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.
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!
Might want to recheck your math there
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.
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.
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.
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.
Um… that’s 10%, not 0.1%.
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.
Am I missing something? 320/3203 is more like 10%