Yesterday the President stated that it could be workplace violence and today less than a day later an officer involved in the shooting indicates that the attackers pledged allegiance to ISIL. It appears that the Pres. is not being briefed in a timely manner or is intentionally downplaying this as he and his administration have come out with strong assurances after Paris.
Key word being "could" be. And it certainly looks like it could be workplace violence taken to extreme based on radical views. Whatever the motivation, it certainly isn't the same kind of attack as Paris and in fact I'm not sure there is any precedent based on what I/we know now. In any case, I hate the fact that this has already become a political football from all points on the spectrum but in today's climate that seems rather unavoidable.
To add to that, had the President called it a terrorist act before the facts were in, he would have been accused of jumping to conclusions. The same people attacking him for not calling it terrorism would have attacked him for calling it terrorism.
Yesterday the President stated that it could be workplace violence and today less than a day later an officer involved in the shooting indicates that the attackers pledged allegiance to ISIL. It appears that the Pres. is not being briefed in a timely manner or is intentionally downplaying this as he and his administration have come out with strong assurances after Paris.
Key word being "could" be. And it certainly looks like it could be workplace violence taken to extreme based on radical views. Whatever the motivation, it certainly isn't the same kind of attack as Paris and in fact I'm not sure there is any precedent based on what I/we know now. In any case, I hate the fact that this has already become a political football from all points on the spectrum but in today's climate that seems rather unavoidable.
To add to that, had the President called it a terrorist act before the facts were in, he would have been accused of jumping to conclusions. The same people attacking him for not calling it terrorism would have attacked him for calling it terrorism.
Everyone wants an answer but this is an evolving situation. The investigative process is only beginning. The answers will come, but until then everything is speculation.
Our society has reached this weird place where not only have we accepted that being a victim of a mass shooting is just something we have to live with, but the motives behind the events are somehow classified in such a way that there are now conditional responses.
Three recent mass shootings...Colorado, Louisiana, California...do the motives of the shooters make all of the victims any less dead?
No but it makes a big big difference in whether future victims will be dead. What if these jihadist got in their car and mowed down 14 people standing on a sidewalk? There would be no talk about mass shootings and the victims would be just as dead.
In the last 335 days, there have been more mass shootings than days. 355.
Americans are killing Americans daily, but we really need to freak out when jihadists are involved?
Why are you trying so hard to separate the two? Death at the hand of an American is better?
[Edited on 12/4/2015 by Bhawk]
my impression so far is that it may be a mix of many factors.
1. seems to have been radicalized.
2. seems to have been unstable, stressed for some reason
3. seems to have some kind of work problems.if you are planning on killing alot of people, any target is as good as the next. 2 birds with one stone, kill the people you hate at work and anyone else in the room.
The work problems appear to be that he had theological disputes with a christian. That explains mass murder. When oh when are we going to wake up? I swear I really think it will take a nuclear bomb going off in an American city and maybe not even then.
Jihadism is an issue. A grave, deadly issue.
But it's not the only issue.
Gentleman, take a deep breath. Its just gins; she's expressed these views for at least the last 15 years.
Maybe so. But they are still disgusting.
I am sure somebody, somewhere says the same thing about your views. So what exactly is your point ?
What any of us think isn't going to change what happened or bring anyone back. All the bickering in these threads just shows that most people need to grow up, learn how to respond to any given situation/circumstance in a prosocial manner, and STOP reacting on emotion. It is so predictable.
Post of the year.
I can't believe I'm in the position of agreeing with MacKenzie, Jamez and Woods at the same time.
End times baby.
These threads are brain dead IMO -- all the talk about liberal conservative, Republican Democrat...
these mass shootings aren't about political leanings
they're about guns getting into the hands of twisted people -- it's gotten pretty bad -- real bad
the Sandy Hook massacre in CT was 3 years ago today
I agree...a big THANK YOU for that statement.
Everyone has a plan, till you get punched in the face,
Gentleman, take a deep breath. Its just gina; she's expressed these views for at least the last 15 years.
I blame piacere...............
but who's responsible for the behavior of the same few regulars engaging in the same "discussions", loaded with insults and personal attacks, day after day after day after day...As mentioned, predictable.
I've never seen gina insult anyone.
No, she didn't insult anyone, just offered rationalizations and pleas for sympathy for mass murderers of innocent people at a Christmas party, while whining about how Muslims are unfairly targeted for blame in these massacres. Perhaps if Muslims like Gina offered outrage over these slaughterings instead of trying to muster sympathy for the slaughterers, Muslims might take less heat for what others do in their name.
Gentleman, take a deep breath. Its just gina; she's expressed these views for at least the last 15 years.
I blame piacere...............
but who's responsible for the behavior of the same few regulars engaging in the same "discussions", loaded with insults and personal attacks, day after day after day after day...As mentioned, predictable.
I've never seen gina insult anyone.
No, she didn't insult anyone, just offered rationalizations and pleas for sympathy for mass murderers of innocent people at a Christmas party, while whining about how Muslims are unfairly targeted for blame in these massacres. Perhaps if Muslims like Gina offered outrage over these slaughterings instead of trying to muster sympathy for the slaughterers, Muslims might take less heat for what others do in their name.
IMO, it is insulting to the innocent victims when one tries to justify their mass murder.
my impression so far is that it may be a mix of many factors.
1. seems to have been radicalized.
