A fellow worker said he just got up and left, no arguement. Maybe the fact it was a Christmas party triggered it, maybe not. But since the house was full of ammo and pipe bombs and tools and material to make more, was that just a staging place for mor Muslims for several attacks? With reports of mant people coming and going several attacks might have been planned. Rented SUV? Why?
Was he or his wife on a FBI watch list?
I have no doubt they planned either one larger big attack on a higher profile target or were going to go on a spree and sustain it as long as possible. They didn't just let themselves get killed, the fought it out. They were going to do as much damage as possible.Originally Posted by jazyd
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
They shot Santa Claus.
These two were obviously not worried about dying, either. And I also agree that there was something else intended because of all the ordnance & materials in their home. And there can be zero doubt that this was planned, because of the clothing worn, the vests and the small arms weaponry.
This was a terrorist attack, plain & simple. It could also fall under workplace violence, but the terrorism aspects of this, especially with the foreign jihadist connections, all of the overseas travel, and the fact that they were both apparently devout Muslims can only give creedence to this being a terrorist attack first. JMHO.
MOLON LABE!
However,this current administration and ALL of their drones in DHS & the FBI will do backflips to keep from calling this a terrorist attack by radical Muslim jihadists. Just stand back and watch.
MOLON LABE!
This country is NOT calling an end for Christmas parties. Relax. The "war on Christmas" is a complete myth.
You're right that this is a hate crime and an act of terrorism. Every mass killing is exactly that, no matter what radicalizes it. Are you sure this isn't a mental health issue, though? IMO, there is nothing more mentally ill then using your religion or other radical beliefs to mass kill.
The fact that a U.S. citizen was able to stockpile weapons of mass destruction legally, just goes to show how f'ed up our gun control laws are. We have to have a system that monitors the count and ownership of law abiding citizens(which is exactly what this terrorist was). The sad thing is that even if he was a terror suspect, there is absolutely nothing that would have stood in his way to legally purchase these weapons. That has to change. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with accumulating large amounts of weapons of mass destruction. These people need to be identified, neighbors need to be informed, workplaces need to be informed, so the people can protect themselves.
This is just common sense. I'd rather know if my neighbor possessed a small arsenal than if he/she was a convicted sex offender. Although, I'd want to know both.
We continue to put people's lives in serious danger in order to protect gun owners so they can freely possess any limit of weapons of their desire with little consequence of action. There HAS to be a middle ground.
Marco Rubio was on CBS this morning and he said this nation has a violence problem, not a gun problem. While I disagree with that statement, let's take that as fact and discuss. If we have a violence problem, don't we owe it to the people to restrict and monitor those that are at high risk to be violent? Back in the Bush administration, when the left opposed surveillance programs, I'd hear a lot on the right say that what's it matter if you're not breaking laws, it will keep us safer. I use that same tactic in the gun control argument, if you're law abiding, then why would you care if there's additional burdens to ownership if it can keep us safer. The argument that control laws are a burden to responsible people is insane. In the name of safety, we SHOULD be burdened.
It sure is convenient, though, with this timing. Everybody has forgotten about the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack. Now that the focus has turned to homegrown Muslim terrorism as the target for mass killings, the typical profile of those that have committed these mass killings in the past, those ready to do so in the future can now proceed with the notion that they're only going to be viewed as a failure of the system and mentally ill. Not me, though, they're just as evil as these radical Muslims. To me, it's the 21st century racism. White man, non-Muslim mass killer, mentally ill. Dark man, Muslim mass killer is a terrorist. Let's have some courage to call them all what they are. Terrorist Killers.
No, we should not be burdened with more governmental intrusions into that which is none of its business. A citizen of this country that has no prior criminal history and who wishes to acquire whatever firearms he so desires should not have any more ornerous burdens placed in his way, nor should any government inquiry into his responsible firearms ownership should be allowed. Why? Because what happened in San Bernadino is so outside the norm, that's why. Whatever small percentage of idiots that follow the path to radicalization is far outweighed by those who would never even allow themselves to have that suggestion made to them. And so, why should the majority have to suffer for the follies of the few? We should not. It's that plain and simple.
