Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » San Bernadino attack (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: San Bernadino attack
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The lefts demand to cast this as simple workplace violence is, yet again, the knee jerk defense of Islam.
Where did you see that claim?
quote:
We are just lucky it didn't go as far as Paris. Damn lucky.
What do you want to do about it?
quote:
Well it damn sure can't be Islamic terrorism. That's been contained! CONTAINED!!!!!
What do you want to do about it?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
how did they find the car so fast? Interesting.

Dumbass probably drove home. Or tips.
Tips seems sketchy if the only descriptor was a dark SUV. How many of those are on California roads? Maybe he did head home, had tone of weaponry there. Sounds like he went off in an unplanned attack and tried to improvise or his plan was, fortunate, stupid.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting report: a neighbor was suspicious of these people and thought about reporting it but decided she didn't want to racially profile. Let's think that one through for a minute. She was sufficiently alarmed by what she saw going on around this guy that it occurred to her that it should be reported to authorities but her fear of being politically incorrect was greater.

Incredible.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do us the courtesy of giving your source when you make these kinds of claims. You already misfired on the shooter's name, which may now cause a potentially dangerous problem for that person. FWIW, one of my neighbors is a bit strange. If he ever does anything like this I'll be sure to tell everyone that I saw it coming, but somehow never found the time to report him to the police.

[ December 03, 2015, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, reading the news and blog reports. The MSM is pretty much holding to the facts and reporting objectively. The leftish blogs rue the carnage and ask if this is finally the time to do something about unconstrained violence inflicted by guns. The right wing blogosphere is going crazy blaming "the left" for everything, or anyone who doesn't blame the left for being "leftist sympathizers".

The "Daily Caller" said the media (aka the leftist liberal media) is already trying to tie the shooting to the recent Planned Parenthood assault to imply that liberals say it's conservatives' fault. The "American Thinker" says the left is reacting disgracefully and calls the NY Daily News a leftist rag for using a headline "God Isn't Fixing This". No one ever called the Post anything but tawdry and anti-liberal before now.

The backlash is happening incredibly fast. Carson knows no more about this than the police or any of the rest of us, but has already labeled the shooting a "hate crime".

This just in, a FOX commentator has tied this event to feminism and Benghazi! Now we're getting somewhere.

[ December 03, 2015, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Well it damn sure can't be Islamic terrorism. That's been contained! CONTAINED!!!!!

I never said Islamic terrorism has been contained. Somebody else did, so I guess you're talking to them, not to me.

My not using the word "terrorism" has nothing to do with it being contained or not, it has to do with what terrorism is. The definition of terrorism has been discussed here in length in the past.

One of the key points that have been made is in the inclusion of "propaganda". Terrorism are war crimes or domestic crimes committed to "send a message".

I'm unsure if this guy in SB was trying to "send a message". If he wanted to send a message like "America is the great Satan", or "death to the infidels" or "you are all unsafe", there were better targets. Why not go and shoot up a Wal-Mart? Or a football game? Or a church?

Instead, this guy goes and kills a bunch of people he knows. People he worked with. People that knew him. He had a beef with them. He even went to go meet them before he went back to his SUV to gear up and blow them all away. He planned to kill his co-workers.

He probably believes that he is going to paradise for all that, so radical Islam cannot be discounted as a factor. But as a terror target, it seems out of place. Where is the guy's manifesto? As far as we know, the only one he put out was whatever he had to say in the party before he went back to his SUV. He looked them in the eye. Probably confirmed to himself and might have even told them that they were all evil. Maybe he didn't.

This guy had plenty of targets to choose from to send a message. But he cherry picked the people he worked with. In the end, his message was "the people of the Environmental Health Department in San Bernardino Country are evil and need to die". It's not much different than "the people of the Post Office need to die", or "the people of Planned Parenthood need to die". If he wanted to send a different message, his choice of target is strange.

Now, if you or anybody else really want to call it Terrorism, then have at it. I don't think it changes what actually occurred. What I do see is that there may be a political interest in labeling this as Terrorism because President Obama and his administration have been presented as being weak on Terror, and that painting it as terrorism furthers the message that he has failed.

