People have forgotten that in 1972 we had over 1,900 bombings in the United States

[Axulus]

This was really shocking to learn, I never would have guessed:

In his book Days of Rage, Bryan Burrough writes,

Imagine if this happened today: Hundreds of young Americans — white, black, and Hispanic — disappear from their everyday lives and secretly form urban guerrilla groups. Dedicated to confronting the government and righting society’s wrongs, they smuggle bombs into skyscrapers and federal buildings and detonate them from coast to coast. They strike inside the Pentagon, inside the U.S. Capitol, at a courthouse in Boston, at dozens of multinational corporations, at a Wall Street restaurant packed with lunchtime diners. People die. They rob banks, dozens of them, launch raids on National Guard arsenals, and assassinate policemen, in New York, in San Francisco, in Atlanta. There are deadly shoot-outs and daring jailbreaks, illegal government break-ins and a scandal in Washington....

In fact, the most startling thing about the 1970s-era underground is how thoroughly it has been forgotten. “People always ask why I did what I did, and I tell them I was a soldier in a war,” recalls a heralded black militant named Sekou Odinga, who remained underground from 1969 until his capture in 1981. “And they always say, ‘What war?’”...

“People have completely forgotten that in 1972 we had over nineteen hundred domestic bombings in the United States,” notes a retired FBI agent, Max Noel. “People don’t want to listen to that. They can’t believe it. One bombing now and everyone gets excited. In 1972? It was every day. Buildings getting bombed, policemen getting killed. It was commonplace.”

The blog writer offers this interesting insight on why so many people seem so fearful these days:

Why do so many people today — including the newly elected President — believe that the social fabric is more seriously frayed now than at any point since the Civil War? To some extent we must blame the historical ignorance with which Americans are congenitally afflicted. But I lived through the period that Burrough describes, though I was young, and while I remember many of the events he describes I also remember not being alarmed by them; nor did I know anyone who was. People were concerned, to be sure, and saddened, and puzzled, but not alarmed.

And yet on social media today everyone is in a state of high alarm all the time. Which leads me to something I didn’t mention explicitly in my year in technology post: my efforts to get onto a longer news frequency.

Those who are interested in history will remember events like the Battle of New Orleans, fought weeks after the Treaty of Ghent had ended the War of 1812 because word of the treaty hadn’t reached the armies. Since then, thanks to a series of well-known technological changes, the news cycle has grown shorter and shorter until now many people get their news minute-by-minute.

If the frequency that led to the Battle of New Orleans was too long, the Twitter-cycle is far, far too short. People regularly get freaked out by stories than turn out to be false, and by the time the facts are known a good deal of damage (not least to personal relationships) has often already been done — plus, the disappearance of the cause of an emotion doesn’t automatically eliminate the emotion itself. In fact, it often leaves that emotion in search of new justifications for its existence.

I have come to believe that it is impossible for anyone who is regularly on social media to have a balanced and accurate understanding of what is happening in the world. To follow a minute-by-minute cycle of news is to be constantly threatened by illusion. So I’m not just staying off Twitter, I’m cutting back on the news sites in my RSS feed, and deleting browser bookmarks to newspapers. Instead, I am turning more of my attention to monthly magazines, quarterly journals, and books. I’m trying to get a somewhat longer view of things — trying to start thinking about issues one when some of the basic facts about them have been sorted out. Taking the short view has burned me far too many times; I’m going to try to prevent that from happening ever again (even if I will sometimes fail). And if once in a while I end up fighting a battle in a war that has already ended ... I can live with that.

http://text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com/2017/01/recency-illusions.html

We really do seem to have become a hyper-risk adverse society fueled by outrage culture.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I didn't realize there were so many in the 70's, but I did know that around the turn of the century there were so many anarchist bombings that the Paris dailies had a column devoted to them.

 

[laughing dog]

This was really shocking to learn, I never would have guessed:



The blog writer offers this interesting insight on why so many people seem so fearful these days:

Why do so many people today — including the newly elected President — believe that the social fabric is more seriously frayed now than at any point since the Civil War? To some extent we must blame the historical ignorance with which Americans are congenitally afflicted. But I lived through the period that Burrough describes, though I was young, and while I remember many of the events he describes I also remember not being alarmed by them; nor did I know anyone who was. People were concerned, to be sure, and saddened, and puzzled, but not alarmed.