Now, I will tell what is idiotic.......the fact that neighbors saw suspicious activities at these terrorists home and did not want to say anything for fear of being called an Islamophobe or a racist. Oh puh-lese! Friggin' grow a pair or just turn in your man-card! And if not for letting some authority somewhere know of the activity, then to clear their own conscience of any ill feelings about themselves for not reporting that suspicious activity, and therefore possibly having saved some lives.
MOLON LABE!
seeya
dan
I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight.
suncat seems Mr Stu didn't pay attention to facts. Those two terrorists, Muslims terrorists, didn't buy the two AR15's, the guy bought the two pistols several years ago legally, probably much before he became such a radical Muslim t errorists. And on his salary of $51,000 I seriously doubt he could have purchased the approximate $30,000 worth of ordinance that was in that condo according to reports. So no new gun laws or any of the old 20,000 plus gun laws or any of California's strict gun laws would have prevented this.
But that is what the liberal left wing radicals would have us all believe, more gun laws tand this won't happen. Well, as long as we have someone like BO...I decided to use his initials now because of what it stands for, Body Odor because what he is doing smells...in office, we will continue to have these attacks on our soil and those of our allies. He was probably sh..ing in his pants when he uttered they just might have to look at it being terrorism.
Some have complained we lost so many rights under Bush after 9-11, no we didn't lose any rights. We still got on planes..yes a little inconvenient well so what after I saw that a coke can brought down the Russian Airliner, and yes some computer listens to conversations trying to pick out certain words or phrases, big deal we still get to talk and i have said many things about our gov, our president, senators and congressmen from both sides of the isle and no one has been to my house yet to arrest me, we still drive where we want, go to movies, go to games, do what we want. so no rights have been lost, just some inconvenience is all. I want that computer listening for those phrases or words, maybe if they had checked facebook, 14 people in California would still be alive.
New gun laws, how about liberal judges making those that break laws spend time. How about the carnage in Chicago being taken care of,
The Second Amendment says my right to own a gun 'shall not be infringed upon'. I have every right as you do, to protect myself against known enemies of this country, unknown enemies, criminals, terrorists, and yes the government when necessary.
Have you hear Harry One Eye Reid mention terrorists in Califronia that killed those people, nope, just more gun laws. Same with BO, more gun laws. Hey one eye and BO, those two terrorists had pipe bombs, what gun laws would have protected us from that.
New theory...Sayed Farook was a jealousy husband who saw mommy kissing Santa. Expect Susan Rice to present this to the United Nations next week.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Have a terrorism problem? Easy solution, increase background checks.
Never mind that not one of these shootings would have been caught by the expanded background checks being proposed. Not one. The key to expansion of control and government is the idea that it's OK to curtail everyone's rights or raid their pocketbooks for billions as long as there is ANY chance that XYZ new law will EVER do any good.
Let's not focus on how we can track these people with a minimum of invasion of the privacy of others, or even if we need to revisit that need, and actually target the BAD GUYS. No, let's pass laws to increase the burden on everyone who obeys the laws.
As for that burden not being bad, that assumption underlies that you believe government will keep its word. They'll never come to collect those guns they register, they'll never ask for another even higher standard for gun control when this step proves fruitless.
That's the sucker play of this deal. Pass a law they KNOW will do nothing, b/c it's a stepping stone to the NEXT law on their list when the murders continue and they say we need to do even more. That lets them keep using the problem to pursue their largely separate agenda, and get closer and closer to the making the 2nd Amendment meaningless.