Irregardless of the veracity of the claim that President Obama has been weak on terror, I don't believe that the incident should be labeled as one because it furthers a political agenda. Terrorism is terrorism, and I can't recall another incident where a terrorist specifically targeted the people he worked along side. Most terrorists like random targets because they hit a larger demographic in terror. The actions of this guy say "don't piss off the Muslim you work with that goes home to pray every day".

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
What sort of animals would intentionally go Bonnie and Clyde when they had a six month daughter to take care of?

This makes the least amount of sense to me. Like, WTF? Utter madness.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whatever the proximate motive for the shootings, the main suspect is looking more and more like an ordinary victim of earlier abuse with major anger problems.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Multiple Muslims in body armor randomly killing 14 people and wounding 17 more. Bombs. The lefts demand to cast this as simple workplace violence is, yet again, the knee jerk defense of Islam. Creepy and delusional. We are just lucky it didn't go as far as Paris. Damn lucky.

Their house is being described as an "IED factory" with delivery methods like radio control cars. ISIS is celebrating it.

What evidence do you have that Islam was a motivator here? Otherwise it seems that you're referring to "not casting blame where no evidence to supoprt it exists" with "defending".
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Without knowing, it's likely that there are multiple motivating factors involved. I don't know if it's been verified, but there is a report that he just went to Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago. That, coupled with his supposedly being a devout Muslim, the arsenal in his house and the planning that went into the attack all suggest (only suggest at this point) a religion based terrorism connection.

OTOH, his childhood history of a dysfunctional family environment with emotional and possible physical abuse, his arguing with people at the party before he launched the attack, the fact that they were co-workers and not random strangers all suggest a more garden variety disturbed person.

It will be hard to distill the motivations into a simple explanation.

People who do what Rafi G is doing are the real problem here. He's floated the name of an innocent person as a perpetrator, leaped to tie the event to Islamic terrorism before any information has been found to support the connection, and made back-handed attacks on leftists, liberals and other usual suspects as if they are somehow responsible for this attack, is beneath the dignity of anyone who would call themselves a fair-minded person.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

CNN is saying it was radicalization.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From that article:
quote:
Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.

Still, it wasn't necessarily the only driver behind the carnage, as workplace grievances might have also played a role. President Barack Obama hinted as much Thursday when he said that the attackers may have had "mixed motives."

David Bowditch, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles office, told reporters Thursday that Farook had traveled to Pakistan.

And two government officials said no red flags were raised when he'd gone to Saudi Arabia for several weeks in 2013 on the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are required to take at least once in their lifetime. It was during this trip that he met Malik, a native of Pakistan who came to the United States in July 2014 on a "fiancée visa" and later became a lawful permanent resident.

Officials had previously said neither Farook and Malik were known to the FBI or on a list of potentially radicalized people. Nor had they had any known interactions with police until Wednesday.

Yet Farook himself had talked by phone and on social media with more than one person being investigated for terrorism, law enforcement officials said.

The communications were "soft connections" in that they weren't frequent, one law enforcement official said. It had been a few months since Farook's last back-and-forth with these people, who officials said were not considered high priority.

So, saying he was radicalized may be the case, but based on this source is still premature.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don't know if it's been verified, but there is a report that he just went to Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago.
I think this was wrong. His last travel to that region appears to have been in 2013.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
Multiple Muslims in body armor randomly killing 14 people and wounding 17 more. Bombs. The lefts demand to cast this as simple workplace violence is, yet again, the knee jerk defense of Islam. Creepy and delusional. We are just lucky it didn't go as far as Paris. Damn lucky.

Their house is being described as an "IED factory" with delivery methods like radio control cars. ISIS is celebrating it.

What evidence do you have that Islam was a motivator here? Otherwise it seems that you're referring to "not casting blame where no evidence to supoprt it exists" with "defending".
quote:
The Muslim man who massacred 14 California health workers at a holiday party was radicalized and communicating with suspected terrorists before the killing spree, CNN reported.

Syed Farook, 28, spoke by phone and via social media with the suspected terrorists -- including some with people in foreign countries, according to the CNN report.