And yet on social media today everyone is in a state of high alarm all the time. Which leads me to something I didn’t mention explicitly in my year in technology post: my efforts to get onto a longer news frequency.

Those who are interested in history will remember events like the Battle of New Orleans, fought weeks after the Treaty of Ghent had ended the War of 1812 because word of the treaty hadn’t reached the armies. Since then, thanks to a series of well-known technological changes, the news cycle has grown shorter and shorter until now many people get their news minute-by-minute.

If the frequency that led to the Battle of New Orleans was too long, the Twitter-cycle is far, far too short. People regularly get freaked out by stories than turn out to be false, and by the time the facts are known a good deal of damage (not least to personal relationships) has often already been done — plus, the disappearance of the cause of an emotion doesn’t automatically eliminate the emotion itself. In fact, it often leaves that emotion in search of new justifications for its existence.

I have come to believe that it is impossible for anyone who is regularly on social media to have a balanced and accurate understanding of what is happening in the world. To follow a minute-by-minute cycle of news is to be constantly threatened by illusion. So I’m not just staying off Twitter, I’m cutting back on the news sites in my RSS feed, and deleting browser bookmarks to newspapers. Instead, I am turning more of my attention to monthly magazines, quarterly journals, and books. I’m trying to get a somewhat longer view of things — trying to start thinking about issues one when some of the basic facts about them have been sorted out. Taking the short view has burned me far too many times; I’m going to try to prevent that from happening ever again (even if I will sometimes fail). And if once in a while I end up fighting a battle in a war that has already ended ... I can live with that.

http://text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com/2017/01/recency-illusions.html

We really do seem to have become a hyper-risk adverse society fueled by outrage culture.

The USA has a long history of approving bombings by Americans.

 

[Underseer]

This was really shocking to learn, I never would have guessed:



The blog writer offers this interesting insight on why so many people seem so fearful these days:

Why do so many people today — including the newly elected President — believe that the social fabric is more seriously frayed now than at any point since the Civil War? To some extent we must blame the historical ignorance with which Americans are congenitally afflicted. But I lived through the period that Burrough describes, though I was young, and while I remember many of the events he describes I also remember not being alarmed by them; nor did I know anyone who was. People were concerned, to be sure, and saddened, and puzzled, but not alarmed.

And yet on social media today everyone is in a state of high alarm all the time. Which leads me to something I didn’t mention explicitly in my year in technology post: my efforts to get onto a longer news frequency.

Those who are interested in history will remember events like the Battle of New Orleans, fought weeks after the Treaty of Ghent had ended the War of 1812 because word of the treaty hadn’t reached the armies. Since then, thanks to a series of well-known technological changes, the news cycle has grown shorter and shorter until now many people get their news minute-by-minute.

If the frequency that led to the Battle of New Orleans was too long, the Twitter-cycle is far, far too short. People regularly get freaked out by stories than turn out to be false, and by the time the facts are known a good deal of damage (not least to personal relationships) has often already been done — plus, the disappearance of the cause of an emotion doesn’t automatically eliminate the emotion itself. In fact, it often leaves that emotion in search of new justifications for its existence.

I have come to believe that it is impossible for anyone who is regularly on social media to have a balanced and accurate understanding of what is happening in the world. To follow a minute-by-minute cycle of news is to be constantly threatened by illusion. So I’m not just staying off Twitter, I’m cutting back on the news sites in my RSS feed, and deleting browser bookmarks to newspapers. Instead, I am turning more of my attention to monthly magazines, quarterly journals, and books. I’m trying to get a somewhat longer view of things — trying to start thinking about issues one when some of the basic facts about them have been sorted out. Taking the short view has burned me far too many times; I’m going to try to prevent that from happening ever again (even if I will sometimes fail). And if once in a while I end up fighting a battle in a war that has already ended ... I can live with that.

http://text-patterns.thenewatlantis.com/2017/01/recency-illusions.html

We really do seem to have become a hyper-risk adverse society fueled by outrage culture.