2. seems to have been unstable, stressed for some reason
3. seems to have some kind of work problems.if you are planning on killing alot of people, any target is as good as the next. 2 birds with one stone, kill the people you hate at work and anyone else in the room.
He has a 6 month old baby and has only been married for two years, that in and of itself is a lot of stress. He was at an annual company employee meeting where recognition and awards were given out, he probably didn't get one, or he would not have left the meeting angrily. Many people want recognition from their jobs. He may have needed a promotion, more money to help pay the child costs etc. and didn't get it. He did not have good coping or problem resolution skills or he would not have reacted with violence, having pipe bombs in the garage shows he planned to exact some measure of justice on people or places that pissed him off.
Where was he from in Pakistan or where was his family from? In the tribal regions some disputes are settled by blowing up someone's house, they try to negotiate first, but if that fails, sometimes they do that. That is a cultural thing.
He killed 14 people because he didn't get an award? Are actually trying to rationalize his motive like that? Tell me about the baby, is the baby better off now. Might well be.
When you enter this or any other country, you are bound by its laws. And, BTW, murder is a felony in Pakistan, even in tribal areas. Where do you come up with this BS?
I didn't say that not getting an award was a rationally justified reason for him deciding to come back and kill people, but we all know there is an activating event that occurs before someone commits a crime like that. If he was just pissed off over a long time, he could have come in and did it when he arrived that day, but he didn't. He went to the party/ceremony, then got pissed off, (as in 'this is the last straw' type of pissed off) and used whatever went on in the meeting as his reason to come back and do his martyrdom attack. He knew he would die, he brought his wife, and brother, and the garage full of other things indicate he planned to do an attack, he just waited for an event to be his reason. That party was his event and his reason.
Our society has reached this weird place where not only have we accepted that being a victim of a mass shooting is just something we have to live with, but the motives behind the events are somehow classified in such a way that there are now conditional responses.
Three recent mass shootings...Colorado, Louisiana, California...do the motives of the shooters make all of the victims any less dead?
No but it makes a big big difference in whether future victims will be dead. What if these jihadist got in their car and mowed down 14 people standing on a sidewalk? There would be no talk about mass shootings and the victims would be just as dead.
In the last 335 days, there have been more mass shootings than days. 355.
Americans are killing Americans daily, but we really need to freak out when jihadists are involved?
Why are you trying so hard to separate the two? Death at the hand of an American is better?
[Edited on 12/4/2015 by Bhawk]
Which deaths the media focuses on has become a political agenda. Some are not reported, some are. And every time there is a shooting, the gun control arguments come up every single time.
I don't think people should be slaughtered but I have a deeper understanding as to why these things occur than some others do. Understanding is not the same as justifying it or giving someone a free pass to do it. I understand why they are angry, why they feel they need to respond in the way they are responding. If THAT is their belief of what a correct response is, then that is what you can expect from them under certain circumstances and situations.
A PERSON'S BELIEFS DETERMINE HOW THEY RESPOND TO THINGS.
Example, in 2002 a drone strike reportedly struck a car that Mullah Omar, his wife, and son were in. The US had intel that Osama was in the car, Osama was NOT. It was in Khost. Omar and his family had stopped to visit someone. Omar got out of the car and was in a house for less than 5 minutes when the missile struck the car, killing his wife and child. Did he vow death to all Americans or go around taking hostages, cutting people's head's off? No. His beliefs about how he needed to conduct his personal jihad prevented him from lashing out. He understood jihad and that is why he was loved, revered and respected by all.
The wife of Mr. Farook, was reportedly a Daesh supporter. Their beliefs are NOT the same as other groups, such as the Afghan Talibs or even Al Qaida the main group led by Ayman Al Zawahiri. So you can't just say oh all the Muslims are terrorists and they all think the same and will do the same things. It is not true. Jihad is also a complex issue, Daesh tries to simplify it and say our way or die, these differences in beliefs go back even to the time when Osama was discussing it with Abdullah Azzam, Azzam did not want to discuss or negotiate anything, he said "there is jihad, and there is your rifle, there is no discussion". That is a hardline stance and position to take.
Jesus will be back on earth leading an army, and those Afghans will support him and defend him while he makes his way to Jerusalem to unseat the anti-Christ. They will be fighting against the Islamic State or whoever succeeds them. Jihad will not stop until Judgement Day, because injustice will not stop until God presides over the world. Daesh is not waiting for the anti-Christ to assume power in Jerusalem. They want the conquest of it NOW.
By the way the jihad that is the most important is the spiritual one, the personal one where you struggle against your own demons/shortcomings overcoming your own sins. Jihad is not pre-emptive strikes against anyone else. It is not allowed to go to other countries to kill their people. You are only allowed to fight in a defensive manner, AFTER you have been attacked first. This is the same beliefs that Christians have. They don't go starting anything, but if you come to a man's home he has a right to defend himself.
"The 29-year-old Malik, who was born in Pakistan, got married to the Illinois-born Farook in Saudi Arbia. She was said to have pledged allegiance to Daesh on Facebook."
http://presstv.ir/Detail/2015/12/07/440756/san-bernardino-us-california-shooting-daesh-takfiri
So you want your terror link, she was aligned with the Islamic State. Their beliefs are hardline, they do not discuss, or negotiate. They do not represent the other groups.
[Edited on 12/10/2015 by gina]