But sources told the network it was unclear if Farook -- who traveled to Saudi Arabia for several weeks in 2013 and Pakistan a year later -- was directly motivated to attack by his contact with the radicals.

yeah. So directly connected to known terrorists, multiple trips to the land of Islamic terrorists, pipe bombs, body armor, shooting a couple dozen people. And you can't connect those dots, come on. This bizarre knee jerk defense of Muslims has got to have some limit.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"
People who do what Rafi G is doing are the real problem here."

? What evidence do you have that Rafi G motivated these attacks

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Al:
quote:
He's floated the name of an innocent person as a perpetrator
Did he?

He floated the name "Farouq Saeed."

The alleged shooter's name is "Syed Farook." It's actually the right name, he just transposed the first and last name, and it's an alternate spelling...

[ December 03, 2015, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But there are real people named as he gave it.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, does it require evidence to make claims these days? Fwiw, I have no evidence he was involved. Are you trying to start a rumor?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Al:
quote:
He's floated the name of an innocent person as a perpetrator
Did he?

He floated the name "Farouq Saeed."

The alleged shooter's name is "Syed Farook." It's actually the right name, he just transposed the first and last name, and it's an alternate spelling...

Yeah, I heard it, didn't see it so I transposed accidentally. I suppose I could correct it but obviously any thinking person can figure it out quite easily.

Floated the name of a innocent person, how stupid is that! [LOL]

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Except that is the name you posted, which was the name your source published. Who exactly are you blaming for your actions? Somebody else. How stupid is that?
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good news:
quote:
Senate Republicans voted against barring suspected terrorists, felons and the mentally ill from getting guns on Thursday afternoon, parroting National Rifle Association arguments that doing so would strip some innocent people of their constitutional rights to gun access just a day after yet another massacre on U.S. soil.

A pair of Democratic measures - one to close background check loopholes to make it harder for felons and the mentally ill from buying guns, another to ban those on the terror watch list from buying guns - both went down in flames against near-unanimous GOP opposition.

Yes, incredible.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So let's get this straight. Al accuses Rafi (or people who do what he does) of being the problem. THE problem. Since the problem at hand is a murder spree, Pete facetiously asks Al if Rafi is responsible for a murder spree. This ironic joke seems to fly by as Al accuses Rafi of releasing a false name and jeopardizing innocent lives, when in fact the name was more or less correct and possibly suffered from a transliteration error.

I don't care to defend sensationalizing news, but I similarly don't care to hear people accused of being more of a problem than terrorists and of jeopardizing innocent lives due to a typo. This is really not civil discourse.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fenring:
So let's get this straight. Al accuses Rafi (or people who do what he does) of being the problem. THE problem. Since the problem at hand is a murder spree, Pete facetiously asks Al if Rafi is responsible for a murder spree. This ironic joke seems to fly by as Al accuses Rafi of releasing a false name and jeopardizing innocent lives, when in fact the name was more or less correct and possibly suffered from a transliteration error.

I don't care to defend sensationalizing news, but I similarly don't care to hear people accused of being more of a problem than terrorists and of jeopardizing innocent lives due to a typo. This is really not civil discourse.

Quoted for truth.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The Muslim husband and wife behind the mass shooting in San Bernardino began erasing their digital footprint a day in advance of the deadly attack, deleting email accounts, disposing of hard drives and smashing their cellphones, according to law enforcement investigators who are treating the probe as a counterterrorism case.
It was terrorism, it was planned in advance.
quote:
There appears to be a degree of planning that went into this,” said San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan. “Nobody just gets upset at a party and goes home and plans an attack like that.”


[ December 04, 2015, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: Rafi ]

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
It was terrorism, it was planned in advance.

Since when did prior planning have any bearing on whether a crime was an act of terrorism, Rafi? How many murders in the US or in the world or prior planned?

I've heard this prior planned deal thrown out a lot by the media. Of course it was planned. That was obvious from the beginning. One person may get pissed and go postal, but I've never heard of two to three people going nuts all at the same time, with ARs, and with ski masks and tactical gear, and a getaway car. But being planned has no bearing on whether it is terrorism or not.

