I think they're implying that it's just your normal run-of-the-mill fucked up New Yorker blowing up a dumpster, not ISIS launching an offensive.
It's interesting how delicate the coverage is, given how hysterical the press normally is. The conspiracy theorist in me says the liberal media doesn't want to spook the electorate.
I wonder how much the recent Trump declaration of "let Crooked Hillary's Secret Service go unarmed and then see what happens" has to do with the kid gloves. This whole election cycle is just fucked right up.
The thing is, if you blow up a dumpster because you're pissed off at US imperialism or pissed off at the garbage man, it is terrorism. I get not wanting to excite the general population, but this is getting ridiculous. Remember the Orlando night club shooting? The guy called the police and said "Allah Akbar! I'm doing this for ISIS!" And our dumb ass in chief told us "Let's not jump to conclusions about his motivations."
Is there something significant about today? This is kind of buried with what is going on in NYC, but some guy stabbed 8 people at a mall in Minnesota tonight. "A suspect who attacked at least 8 at a St. Cloud shopping mall Saturday night was shot by an off-duty officer, according to St. Cloud police. The attacker referred to Allah during the attacks, the police chief said. " http://www.startribune.com/police-r...nce-at-crossroads-mall-in-st-cloud/393850931/
It's totally ridiculous. Somehow this country has arrived at the point where 'terrorism' is synonymous with 'foreign Islamist fundamentalist', so if the perpetrators of the attack don't fit that profile it doesn't count as terrorism. I have no idea how or why we got to this point, but here we are.
Why is the media having such a hard time calling this a bombing? What is the difference between an intentional blast or explosion and a bombing? What purpose does it serve to not call it a bomb?
I get the impression that the NY officials are going out of their way to not cause a panic. Maybe they had words with the main stream media to that effect.
First thing I'd do if I was an NYC investigator is have a little chat with whomever did that tiny explosion stunt in central park a while back. Could have been a test run for some bigger fireworks. Could also not have been, but never hurts to check under the obvious stones first.
You guys are venturing into tinfoil hat territory. The first two sources I checked, in about 30 seconds, referenced it as such. The article on NPR news quotes DeBlasio calling it a bombing. NBC news says it was a bomb. Seriously, what are you guys smoking these days?
I'll stand corrected on this, but I suspect that sometime after 9/11, the word "terrorism" must have got redefined in the courts. Probably a public official labelling an act terrorism has ramifications federally and for insurance purposes. It might be in the public interest to not have an event be called terrorism, because it would likely impact insurance claims, jurisdiction over investigation and certain security protocols.
You're all wrong. "Terrorism" has a political, economic, religious, or ideological motive behind the acts. School and workplace shootings, while they surely cause terror, are usually just some rampaging 20-something kid off his meds. Its not as if the school shooters are part of a larger school shooter network that is seeking to make a statement around the security of public high schools. Some guy goes and shoots a bunch of cops? Not really terrorism, just a shooting. Some guy associated with the Real IRA shoots a bunch of British police because he thinks he's fighting for an independent Ireland? Terrorism. Timothy McVeigh is another example. He was a far-right anti-government supporter, bombing the federal building in response to Waco and Ruby Ridge.
I'm sure since all the bombs were found in trash cans, Obama is furiously trying to spin this as environmental terrorism protesting global warming. ISIS has also claimed credit for the mall stabbings, but I'm sure it will be spun as either a deranged mental case or mall rage. Of course this is all assuming that Obama ever even addresses either case, which thus far, he hasn't.