Those bombings were done by white people, therefore it wasn't terrorism. Or at least, I assume that's how this works.

 

[OLDMAN]

I don't think I do believe it. No one was ever convicted of the bombings, although 3 members of the Weather Underground died making bombs. The 1900 plus bombings seems way to big a number, and for some reason no one seems to remember them going off or anyone being killed? More research required.

 

[barbos]

I knew there were a lot of domestic groups which can be classified as terrorists, but I question the numbers.
Also there were no suicide bombers and I suspect efficiency was way lower than it is now. I mean lots of bombing without victims. But I agree, social media really screwed old news.

 

[Derec]

Those bombings were done by white people, therefore it wasn't terrorism. Or at least, I assume that's how this works.

You would be wrong. It is excused because it was left wing, not because of race. During that time Weather Underground worked with Black Liberation Army frequently, and Puerto Rican terrorists also set a lot of bombs. A PR terrorist was unfortunately pardoned by Obama before he left office.
Why Did Obama Free This Terrorist?

 

[laughing dog]

Those bombings were done by white people, therefore it wasn't terrorism. Or at least, I assume that's how this works.

You would be wrong. It is excused because it was left wing, not because of race. During that time Weather Underground worked with Black Liberation Army frequently, and Puerto Rican terrorists also set a lot of bombs.

Do you have any actual data to support your claims?

A PR terrorist was unfortunately pardoned by Obama before he left office.
Why Did Obama Free This Terrorist?

While this is relevant to your irrational fears, it is irrelevant to the OP.

 

[Derec]

Also there were no suicide bombers

Not intentionally at least ...
An Infamous Explosion, and the Smoldering Memory of Radicalism

and I suspect efficiency was way lower than it is now. I mean lots of bombing without victims.

Explosives in the 70s were deadly enough. Why would you think otherwise?

 

[Derec]

Do you have any actual data to support your claims?

Do you have any data to support Under's claim that it was all "done by white people". Are you denying that left-wing terrorist groups of various races and ethnicities were active in the 70s?
For example BLA:

The Black Liberation Army, or just the Army, was an underground black nationalist revolutionary organization, which effectively operated in the United States from 1970 to 1981. Composed largely of former members of the Black Panther Party, the organization’s program was one of armed struggle, and its stated goal was to take up arms for the liberation and self-determination of black people in the United States. To further this effort, the organization carried out a series of bombings, assassinations, bank and armored vehicle heists, what participants termed expropriations, and prison breaks.
[..]
The Army was considered, by some, to be notoriously brutal because of the tactics that they used, police car bombings and the like, while waging war against local police department oppressors.
[..]
The Army implemented this philosophy with their choice of targets and their ‘no terms accepted’ attack campaign. They attacked government buildings, bombed police vehicles, and robbed government owned or operated armored vehicles, all in an effort to established amongst the general public, a sense that the government was losing its authority.
[..]
he Panther 21 was a group of twenty-one Black Panther members who were arrested and accused of executing a planned and well coordinated bombing and long-range rifle attack on two police stations and an education office in New York City.

People Taking Charge: The Black Liberation Army

But no, it was just a bunch of white people, nobody else. And hell, it is contradicted by the very first sentence quoted by the OP

Imagine if this happened today: Hundreds of young Americans — white, black, and Hispanic — disappear from their everyday lives and secretly form urban guerrilla groups.

But don't let facts detract from your racist desire to dump all bad things on whites exclusively.

While this is relevant to your irrational fears, it is irrelevant to the OP.

The topic of the OP are terrorist bombings in the 70s. It could not be more relevant to the OP! Did you even read the article or do you reply by spinal reflex?

From the Politico article:

[F]rom 1974, when the group announced itself with its first bombings, to 1983, when arrests finally destroyed its membership base, the FALN was the most organized, active, well-trained and deadly domestic terror group based in the United States.
The FALN was responsible for over 130 bombings during this period, including the January 1975 explosion in Manhattan’s historic Fraunces Tavern, which killed four and wounded 63. In October of that year, it set off, all within the span of an hour, 10 bombs in three cities, causing nearly a million dollars in damage. In August 1977, the FALN set off a series of bombs in Manhattan, forcing 100,000 workers to evacuate their offices; one person was killed, and six were injured. In 1979, the group even threatened to blow up the Indian Point nuclear energy facility located north of New York City. It later sent a communiqué warning the U.S. to “remember … that you have never experienced war on your vitals and that you have many nuclear reactors.” In 1980, FALN members stormed the Carter-Mondale election headquarters in Chicago, and the George H.W. Bush campaign headquarters in New York, holding employees there hostage at gunpoint. In 1981, they plotted to kidnap President Reagan’s son Ron. Plainly, the group was deadly serious about its objectives—a free, independent and socialist Puerto Rico—and zealous in its pursuit of them.

 

[barbos]

Not intentionally at least ...
An Infamous Explosion, and the Smoldering Memory of Radicalism

Suicide by definition is intentional.

and I suspect efficiency was way lower than it is now. I mean lots of bombing without victims.

Explosives in the 70s were deadly enough. Why would you think otherwise?

Explosives were the same but tactics and goals were different.

 

[laughing dog]

Do you have any data to support Under's claim that it was all "done by white people". Are you denying that left-wing terrorist groups of various races and ethnicities were active in the 70s?

Perhaps my questions was too vague. What proportion of the 1900 bombings were perpetrated by people of color ? That is a simple question that requires a numerical response with links to the data or a simple "I don't have the data".

The topic of the OP are terrorist bombings in the 70s. It could not be more relevant to the OP! Did you even read the article or do you reply by spinal reflex?

As usual, bigotry and fear confuse your reading comprehension. The OP is about why people are so fearful today when in the 1970s there was more reason to be fearful of a terrorist attack than there is today. There is nothing about the motivations for the bombings. So please take your stupid boring derailing hobby horse somewhere else.

 

[Derec]

Perhaps my questions was too vague. What proportion of the 1900 bombings were perpetrated by people of color ? That is a simple question that requires a numerical response with links to the data or a simple "I don't have the data".

If you don't have data, why do you assume it was all done by white people?

As usual, bigotry and fear confuse your reading comprehension. The OP is about why people are so fearful today when in the 1970s there was more reason to be fearful of a terrorist attack than there is today. There is nothing about the motivations for the bombings. So please take your stupid boring derailing hobby horse somewhere else.

Uhm, you and Underseer are the bigots here.
And mentioning a PR terrorist group bombing stuff is not off topic to this thread. Sorry.

 

[laughing dog]

If you don't have data, why do you assume it was all done by white people?

I made no assumption. I made no statement about the race of anyone.

I presumed you had actual data to support your claim, so I asked you for data in order to substantiate your claim. Your replies confuse straw men and evasions with an actual answer. The question "What proportion of the 1900 bombings were perpetrated by people of color ?" can be answered with link(s) to the data you used, or by saying "I don't have any data".

There is no need for you to reply with more non-responsive straw men.

 

[RavenSky]

If you don't have data, why do you assume it was all done by white people?

He didn't. He asked you to defend your unsubstantiated claim.

As usual, bigotry and fear confuse your reading comprehension. The OP is about why people are so fearful today when in the 1970s there was more reason to be fearful of a terrorist attack than there is today. There is nothing about the motivations for the bombings. So please take your stupid boring derailing hobby horse somewhere else.

Uhm, you and Underseer are the bigots here.

1. Name calling
2. Laughing Dog did not say anything that could remotely be construed as "bigoted". He asked you to support your claims. Can you or not?

And mentioning a PR terrorist group bombing stuff is not off topic to this thread. Sorry.

Going off on your anti-Obama whine fest was.

 

[Derec]

He didn't. He asked you to defend your unsubstantiated claim.

I substantiated all my claims.

1. Name calling

He started it.

2. Laughing Dog did not say anything that could remotely be construed as "bigoted".

Of course he did.

Can you or not?

I did. It's not my fault he can't read.

Going off on your anti-Obama whine fest was.

Just because I voted for him does not mean I have to give him a pass on every stupid thing he did in office now, do I?

 

[laughing dog]

I substantiated all my claims.

No you did not. Still waiting for the data.

He started it.

No, I did not call anyone a name.

Of course he did.

Produce what you think I wrote that could be construed as bigoted.

 

[Derec]

I made no assumption. I made no statement about the race of anyone.

You were defending Under's bigoted claims.

I presumed you had actual data to support your claim, so I asked you for data in order to substantiate your claim. Your replies confuse straw men and evasions with an actual answer.

Bullshit. It is you who is evading. I refuted Under's claims. You then came and attacked me for doing so.
I never made any claims about proportions.

The question "What proportion of the 1900 bombings were perpetrated by people of color ?" can be answered with link(s) to the data you used, or by saying "I don't have any data".
There is no need for you to reply with more non-responsive straw men.

Why are you so obsessed with proportions? Under's claim was that these bombings were all done by white people. I showed that BLA and that PR terrorist group engaged in bombings themlselves, comprehensively refuting Under's bigoted claim. I never mentioned anything about proportions. If you want to make claims about proportions, make them, and back them up.

 

[Derec]

No you did not. Still waiting for the data.

Then learn to fucking read. My claim was that bombings in the 1970s were not whites-only affair. I susbstantiated it by pointing out two non-white groups who bombed in the 1970s. Thus, my claim is substantiated.
If you want to talk proportions, made a claim, then back it up. I never made a claim about proportions, and thus do not have to substantiate such claim. I merely refuted Under's claim and provided more than enough substantiation to do so.

No, I did not call anyone a name.

Yes you did. Me. Like in every fucking thread. You can't help yourself.

Produce what you think I wrote that could be construed as bigoted.

You defended Under's bigoted claim that 1970s terror bombings were due to whites only.

 

[Axulus]

I'm having a little trouble finding additional back-up for the 1,900 claim (the original source is the book "Days of Rage" quoting an FBI agent).

However, the number doesn't seem to be too far off. Also, the number certainly includes right wing groups as well, although it is plausible that the majority were left wing:

The United States also saw a wave of religious terrorism during the 1970s. The Jewish Defense League, a right-wing religious organization, launched 44 bombings and assaults during the decade, half of which targeted perceived anti-Semitic targets in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.
During the decade, ethnic and nationalist terrorist groups were frequent perpetrators of violent attacks in the States. The Black Panthers carried out 24 bombings, assaults and hijackings.

Fuerzas Armadas de Liberacion Nacional, a Puerto Rican separatist group, was responsible for 82 bombings, mostly in New York and Chicago and almost all of which targeted civilians.
The U.S. Department of Transportation found that between 1970 and 1979 there were 112 domestic plane hijackings. While those numbers didn't differentiate between simple criminal hijackings and those committed for political purposes, hijackings were quite common during the 1970s, but since then they have virtually disappeared.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/opinions/bergen-1970s-terrorism/

It may be hard to recall now, but there was a time when most Americans were decidedly more blasé about bombing attacks. This was during the 1970s, when protest bombings in America were commonplace, especially in hard-hit cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Nearly a dozen radical underground groups, dimly remembered outfits such as the Weather Underground, the New World Liberation Front and the Symbionese Liberation Army, set off hundreds of bombs during that tumultuous decade—so many, in fact, that many people all but accepted them as a part of daily life. As one woman sniffed to a New York Post reporter after an attack by a Puerto Rican independence group in 1977: "Oh, another bombing? Who is it this time?’"

Weather’s attacks began three months later, and by 1971 protest bombings had spread across the country. In a single eighteen-month period during 1971 and 1972 the FBI counted an amazing 2,500 bombings on American soil, almost five a day. Because they were typically detonated late at night, few caused serious injury, leading to a kind of grudging public acceptance. The deadliest underground attack of the decade, in fact, killed all of four people, in the January 1975 bombing of a Wall Street restaurant. News accounts rarely carried any expression or indication of public outrage.

http://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/