When Don Corleone wipes out the heads of the five families, it's not terrorism just because it was planned. When the Manson Family murders entire families, it's not terrorism just because it is planned. Nor does the equipment involved have any bearing on whether it is terrorism or not.

What matters is the motive. And the problem is that the motive seems to be somewhat obscure at the moment. Was the guy trying to influence the people of the United States, through violence, towards a particular political goal? Was his goal simply to cleanse the world of the infidel? Or did this guy really not like his place of work and the people in it because he felt marginalized or some other ****, so he decided to rub them out?

It's possible he thought all three. But his choice of target seems to tell me what was most important to him. The PRIMARY goal, was to kill specific people he knew. If sending a political message or influencing the public were his primary goal, he would have chosen a different target. If wiping out the infidel were his primary goal, why didn't he keep killing the rest of the people in the center? He only targeted the people in that party.

I know I'm going against the grain and EVERYBODY from a certain side of the aisle is calling it terrorism, but I still haven't had a single one of them tell me WHY. It's terrorism because it was preplanned? Ridiculous. It's terrorism just because Muslims were involved? Also ridiculous. It's terrorism because ISIS is involved? OK, but was ISIS really involved or is this dude simply an ISIS groupie? Is his extent of contact with ISIS simply reading their online handbooks?

To me, the most difficult part of figuring this out is that there were at least two people involved in the crime. There may have been more if people were involved on-line, or in Saudi. It's possible they all had different motivations. So whose motive is predominant? If just one had the motive of causing terror, does that color the entire crime? The man certainly knew the targets and likely picked them. But his wife probably did not know them. What was her motive? Was she just following her husband out of some sense of duty and religion, or was she a terrorist who was simply striking a target of opportunity? What was this woman's level of indoctrination and training? What were her connections? What were her motivations?

I'm not ruling out that this was an act of terrorism. But as of now, I've seen nothing that would fit the definition. The key is motive, not method, and motive is a lot harder to ascertain when them suspects are dead and they havn't left a damn note explaining everything.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Grants, props. You nailed in your two posts that it isn't black and white and gave the reasoning behind your thinking. That is what is lacking in Rafi's hope-based leaps and the right-wing blogo insistence that it has to be Islamic terrorism pure and simple.

Rafi:
quote:
Quoted for truth.
Hardly. You posted a false name that you then claimed you had only heard, but not read. Why on earth would you do such a thing? But, to be honest, I don't believe you. You spelled the name *exactly* the way the published sources did, even though it was just a phonetic guess of what was heard on a scratchy police scanner. I call bull**** on this, because you have an almost neurotic compulsion to see everything through the most anti-Muslim perspective possible, and take down "the left" at the same time irrespective of any moderating thoughts. Here's an example -- and there are plenty of others -- where facts are not particularly important to you when you do it.
quote:
Yeah, I heard it, didn't see it so I transposed accidentally. I suppose I could correct it but obviously any thinking person can figure it out quite easily.

Floated the name of a innocent person, how stupid is that! [LOL]

What an utterly asinine thing to say.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Grants, props. You nailed in your two posts that it isn't black and white and gave the reasoning behind your thinking.

This. Very impressive, Grant. It is tough when we can't put them in either the "terrorism" box or the "crazy person" box or the "disgruntled worker" box. It is an example of the fact that this stuff is complicated and requires deeper and more nuanced thinking to address.
Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
. So directly connected to known terrorists, multiple trips to the land of Islamic terrorists, pipe bombs, body armor, shooting a couple dozen people. And you can't connect those dots, come on.
Hey, look, you're actualyl almost presenting evidence instead of making up claims just because. Nice work. So far it's all circumstantial though- now, can you actually make the last step and demonstrate actual evidence of motive here or just that it was possible that this was the motive?

Keep in mind that with the Deer case, we can go one step further and show that he attacked an institution that has been the target of a long running campaign of such attack and actively contributed to de facto terrorism of providers and clients of services that include abortion, but that's still not classified as terrorism because we don't have clear evidence of motive.

So in both cases, we have a clear possibility that it was the motive, but less evidence to support that claim here than we do there, and not conclusive in either case.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So can we agree to call it terrorism now?
Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From that article:

quote:
So far, officials have speculated that Farook's apparent radicalization may have been part of the reason. Part of it may have stemmed from workplace tensions. But they have declined to label this a terrorist attack.

"It would be irresponsible and premature for me to call this terrorism," FBI official David Bodwich said Thursday. "The FBI defines terrorism very specifically, and that is the big question for us: What is the motivation for this?"


Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lloyd Perna
Member
Member # 1315

 - posted      Profile for Lloyd Perna   Email Lloyd Perna   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the politicians at the FBI aren't willing to say it yet.
But if a crazy white guy shooting up a black church is considered terrorism by many people on this forum, why won't those same people label this attack as terrorism?

There really seems to be some cognitive dissonance going on here.

Posts: 120 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a liberal conspiracy to downplay or ignore the political aspect of aspecifoc subset of violent acts. Make them believe we are so dense as to "miss the point" even when they spell it out using small words. They will become so exasperated with us that another tactic will have to be adopted.

Sorry you didn't get the memo. Now shut up, you are going to blow it.

[ December 04, 2015, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: D.W. ]

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Grant:
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
It was terrorism, it was planned in advance.

Since when did prior planning have any bearing on whether a crime was an act of terrorism, Rafi? How many murders in the US or in the world or prior planned?

The short answer, it doesn't Grant. The long answer, you misunderstood my point (the way I wrote it is to blame). It was terrorism. That's more and more obvious. But, Obama and the left want this to be workplace violence to pro txt the narrative of peaceful Muslims and containment of terrorism.

The other part of my point is that this was not a spur of the moment thing. It was a planned event. They guy didn't just get angry and in the space of 30 minutes drive home, construct some pipe bombs, load up on body armor and ammunition and convince his wife to join in the fun, then drive back to the office and start blazing. That kind of thing generally takes a little longer to pull together.

Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lloyd Perna:
So the politicians at the FBI aren't willing to say it yet.
But if a crazy white guy shooting up a black church is considered terrorism by many people on this forum, why won't those same people label this attack as terrorism?

There really seems to be some cognitive dissonance going on here.

It's rather boggling the lengths they go to avoid admitting the truth ain't it? [DOH]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
Grants, props. You nailed in your two posts that it isn't black and white and gave the reasoning behind your thinking. That is what is lacking in Rafi's hope-based leaps and the right-wing blogo insistence that it has to be Islamic terrorism pure and simple.

Just to show that I don't think that any specific person or specific faction have been solely guilty of writing stupid stuff on this thread, I'd like to address the "THE PROBLEM" accusation.

Rafi repeated a name that he saw on the internet that somebody got off a police scanner. It was likely transposed because the police were giving last-name-first, and the original listener did not understand that. But to say that he was giving out an innocent person's name is going too far. He had the right name, just wrong order. To implicate that Rafi himself was endangering others is to somewhat exaggerate Rafi's audience. Chances are that the only people who read Rafi's post on the subject were a small handful of holdouts who still populate this ruin of a forum. Rafi is not CNN or Fox News. He's also not a journalist so he is not beholden to any form of reporting ethics. The audience should know this and understand that reader beware. That's why you really shouldn't try to get your news from Ornery, or anyone on Ornery, or anybody from the Twitterverse.

That said, I believe that the individuals who were listening on the police scanners and reported the name of the suspect, and those who repeated it online, before the release of the name by the authorities, are wrong. There was a reason that the police were not releasing the name of the suspect. Namely, they didn't want the suspect, who probably has internet access, to be able to know that THEY know who he is, and thus perhaps depart any residence or places of interest where LE may look for him.

Hence, those who were reporting the name heard on the police scanner before the name was released by the authorities are, in my opinion, guilty of aiding and abetting the enemy. Were I the dictator of America, I would have them all lined up and shot. Fortunately I'm not, nor will I ever be.