That's why we oppose these steps. They won't work to reduce these events, but they will work to slowly and inexorably move the gun control debate to more and more control that goes beyond simple background checks.
we have native born Americans now embracing these lunatics, turning their baby's nursery into a bomb making facility, and the best the Left and Obama can do is call for background checks on private gun transfers. Really?
Well it worked so well in France, where guns are largely illegal.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
The visa for the wife to be should never have been granted per some reports.
Citizen, once again youn ailed it. And the shame is so many are either blind, total allegiance to the liberal democrat agenda, or too stupid to see what is happening right in front of them.
Take my second right freedom, as a law abiding citizen. Tax the hell out of me. Lie to me saying they will protect me. Twist policy around to make it look great on paper all the while knowing it is a lie.
I don't trust our government any longer, and I pay way more attention to what they are doing now than ever before. Wake up now free, or wake up shortly and realize what you helped them accomplish. People say it can't happen, well it can and its on its way.
Instead of tougher background checks on American citizens wishing to defend themselves, how about tougher background checks on foreign nationals coming from countries chocked full of radicals who have declared war on the US?
Apparently we didn't even verify her home address on the application.
but we wouldn't want to profile anyone, so instead let's create a permanent paper trail of that family shotgun that you got from your grandfather.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Jazy, the firearms ban in the UK began with registration. clearly to collect guns you have to know where they are to collect, esp. with 300 million of them in the US.
Confiscation in the UK began with registration. The first law was the Pistols Act of 1903, which much like our current laws forbade selling of handguns to minors and felons, very reasonable. But it also required licenses to buy/own a handgun.
Then in 1920 they expanded licenses to all firearms other than shotguns.
Then in 1953 and 1967 they banned carrying of firearms and licensing of shotguns.
By the time they got to a complete ban they'd already accomplished the key goal: eliminating the belief that a person has the right to defend himself. Licenses were refused like they are in blue counties in California and New York now, where even a threat against one's life can't get you a permit.
By the time we get to the 80s and 90s the UK had everything they needed: 1) a pretty complete list of every gun in the country, and 2) a belief that shooting a burglar in your own home was being a vigilante and that owning a gun was itself a sign of some kind of issue.
They demonized guns and gun ownership and registered every gun. Then it was just a matter of time till they were all confiscated.
Sound crazy? Well our own President has pointed multiple times to the confiscations in the UK and Australia as a model for action in the US, and Diane Feinstein, the senior most elected gun control official, has said if she could she'd round up every gun in the country. The leaders of the anti-gun movement absolutely positively want them to be confiscated and for gun ownership to become a thing of the past in the US.
They want it for various reasons (despite their hypocrisy of Feinstein herself having a carry permit few can get in her state and Obama having 24/7 armed guards the rest of his life), but they want it. Some are sincere, thinking it will lead to less violence and crime. Some just want those of us on the right to have no way to resist government, helps them sleep better at night knowing the state has all the power.
So let's talk about real solutions to the problem, fine. But this constant call to simply expand the tracking of guns when NOT ONE OF THESE SHOOTINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN STOPPED is nonsense. It's like suggesting we bomb Bora Bora b/c we were just attacked by someone from Pakistan.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
The Obama administration is too busy trying to import as many potential democrat votes as possible to bother with trivial matters, such as laws and the safety of our country.
Gun confiscation is just a step along the way to communism.
How about not letting anyone in from those countries, sorry but I don't trust any of them
Talked to one of my best friends today, he lives in Paducah. He told me of a fourth grade boy there in schoo who does not speak English, guess his parents are recent to the country. So boy has tutors and special ed and writes everything in his stove language, he is Muslim ax his parents. Mush of what he writes is about killing Christians. Now where does he get that ? Hmmmm
Sometimes I think we have two war fronts, the terrorists Muslims and much of our own government. Cabt trust either.
