Terrorism attack on California power grid

[NightHawkeye]

The terrorism attack apparently happened last year but was downplayed as an act of vandalism. Attack on electric grid raises alarm | LA Times

A 2013 attack on an electric substation near San Jose that nearly knocked out Silicon Valley's power supply was initially downplayed as vandalism by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the facility's owner. Gunfire from semiautomatic weapons did extensive damage to 17 transformers that sent grid operators scrambling to avoid a blackout.

But this week, a former top power regulator offered a far more ominous interpretation: The attack was terrorism, he said, and if circumstances had been just a little different, it could have been disastrous.

Jon Wellinghoff, who was chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when the shooting took place, said that attack was clearly executed by well-trained individuals seeking to do significant damage to the area, and he fears it was a test run for an even larger assault.

"It would not be that hard to bring down the entire region west of the Rockies if you, in fact, had a coordinated attack like this against a number of substations," Wellinghoff said Thursday. "This [shooting] event shows there are people out there capable of such an attack."
​

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

All I can is, be prepared!

 

[RedDead1981]

Why didn't you post the part from the guys actually investigating this? I'll even bold some of it in blue for you.

FBI officials said they are taking the shooting very seriously.

"Based on the information we have right now, we don't believe it's related to terrorism," said Peter Lee, an FBI spokesman in San Francisco. But, he added, "Until we understand the motives, we won't be 100% sure it's not terrorism."
Months after the shooting, the bureau has named no suspects.

That's a really critical piece of the article. Why was it not posted? Maybe it was 'tairrism', maybe it wasn't. Why don't we wait until we know the facts?

 

[NightHawkeye]

Why didn't you post the part from the guys actually investigating this? I'll even bold some of it in blue for you.

That's a really critical piece of the article. Why was it not posted? Maybe it was 'tairrism', maybe it wasn't. Why don't we wait until we know the facts?

... and so now it is.

 

[RedDead1981]

But why didn't you post it in your OP? Did you not read that far? Did you not think it was an important piece?

One might almost think you were banking on members tendencies to not click on the link and read the article, instead reading and commenting solely on the brief content quoted in the OP. After all, if they just did that then they would have no idea that the FBI was already investigating and was saying that they didn't think it was terrorism at this point.

 

[XB3LI3V3RX]

Why didn't you post the part from the guys actually investigating this? I'll even bold some of it in blue for you.

That's a really critical piece of the article. Why was it not posted?

If you read right under what you posted you will see that they even said they weren't positive it wasn't terrorism. The point is they don't know if it was terrorism or not, so it wouldn't have done any good for the OP to include that part.

 

[Needing_Grace]

Why didn't you post the part from the guys actually investigating this? I'll even bold some of it in blue for you.




That's a really critical piece of the article. Why was it not posted? Maybe it was 'tairrism', maybe it wasn't. Why don't we wait until we know the facts?

Remember, "perfect fear casteth out all love."

Or am I getting that backwards again?

 

[RedDead1981]

If you read right under what you posted you will see that they even said they weren't positive it wasn't terrorism. The point is they don't know if it was terrorism or not, so it wouldn't have done any good for the OP to include that part.

You're right, it wouldn't have done the OP any good to include that part. The thread opened with this line...

The terrorism attack apparently happened last year but was downplayed as an act of vandalism.

And the thread is titled...

Terrorism attack on California power grid

And yet here's the FBI saying "Yes, we're not 100% sure it is or isn't terrorism, but based on the information we have right now we don't think it is." That's wildly different from the OPs claims.

So no, it would not have done the OP any good to post the FBI part. The OP clearly sought to influence the discussion into starting from the assumption that this WAS a terrorist attack, when the organization doing the investigation is saying no such thing. The FBI's response would do the OP no good in this.

And we all know how common it is for people to read the quoted text and comment before reading the actual article. The OP has over 18,000 posts. He knows this too.

 

[[serious]]

People attach the term "terrorism" to entirely too many things. There are many terms that could be used for this: vandalism, sabotage, wanton destruction of public property, but not terrorism.

 

[bhsmte]

You're right, it wouldn't have done the OP any good to include that part. The thread opened with this line...



And the thread is titled...


And yet here's the FBI saying "Yes, we're not 100% sure it is or isn't terrorism, but based on the information we have right now we don't think it is." That's wildly different from the OPs claims.

So no, it would not have done the OP any good to post the FBI part. The OP clearly sought to influence the discussion into starting from the assumption that this WAS a terrorist attack, when the organization doing the investigation is saying no such thing. The FBI's response would do the OP no good in this.

And we all know how common it is for people to read the quoted text and comment before reading the actual article. The OP has over 18,000 posts. He knows this too.

I agree.

The complete story should always be given, not tidbits.

 

[CarlosTomy]

People attach the term "terrorism" to entirely too many things. There are many terms that could be used for this: vandalism, sabotage, wanton destruction of public property, but not terrorism.

I think what has people freaked out is that it was rather surgical in nature.

Just randomly shooting into a substation will more likely result in explosions and fires....this was MANY shots into key parts of the substation intended to take it out without "blow it up".

It is probably silly to scream "terror" now, but it certainly gives one pause for thought. From what I understood this was not a key substation but if this type of thing had happened at a bigger, more crucial substation and during mid day in the summer when more load was on the grid it could have been much more damaging.

It is important that we as Americans live in abject terror all the time these days. There's nothing we can do because "they" hate us for our "freedoms". And I'm sure there's no way this could possibly have been an American home-grown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph

 

[NightHawkeye]

But why didn't you post it in your OP? Did you not read that far? Did you not think it was an important piece?