But to say that these people, Rafi included, are THE PROBLEM, is to completely misidentify and misconstrue what has occurred. People have been exercising their 1st Amendment rights, shooting their mouth off, and saying stupid ****, since the creation of America, and the dawn of time. A split second after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, someone, somewhere in America, was saying something stupid. IF we could understand the language of chimps and dolphins, we could probably listen right now to a chimp of dolphin saying something stupid. If there are alien sentient lifeforms in the universe, there are some who are undoubtedly saying or doing something stupid, right now.

Given the history of stupid speech and stupid actions, and the fact that America and the rest of the world throughout history seems to have survived it, I can't see how it could possibly be THE problem. It may be A problem, but it certainly is not THE problem. The only difference between the entire history of free stupid speech and today, is the advent of the internet, where stupid speech can spread to more ears than ever before. Fortunately, political power and authority has not spread among the masses beyond the ability to vote.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If a member of Daesch kills his wife in a jealous rage is it terrorism? Was there a political statement these people were making? Maybe but we haven't heard it yet. Was he angry at coworkers. It seems so. Did they pick a likely target to kill as many people as possible? Not really. Was the killing personal. Seems so. Did being a member of Daesch make them more like to want to die in a blaze of whatever and take infidels with them. That seems likely. Could it be that they were planning a terrorist attack but got angry and decided to take out co-workers instead? Possible but we really don't know.

Complicated.

[ December 04, 2015, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2635 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Grant
Member
Member # 1925

 - posted      Profile for Grant   Email Grant       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rafi:
The short answer, it doesn't Grant. The long answer, you misunderstood my point (the way I wrote it is to blame). It was terrorism. That's more and more obvious. But, Obama and the left want this to be workplace violence to pro txt the narrative of peaceful Muslims and containment of terrorism.

The other part of my point is that this was not a spur of the moment thing. It was a planned event. They guy didn't just get angry and in the space of 30 minutes drive home, construct some pipe bombs, load up on body armor and ammunition and convince his wife to join in the fun, then drive back to the office and start blazing. That kind of thing generally takes a little longer to pull together.

I agree with everything other than the fact that this is obviously terrorism, because I still haven't seen any clear indication of the motive of the primary suspect. I still not seen anyone present to me a statement explaining WHY it is terrorism that meets my criteria.

I agree wholeheartedly that this act was planned. That is undeniable. But workplace violence can be planned as well. I agree that the Obama Administration, and it's supporters, have a vested interest in not having it not presented as terrorism.

I also believe that for this same reason, the opponents of the Obama Administration have a vested interest in seeing that it IS presented as terrorism. Hence, both sides may not be interested in the truth, but rather would like to score political points.

Congratulations, I can't trust anybody.

Posts: 3264 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The police searched somebody's house the other day and found over 5,000 weapons. Should we assume that he is preparing for armageddon, a terrorist attack or that the police don't believe in freedom? I ask because in response to the SB shootings the Senate voted down new gun laws that would consider whether the purchaser was a on a terrorist watch list, was mentally ill or a felon. Freedom requires that they all have as many guns as they want.

Here's a thought experiment. A Muslim and a black man walk into a gun store in Virginia one day and buy AR-15's. They return the next day and buy another one each. They return to the store every day for the next 3 months and buy a wide array of guns, ammunition, bullet-proof vests and other gear.

Questions:

1. You're the gun store owner. Are you "seeing something" and should you "say something".

2. Do you offer to find someone who can rent the two purchasers a van to help them transport the weapons?

3. Do you anonymously post to a gun-owner web site that they better all get more guns, because a group in Virginia is planning "something big"?

4. Do you say nothing and instead offer them a volume discount on future purchases because they are excellent customers?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why not add a middle aged white man to your scenario? Inadvertently or not you are tangling racism/religious persecution into your security question.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
DW: "'s a liberal conspiracy"

Hate, bigotry, and systematic blind prejudice isn't a conspiracy. Nor is it conspiracy theory or paranoia to point out a glaring hypocritical double standard when double thinkers say Hitler was. "Christian" because he was baptised as an infant, but Obama isn't a "Muslim" despite having a Muslim father and receiving a Muslim name (which under Islam makes him a Muslim). (I say the only standard that matters is what the person believes in, so Hitler wasn't Christian and Obama ain't Muslim).

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1