In a perfect world, what would you like him to do? Should he immediately give a press conference, even though we as yet don't know who is responsible? Should he signal to foreign nations that you will amp up your military, even if it's not required, could risk tenuous peace agreements and is not in any way desired by the American people? Should he rally for tighter policing in these areas, even though that will have huge unintended consequences, most of them negatively affecting minorities? Should he give a banal press conference that says nothing and hence does none of these things, so that his detractors can bitch that he's soft on terrorism (despite killing more "terrorists" than Bush)? I'm actually impressed that - for once - the media and political reaction is somewhat restrained. Let's please get some facts before we report anything. Also, I'm sure ISIS is now in the habit of claiming every single murder committed against a non-Muslim is in their name. It doesn't make it true. And if you think Trump would have a better response...well, I don't know what to say. He would trigger a market crash by aping a bunch of racist nonsense, all the while never knowing who is actually responsible. Or, worse, he could send the military into whatever random nation he felt needed to be attacked in retribution. Or maybe he could declare martial law in New York state, and we can see how civil and peaceful life is with tanks on every street corner and an imposed curfew. Honest to Jesus, with problems as complex as terrorism, public safety, gun control, healthcare...what the fuck would you like ANY president to do that will have a meaningful, positive effect?
Here's an article about what is known, and unknown, so far: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/new-york-explosion-what-we-know-so-far/article31949498/ So a suspect was sought, found and apprehended after a shootout. The mayor and the governor have been in contact with the press and the president has received continuous briefings and will address the nation today. It sounds like the chain of command is doing what it's supposed to do.
That's what I'm thinking is happening here. The lawyers have got to everyone and said, "Be very careful what you label 'terrorism.' " It's like when Hillary refused to acknowledge for 18 months that she was running for president, not because she wasn't but because once she announced it she had to be at arm's length from the fundraising and super-pacs. Or how the US has defined "torture" very specifically, so that an act like water boarding is explicitly NOT mentioned. Now, anyone who has ever been water boarded will probably enthusiastically tell you that yes, that was torture, but from a legal standpoint it wasn't. It's mostly semantics and careful wording so that certain protocols aren't automatically enacted. IMO.
Hands up in the air, unarmed, not a threat whatsoever, not resisting, they kill him in cold blood anyway. No longer is the argument "Do what the police say and you won't get hurt" valid. Sometimes they just kill you anyways:
While this absolutely represents myopic tunnel vision, bad training and an inexplicable use of force, for the life of me...WHY would you not just stand still and do what the cops say? If they're telling you to get down and not move, why walk back to your car? Especially if you know they'll be on a hair trigger with you. It's a shame. It's bad for the police and the community. I have no idea how the States fixes this.
I'm pretty sure they didn't tell him "Put your hands up, turn away from us and walk towards your vehicle. Once you get to your vehicle drop your hands." Once again, he was not doing as he was instructed. It's not rocket science. Do what the officer says, not what you feel like doing. Also, why were there multiple units and a helicopter for a stalled vehicle? The original 911 call was "Somebody left their vehicle running in the middle of the street with their doors wide open," the caller said. "The doors are open, the vehicle is still running. It's an SUV. It's in the middle of the street, it's blocking traffic." Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/us/oklahoma-tulsa-police-shooting/index.html The guy was exhibiting bizarre behavior, which is going to put the police on edge in this climate of people shooting police. Then: "Shelby, who is white, was headed to a domestic violence call when she arrived first at the scene of Crutcher's stalled vehicle. Shelby told the dispatcher that "she's not having cooperation" from Crutcher" This is why there were multiple units and a helicopter. He was not complying. I don't think he should've been shot, but I placed equal blame for what happened on his actions as much as the officer that was (In my opinion) to quick on the trigger.
From the helicopter video (starts at 0:48) looks like he was reaching in his car. Not listening to orders, acting weird, reaching into vehicle, there's the reason he got shot. Now granted, she could have used a taser, but those can be deadly as well. That it turns out he didn't have a gun in the car is irrelevant. At that moment, the officer feared for her life. And she had a good reason too -- he was reaching into his car after disobeying orders to stand down. If he had grabbed a gun this wouldn't be a story. But he didn't, so it's getting play in the media and furthering the narrative of police brutality. Unfortunately for the dead guy, whether he had a gun or not in the car is irrelevant. Cops shouldn't have to wait until the firearm is pointed at them to pull the trigger. Either way, it's a sad story. But it's not the police brutality example the media is pushing.