And yet people who are supposedly intelligent can't see either. Or want this country to be drastically changed and thinking the terrorists will leave them alone. Dumb azz's will be easier to kill. Then they will be like the DC police chief that wants us to protect her
I could have sworn I saw a long post by doc that I agreed with, now don't see it
That and demonize the right. They are the ones with the war on women, the war on the elderly, the war on the poor.. hell apparently I got a war on with everybody despite never killing anybody but if I were to get an AK47 and some pipe bombs, dress in combat fatigues and run into a building shooting while yelling Allah Akbar, its because I don't like my coworkers
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Or they had the gall to have a "Christmas party" that was offensive to you.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
We just had our Phil-Am Christmas party at our church, in the parrish hall. Not that I'm all paranoid and stuff, but I made sure that I was facing the only door being used for ingress/egress to the hall. And I told quite a few that if somebody came in doing crazy stuff to hit the floor and let me take care of the issue. And of course, there were several "good 'ol boys" that go to church with us that told me that they'd back my move, whatever it may be.
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that goes to church prepared for an emergency.
MOLON LABE!
She might have been an operative before coming to US, he was radicalized when he went to get here. She was evidently a plant
His father has been added to the terror watch list.
I realize many are upset with what a Trump has said about not allowing Muslim immigrants "temporarily" but if that was in affect now 14 people would be alive. BO's vetting process is very flawed.
It's going to get worse
I think it's very dangerous to just ban people based on faith. Trump likens it to FDR's encampment of the Japanese and he's right that's the analogy, and that was wrong as well. In fact FDR's was WAY more wrong than what Trump is proposing in hindsight b/c the fear that Japanese loyalty would push many to support the military regime and Emperor proved even more false than what we are seeing today with radical Islam being able to reach into the American Muslim communities.
It would be wise to simply admit that profiling isn't discrimination but just pragmatism. You can't ban all Muslims, but it is fair to say that someone from a nation with ties to these groups would get extra scrutiny, whether registered as Muslim or not. If you're from Pakistan you probably warrant a closer look than if you're a 60 year old from Scotland named McDervish. Just reality of good risk assessment.
But banning an entire faith from coming into the country? that's unprecedented and far overstepping in many ways. It was deeply wrong to round up American citizens and legal immigrants in WWII and put them in camps (esp. since we didn't have any German or Italian camps), and it's wrong to exclude an entire faith now when many of that faith have good reasons for coming here.
BUT we can't give that faith a pass when it clearly warrants extra scrutiny. Raising the bar for people from a given region seems warranted, but Trump once again is overreaching into hubris to exclude people based solely on something like religion. It goes against the whole reason the nation was founded, to avoid that kind of line in the sand.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Citizen, I might be wrong but I dont' think he said the Islam faith but rather Muslims. He also said temporarily. That lady that helped kill 14 last week should never have gotten in based on our precedents, she was never interviewed according to testimony yesterday on the hill even though she was supposed to have been. No head of an agency yesterday could tell committees that they knew anything about her or him for that matter, nor did it seem many protocols were done.
What I think he is saying, until we can figure out what the heck we are doing.which seems no one really knows, anyone that is Muslim does not get admitted. Now, he could have done like you suggest and say anyone from a certain nation. But at least he is offering something which none of the other candidates from either party are doing, all they are doing is the same ole garbage we constantly hear.
What everyone is used to is politicians talking their language, what we hear from Trump is tought NY talk.
Citizen, I might be wrong but I dont' think he said the Islam faith but rather Muslims. He also said temporarily. That lady that helped kill 14 last week should never have gotten in based on our precedents, she was never interviewed according to testimony yesterday on the hill even though she was supposed to have been. No head of an agency yesterday could tell committees that they knew anything about her or him for that matter, nor did it seem many protocols were done.
What I think he is saying, until we can figure out what the heck we are doing.which seems no one really knows, anyone that is Muslim does not get admitted. Now, he could have done like you suggest and say anyone from a certain nation. But at least he is offering something which none of the other candidates from either party are doing, all they are doing is the same ole garbage we constantly hear.
