DC Marriott hotel evacuates convention floor as building was swept, event organizers said
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.
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.
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.
We're not dealing with organized terrorist groups and national militaries here. We're talking about lone wolves. The IRA or the IDF don't choose bombing targets based on rumors they read on Facebook.
It doesn't look like it specifies exactly where these bombings were, however it does break it out by state and under the Recoveries section it lists the various 'target types' for devices that were recovered (the majority being residential - though this includes more than just criminal bombing).
Read the article again; it says "an account claiming to represent Enrique Tarrio, former Proud Boys leader". This isn't just right wing; this guy is a straight up far right fascist and could credibly toss a bomb at the summit.
This. They just do the work, and then if they feel like it they do a video or whatever claiming responsibility and whatever afterward. That's how Al-Qaeda did it on 9/11/2001. They just hijacked the planes and hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, then Osama bin-Laden released a statement afterwards. He didn't announce the attack beforehand. That day would have gone much differently if he had. But this isn't like some comic book or Saturday morning cartoon where the villains go on some monologue about their fiendish plot before they do it.
Didn't they find out Harris was about 12ft from one of the pipe bombs at the capital but they just didn't go off because the cell towers got overloaded do to all the people. So sometimes the bombs are even there... And you get lucky.
If you know they are willing to place bombs once, I imagine you should trust they'll do it again