into buildings on the one day, or that a terrorist plot would cause four airliners to crash into buildings in one day?

Those were all similar events so it's much easier to point to a link between them.

The events discussed in this thread are very different to each other. One is a small IED designed to kill and injure civilians, one is a chemical attack on politicians (by an idiot who thinks the President opens his own mail!) and one is a massive explosion in a factory very far from the other 2 and doesn't seem to have a specific target in mind.

While of course there is a possibility that the are linked, it's not very likely at all that a terrorist plot would involve 3 different delivery methods over a very wide area. 9/11 was very localised and involved a single executable plan and had a very clear goal.

Wave of terror attacks?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you