Hi, Red.

Nope ... but I'm glad you posted it. That's what discussion is about.

In addition to what I posted earlier, the following excerpt is equally enlightening. Attack on electric grid raises alarm | LA Times

Days after the April shooting, Wellinghoff flew out to review the damage with experts from the Pentagon and the FBI. They noticed piles of stones had been set up outside the site, apparently by someone who had scoped it out to guide the snipers.

The bullet holes were carefully targeted so as not to hit the parts of the equipment that would cause an explosion and attract the attention of drivers on nearby U.S. 101. Of some 120 shots fired from at least 40 yards outside the fence, 110 of them hit transformers, Wellinghoff said.

"A dress rehearsal" is how Mark Johnson, a retired vice president at PG&E, described the event to a Philadelphia gathering of electricity industry officials in November. Johnson said the attackers opened two 75-pound manhole covers and used a ladder to cut fiber-optic lines, a possible attempt to disconnect security cameras. They fired for seven minutes, targeting radiators on the banks of transformers.

"This wasn't an incident where Billy-Bob and Joe decided after a bunch of brewskis they were going to shoot up a substation," he said.
​

 

[CarlosTomy]

Hi, Red.

Nope ... but I'm glad you posted it. That's what discussion is about.

I believe Red's original question was on the mark. It is quite common for biased "discussions" to start off by eliminating IMPORTANT information. It's how Fox News operates (a la the recent CBO report on Obamacare) by OMITTING the key factors.

For people who have ETHICS this is called the "sin of omission".

No doubt YOU were not guilty of that, you simply posted the part that you noticed and liked. It fits with the whole "let's be scared" meme that folks on the Right love.

And I have to admit I'm like that too! It is intriguing to see scary things! That's why we go to horror movies

In addition to what I posted earlier, the following excerpt is equally enlightening.

If you were going for "enlightening" wouldn't it have been important to include the caveat that no evidence currently exists to call it "terrorism"?

Certainly less "exciting", but far more enlightening.

Days after the April shooting, Wellinghoff flew out to review the damage with experts from the Pentagon and the FBI. They noticed piles of stones had been set up outside the site, apparently by someone who had scoped it out to guide the snipers.

This is very interesting. This was a surgical "strike" on the power station. So it certainly wasn't just yahoos taking pot shots. This is most troubling.

But again, is it "terror"? Well, it might very well be. But it may also be a home-grown Terrorist. You know like Rudolph or McVeigh.

"This wasn't an incident where Billy-Bob and Joe decided after a bunch of brewskis they were going to shoot up a substation," he said.
[/INDENT]

Agreed. It is certainly concerning. And THANKFULLY for THIS THREAD Red also gave the other side which the OP seemed to have missed. "Fair and balanced" and all that.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Hehehe ... it's interesting how easily threads can be derailed from the OP topic to focusing on the poster. Please, I'm not the subject of the OP. Try to make cogent arguments on the subject matter.

Some very knowledgeable and high-ranking individuals within both government and industry have chosen to speak out on the matter concerning the attack on this particular electric substation. Focusing on their remarks and concerns would be much more appropriate. Thanks.

 

[CarlosTomy]

Hehehe ... it's interesting how easily threads can be derailed from the OP topic to focusing on the poster. Please, I'm not the subject of the OP. Try to make cogent arguments on the subject matter.

I have made a particularly cogent argument about the surgical precision of the strike.

But YOU engaged with Red and Red raised a good point.

The OP really is about a non-story. Until we have actual INFORMATION there's no real way to know one way or the other.

So OF COURSE people are going to gravitate to SOMETHING to sink their teeth into.

Some very knowledgeable and high-ranking individuals within both government and industry have chosen to speak out on the matter concerning the attack on this particular electric substation. Focusing on their remarks and concerns would be much more appropriate. Thanks.

And yet there's nothing really deep to the story...yet. So Red was raising a valid point.

Sometimes the way news is PRESENTED IS the news. Look at Fox News for an example. They take a story, twist it beyond recognition, OMIT certain key facts and throw it out for you to "decide".

Do you ever wonder why people might focus on YOU in your threads? Could it be you have a "reputation"?

Maybe if you were without sin you could be casting some stones here.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Do you ever wonder why people might focus on YOU in your threads? Could it be you have a "reputation"?

ROTFL ... I know why you focus on me, Carlos.

But, again, the OP is about an electric substation which was subjected to a very specific targeted attack ... not an act of vandalism. The only unknowns are the identities of the attackers and their motives. The lack of identity and motive does not diminish either the severity of the attack or the fact that the attackers knew how to target the substation for maximum effect.

 

[CarlosTomy]

ROTFL ... I know why you focus on me, Carlos.

But, again, the OP is about an electric substation which was subjected to a very specific targeted attack ... not an act of vandalism. The only unknowns are the identities of the attackers and their motives. The lack of identity and motive does not diminish either the severity of the attack or the fact that the attackers knew how to target the substation for maximum effect.

I think you are confused. I was only making an observation about Red's point.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Except that now it is being called terrorism.

 

[XB3LI3V3RX]

Hehehe ... it's interesting how easily threads can be derailed from the OP topic to focusing on the poster. Please, I'm not the subject of the OP. Try to make cogent arguments on the subject matter.

Intolerance has a nasty bark from our fellow posters in these forums.

 

[Supreme2]

Is it really terrorism, though? I don't think so. My definition of terrorism, and traditionally terrorism has meant, many people dying. I don't think that an act of vandalism such as this can be said to send terror into people's hearts.