What everyone is used to is politicians talking their language, what we hear from Trump is tought NY talk.
There's no distinction to be made there. Trump knows it, we all know it.
It's not tough NY talk, it's good ole 21st century racist, bigoted talk to purposely prey on people's fears. If you're looking where this "talk" is resonating, it's not centered in NY.
Trump's just trying to make bigotry and racism cool again(although Scalia is giving him a run for his money), or at least allow people not to have to hide it anymore, which is something that I'm completely in favor of too. I like to see the idiots raise their hands.
Last edited by StuBleedsBlue2; 12-10-2015 at 05:03 PM.
All those Christy Minstrels shows weren't down our way. Racism is as bad there as anywhere.
Is it unacceptable to simply ban everyone of a given faith, even temporarily? Yes. But I'm not sure it's "racism" as much as it is just an overreaction to the threat. Where Trump gets his appeal is he's willing to do SOMETHING that actually may address a problem, even if it's not politically correct, even if it is as that level a racist or discriminatory policy.
The reason that appeals isn't b/c all those people are racists, is that all those people are fed up with politicians who won't do anything for fear of the PC backlash. When trump says we need to stop investigating Scotch Irish grandmothers and focus on people who may really be a threat, yes that's something most people think but dont' dare say, not b/c they are racist but b/c anything that even gives that appearance opens one up to the slur.
It's clear that people coming from these countries and people of Islamic faith are a higher threat risk than other immigrant groups, that's simply the truth of the situation. To the extent he's willing to say that and then suggest answers, where others refuse to state the obvious, he gains support.
That all being said, his approach needs to be changed to a focus on immediate suspension of ALL such visas until we can review the procedures and audit those that are in the pipeline to make sure the work is being properly done. He could even have said we do that for anyone considered a higher risk such as being from a given nation or even a faith, he just made it come out like a ban where he needs to focus on it as legitimate threat assessment where you do more homework on people who are a higher risk.
That's not a great fit with the "American way" of everyone being equal, but there are places where we allow that sort of thing even in the US among citizens, so it's not unprecedented. When assessing risk we have to take a more military approach to the situation, and with limited resources we have to expend them in the way that maximizes our chances of finding the biggest threats.
Had he called on immediate emergency action on the visa program to better assess threats and suspend immigration as needed it would have come off as far less reactionary and even racist. But Trump isn't known for laying things out that way.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
The PC people have run amok to the point that they are endangering others. Neighbors feared reporting the terrorists because of potential condemnation from the PC crowd and calls of racism.
That just makes them idiots. They can call the police or the FBI without any risk of retaliation. It's an irrational fear.
I disagree or need to clarify on all bolded statements.
When I used the term racism with Trump, it wasn't isolated to the proposed banning of Muslims, it was an all encompassing viewpoint and statements that he's made in the past. Racism, in my opinion, is calling white people that commit mass killings, mentally ill and non-whites are terrorists. To me, they're all terrorists and they're all mentally ill. Radicalization is an extreme mental illness. I was also referring to Scalia, who's proving once again that he's a flat out racist.
I don't think most people that are supporting Trump are doing so, and you would have to assume that it's blind support if you aren't considering them racist or bigoted, because they're fed up. I think Trump is playing to people's fears of Islamic extremism. We've never been safer as a country(even though there's more to do), but it's the #1 fear of so many people.
I totally disagree that Muslim's are the higher risk of any immigrant group. There's absolutely no evidence of that. It's a perception, perhaps, but that just can't be supported. The fact of the matter is that immigrants are LESS likely to be criminals than native-born Americans. I go back to my city. It's not the Muslim people that I'm scared of(well, I'm not scared of anybody really), it's the day to day risks that make me nervous. I'm WAY more fearful of a drunk driver, distracted drivers or someone driving at very high speeds.
It's only human nature, though, to be scared of the wrong things.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks