San Bernardino Shooting

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Hate to be a pisser, but there are reports of all sorts of “middle eastern men” furtively coming and going from the house at night for some time. The neighbor didn’t want to be called racist, so he didn’t say anything.

The rifles were modified, with some expertise, to bypass CA mag rules.

The bombs were well made with classic bathtub explosives favored by ISIS.

He was a a devout Muslim and often contacted known radicals.

In short, this was terrorism.

What is the pisser is this: they almost certainly had help and instruction.

This leads me to believe there is a larger network out there, and Seyyid just happened to get pissed, pull a Leeroy Jenkens*, and went off too early.

More is undoubtedly planned at shopping centers and places of work throughout the USA.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins[/quote]

While it’s entirely possible (and arguably, likely), the FBI hasn’t determined whether the attack was an act of terrorism. “[A senior law enforcement official] said the FBI has yet to find definitive evidence that the couple had been radicalized or were looking at jihadist websites or reading terrorist literature such as Inspire magazine.” To assume ISIL is directly or tangentially responsible (outside of inspiration) is also a step at the current stage of the investigation. It wouldn’t be surprising, however, to learn that the couple was inspired by ISIL.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...omepage%2Fstory

If we assume the attack is terrorism, it appears to not have been directed or networked, but rather inspired.[/quote]
WRONG.[/quote]

I’m wrong? And in capital letters no less? The FBI has yet to state that the event was terrorism, though it’s entirely possible that it was. It isn’t unreasonable to believe that terrorism was the likely motive, but it’s too soon to say definitively. Regardless, if it is terrorism, the attack doesn’t appear to have been directed or networked, but inspired. [/quote]
Sorry man, but I don’t need the director of the fbi to make a statement to draw my own correct conclusions.
So yeah- capital letters.[/quote]

I gotta agree. I don’t need an ‘authority’ to point out the obvious.

122

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
9.6 out of 100,000 will die from falling…[/quote]

What you see is all there is. People tend to focus on what’s in front of them and don’t think “outside the box” (the box in this case seems to be the television/MSM).[/quote]

It’s incredible. You are almost 3 times more likely to die from falling than by a firearm homicide. [/quote]

Right … we should probably start talking about gravity control…[/quote]

lol

123

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
9.6 out of 100,000 will die from falling…[/quote]

What you see is all there is. People tend to focus on what’s in front of them and don’t think “outside the box” (the box in this case seems to be the television/MSM).[/quote]

It’s incredible. You are almost 3 times more likely to die from falling than by a firearm homicide. [/quote]

Right … we should probably start talking about gravity control…[/quote]

lol[/quote]

Don’t give liberals any more ideas. Next thing you know there will be a gravity tax for global gravity reduction.

124

FBI: Shooters had been radicalized ?for quite some time?

I’m shocked that the wife didn’t disclose this on her Visa application, even more shocked back the background check didn’t catch this. Makes you wonder about that robust vetting process. Now imagine those supposed checks with the Iran deal.

125

“It?s not even clear if any one else is responsible, since it is possible to be self-radicalized through the internet”, Bowdich said.

These two were definitely part of a network. They were not self radicalized. My understanding is they had throw away cell phones which they destroyed. If they were using them to just communicate with each other, there would be no reason to destroy the phones. They also destroyed information on their computers. If they were just using the internet to learn how to make pipe bombs and remote detonation devices, there’s no reason to cover that up either.

Muslim terrorists have been known to use women and children. Though I don’t think this is the most likely scenario, I wouldn’t be surprised if ISIS actually uses these Muslim dating sites to infiltrate the West with women whose mission it is to radicalize Muslim American men. Like I said, not the most likely but totally plausible.

127

[quote]on edge wrote:
“It?s not even clear if any one else is responsible, since it is possible to be self-radicalized through the internet”, Bowdich said.

These two were definitely part of a network. They were not self radicalized. My understanding is they had throw away cell phones which they destroyed. If they were using them to just communicate with each other, there would be no reason to destroy the phones. They also destroyed information on their computers. If they were just using the internet to learn how to make pipe bombs and remote detonation devices, there’s no reason to cover that up either.

Muslim terrorists have been known to use women and children. Though I don’t think this is the most likely scenario, I wouldn’t be surprised if ISIS actually uses these Muslim dating sites to infiltrate the West with women whose mission it is to radicalize Muslim American men. Like I said, not the most likely but totally plausible.[/quote]

Yes they use women and children and will kill Americans by any means possible. So, let’s not attack ISIS in an aggressive manner overseas that makes no sense.

Here’s what we need to do. Let’s let in 65,000 Syrian refugees. I think this makes total sense. They march by dozens of countries where their religion is respected and where the culture would welcome them only to end up Thousands of miles away from their homeland in the US. Yes…we need to do this as quickly as possible. After all, nothing bad could come of this, certainly not one of those “refugees” would be an ISIS, member, or a member of another terrorist group who would eventually kill more innocent Americans. That we know is totally impossible as the left has guaranteed a complete vetting process.

Sometimes I feel like I’m living in bizzaro land where up is down and down is up. But then again look who is in charge. If I didn’t know better (and I do) I would swear that Obama is working for the other side. It’s just that runaway liberalism breeds this sort of poor decision making. Obama’s Presidency is marked by one bad decision after another.

Remember when he told our enemies ahead of time that he was going to withdraw the final 10,000 troops from Iraq? Then what happened? It became a breeding ground for terrorism. Okay, I’m a bit off topic but everyone really needs to understand that while no doubt well meaning Obama has made things far worse…far worse!

128

Off topic, but an interesting book by Paul Collier discsusses the effect of large “multicultural” diasporas. The most interesting effects claimed in the book are:

  1. A higher rate of influx of immigrants, the larger the existing diaspora is.
  2. A slower the rate of absorption of the diaspora into the main body of natives the larger the diaspora.
  3. The more disparate the culture of the host is to the migrating populace, the longer it takes to assimilate them.
  4. Larger levels of crime and lower levels of societal trust (noted by the author as being hard to measure) are observed in direct correlation to the above two factors.

Hijack over.

129

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
9.6 out of 100,000 will die from falling…[/quote]

What you see is all there is. People tend to focus on what’s in front of them and don’t think “outside the box” (the box in this case seems to be the television/MSM).[/quote]

It’s incredible. You are almost 3 times more likely to die from falling than by a firearm homicide. [/quote]

Right … we should probably start talking about gravity control…[/quote]

lol[/quote]

Don’t give liberals any more ideas. Next thing you know there will be a gravity tax for global gravity reduction. [/quote]

Well it’s apparently their fault. Stupidity has mass, and they have a lot of it.

130

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I’m trying to make sense of this like all of you and the part I’m getting stuck on is that these two were the parents of a 6 months old.

Having been a young single man at some point I can honestly say that we - as a group - are collectively fucking idiots. It’s women, and especially mothers, who keep the human race alive through their steadying hand.

I don’t understand how the idea that they might never see their child again, didn’t stop these two from committing these atrocious acts.[/quote]

It’s disturbing to me too. It seems to go against every natural maternal impulse. I guess she didn’t have an issue with willingly making an orphan of her child, but she at least she didn’t strap the kid into a Baby Bjorn when she went to the party.

As it’s been mentioned, there is no hesitation to use women and children. Palestinian terror organizations have strapped bombs to mentally handicapped kids and blown them up.

And there’s this lovely person… “Umm Nidal, who sent three of her sons, including one 17-year-old, on suicide attacks, said ‘I love my children, but as Muslims we pressure ourselves and sacrifice our emotions for the interest of the homeland. The greater interest takes precedence to the personal interest.’ She was later elected to the Palestinian legislature on the Hamas ticket.”

It’s pretty awful, but seems somehow worse when it’s women who are violent and aggressive in that way. Of course, I find watching Holly Holm and Ronda Rousy punching each other in the face to be really repellent, and people seem to love to watch it so what do I know.

131

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

As it’s been mentioned, there is no hesitation to use women and children. Palestinian terror organizations have strapped bombs to mentally handicapped kids and blown them up.[/quote]

Not long ago Obama taunted the republicans regarding his inane immigration stance. “the republicans are afraid of women and children.”

I noticed that he’s not saying that anymore…

132

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

…I wouldn’t be surprised if ISIS actually uses these Muslim dating sites to infiltrate the West with women whose mission it is to radicalize Muslim American men…

[/quote]

And why wouldn’t they? For that matter, why wouldn’t they infiltrate via refugees?

Why wouldn’t they?

Shitola, if I were them I’d surely do it.

They’re demons from hell but that doesn’t mean they’re stupid.
[/quote]
I bet that they are using coded language. The phrase that stood out to me was ‘likes to work on cars’. For some reason that reads as ‘car bombs’ within the context of the whole modus operandi.

133

[quote]on edge wrote:
“It?s not even clear if any one else is responsible, since it is possible to be self-radicalized through the internet”, Bowdich said.

These two were definitely part of a network. They were not self radicalized. My understanding is they had throw away cell phones which they destroyed. If they were using them to just communicate with each other, there would be no reason to destroy the phones. They also destroyed information on their computers. If they were just using the internet to learn how to make pipe bombs and remote detonation devices, there’s no reason to cover that up either.

Muslim terrorists have been known to use women and children. Though I don’t think this is the most likely scenario, I wouldn’t be surprised if ISIS actually uses these Muslim dating sites to infiltrate the West with women whose mission it is to radicalize Muslim American men. Like I said, not the most likely but totally plausible.[/quote]

I was thinking that there are brides waiting to come to America with a man that has been radicalized.

Rough outline.
-A US citizen is on his journey to being a radical Muslim.
-He is in contact with other radicals in the “homeland”.
-A trip is set up to travel to the Middle East where a possible bride is waiting.
-They meet, she comes back on a visa with her new fiance.
-They get married and are in contact with their Terrorist organization, preparing, planning, and waiting for instructions while carrying on with their life as if they were not about to kill as many people as possible and die very soon.

134

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Meanwhile 23.9 / 100,000 will die from Diabetes. I don’t hear anyone clamoring to restrict the production and sale of Lucky Charms. [/quote]
Greg Glassman

136

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

As it’s been mentioned, there is no hesitation to use women and children. Palestinian terror organizations have strapped bombs to mentally handicapped kids and blown them up.[/quote]

Not long ago Obama taunted the republicans regarding his inane immigration stance. “the republicans are afraid of women and children.”

I noticed that he’s not saying that anymore…

[/quote]

Ralph Peters has a most appropriate response to Obama’s taunting.

138

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:

…I wouldn’t be surprised if ISIS actually uses these Muslim dating sites to infiltrate the West with women whose mission it is to radicalize Muslim American men…

[/quote]

And why wouldn’t they? For that matter, why wouldn’t they infiltrate via refugees?

Why wouldn’t they?

Shitola, if I were them I’d surely do it.

They’re demons from hell but that doesn’t mean they’re stupid.
[/quote]
I bet that they are using coded language. The phrase that stood out to me was ‘likes to work on cars’. For some reason that reads as ‘car bombs’ within the context of the whole modus operandi.[/quote]

Nice catch Sky. I noticed that but just thought it was a weird thing to say on a dating ad. Even my suspicious nature didn’t think of that angle though.

139

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

As it’s been mentioned, there is no hesitation to use women and children. Palestinian terror organizations have strapped bombs to mentally handicapped kids and blown them up.[/quote]

Not long ago Obama taunted the republicans regarding his inane immigration stance. “the republicans are afraid of women and children.”

I noticed that he’s not saying that anymore…

[/quote]

Ditto for Bismark.

140

[quote]Powerpuff wrote:

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
I’m trying to make sense of this like all of you and the part I’m getting stuck on is that these two were the parents of a 6 months old.

Having been a young single man at some point I can honestly say that we - as a group - are collectively fucking idiots. It’s women, and especially mothers, who keep the human race alive through their steadying hand.

I don’t understand how the idea that they might never see their child again, didn’t stop these two from committing these atrocious acts.[/quote]

It’s disturbing to me too. It seems to go against every natural maternal impulse. I guess she didn’t have an issue with willingly making an orphan of her child, but she at least she didn’t strap the kid into a Baby Bjorn when she went to the party.

As it’s been mentioned, there is no hesitation to use women and children. Palestinian terror organizations have strapped bombs to mentally handicapped kids and blown them up.

And there’s this lovely person… “Umm Nidal, who sent three of her sons, including one 17-year-old, on suicide attacks, said ‘I love my children, but as Muslims we pressure ourselves and sacrifice our emotions for the interest of the homeland. The greater interest takes precedence to the personal interest.’ She was later elected to the Palestinian legislature on the Hamas ticket.”

It’s pretty awful, but seems somehow worse when it’s women who are violent and aggressive in that way. Of course, I find watching Holly Holm and Ronda Rousy punching each other in the face to be really repellent, and people seem to love to watch it so what do I know. [/quote]

Haha I’m really squeamish about watching the women fight but I’ve also got some kind of morbid love of it and keep coming back.

Btw, I read or heard somewhere that women are actually more likely to kill their child than a man is. Kids are at greater risk from stepfathers or their mother’s boyfriends. One more reason for a guy to stay with the mother of his children. Leave her and some dude might move in a start abusing your kids.