26
   

San Bernardino shooting: At least 14 people killed

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2015 03:46 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Oh, maybe I got the wrong theory, eh? Come to think of it, your position seemed to be that it was done by Zionists, who then pinned the rap on muslims. Sorry, I can't keep em all straight.
Quehoniaomath
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2015 03:58 pm
@layman,
Quote:
Oh, maybe I got the wrong theory, eh? Come to think of it, your position seemed to be that it was done by Zionists, who then pinned the rap on muslims. Sorry, I can't keep em all straight.


Yep, done by Zionists. But do you know what Zionists are?
layman
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2015 04:05 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
But do you know what Zionists are?


Yeah, it's another word for kike, I figure.
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2015 04:10 pm
@layman,
what's kike then?
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2015 04:13 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
Quote:
what's kike then?


It's the old word for what has transformed into the word (euphemism) "Zionist" these days, eh?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2015 05:15 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:

Quote:
But do you know what Zionists are?


Yeah, it's another word for kike, I figure.


Yep. It's what all the well-heeled anti-Semites prefer. The more rabid ones prefer "Zionist Entity" to "Israel."
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2015 05:35 pm
@layman,
I would think that the mere fact that they booked out of the place indicated that they had plans to live another day. I think it's a pretty good assumption that they contemplated violence of one sort or another in those days to come, if not as attacks then as a response to police trying to arrest them.

The notion that this wasn't premeditated is utterly laughable. They left their kid with the grandmother on a pretext.

In any case, we constantly see arguments made in this forum that people are innocent until proven guilty and that is certainly the case in a criminal prosecution. Every citizen is owed that standard, but not by their fellow citizens (unless the citizen is on their jury).

The media should be careful too about presuming guilt because of their power, but when someone is identified as the person who blew themself up while killing a bunch of people they are no longer the "alleged" criminal.

In this case the two were killed by police after a firefight. I'm not sure that it's been covered in the media, but presumably the police had a reason to be looking for these two and their vehicle. I seriously doubt they were stopping every car with two Middle-eastern looking people in it.

There is evidence that the two fired on police (I actually read a report that they hurled pipe bombs at them but I don't know if that's been confirmed) and once again I seriously doubt it was because after stopping these two Middle-Eastern folks the police opened fire on them; without provocation. If someone thinks otherwise, I would say the burden of proof is on them.

To me, not being on a jury, this is reasonable evidence that they were guilty. Since they were killed we know that they very definitely guilty thus backing up the reasonable nature of my assumption at the time.

There is certainly not a legal reason why you, puzzledperson or I cannot form an opinion on someone's guilt until they are proven guilty in a court of law. We might run afoul of libel and slander if we announced their guilt as a fact in a far more public way than A2K, but none of our stated opinions about these two (or the grandmother for that matter) is going to put us in jeopardy. Neither is there an ethical or moral reason why we cannot. We would display a level of stupidity or ignorance if we formed the opinion on non-existent or questionable evidence, but that's something far different from being bound not to at all.

It's interesting that this argument is almost always used by someone who is politically inclined to giver the suspect the benefit of the doubt.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Dec, 2015 05:37 pm
@McGentrix,
OMG! And here I've been conversing with you like you're a normal person.
0 Replies
 
AllBunk
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 01:55 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Yep. It's what all the well-heeled anti-Semites prefer. The more rabid ones prefer "Zionist Entity" to "Israel."



But this is absurd! Against Zionism isn't anti-semitic.
And I know him,. He has jews as friends!
What's going on here?
Playing the anti-semit card when something is written that some people don't like?

If Zionism equals anti-semitism then explain this:

 http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTs_drEApR6tfJ_0PjN8HnNpwX3WQPtWtVO8Q_2o_O7Pr6xNcGtmLpevg

and this:

http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/FromOthers/Rabbi-against-Zionism-large.jpg

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrPbxGS6ATOn943eooxJwC7BZFpK4klkIeYiLS6Om393NxhrpQPw

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zA5is7IcEqA/hqdefault.jpg


MODERATORS, PLEASE CORRECT! This is unjust and unfair.
layman
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 06:43 am
This guy says he and his agency had infiltrators at the mosque of these killers back in 2012, and might well have been onto them if his division had not been shut down by Obama policies, which prohibited the investigation of muslim networks, eh?

Quote:
Former DHS employee Philip Haney alleged that his work tracking potential terror threats as part of the Intelligence Review Unit (IRU) was shut down in 2012.

Quote:
“Individuals who were already in the case in 2012 went to that mosque… as we were tracking them, we would have put the red light on them....[Then] we got the internal memos, and it says that we are not allowed to develop a case based on Tablighi Jamaat specifically, and/or any Islamic group.”


Haney went on to say that he had even been given “a commendation for finding 300 terrorists related specifically to the initiative,” yet it was still shut down.


http://www.ijreview.com/2015/12/491926-dhs-whistleblower-drops-bombshell-about-san-bernardino-attack-could-have-been-prevented/

Full video of the interview at that site.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 01:30 am
@AllBunk,
AllBunk wrote:
Against Zionism isn't anti-semitic.

Nazis often try to disguise their Nazism by directing their hate at Israel instead of at Jews.

They don't fool anyone.
puzzledperson
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 07:22 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
You're not a very careful reader. We were talking about suspicions of Farook's mother (i.e. the grandmother), who did not take part in the attack or the subsequent shootout with police.

The New York Times reported that they dropped the child off the morning of the attack before going to the Christmas Party. That is not a pretext, that is family babysitting. If the attack had been planned it would have been carried out then, not after appearing at the party, getting into an argument, leaving, and returning. If the pipe bombs had been manufactured with such a plan, the bulk of them would not have been left behind.

It certainly appears that some sort of violence had long been prepared for, if the statements by the neighbor who has now been charged are true. But the question after the fact is to what extent this specific act was planned, and who was involved with foreknowledge of the act.
puzzledperson
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 08:38 am
@puzzledperson,
P.S. There are only two facts, that I'm aware of, which might suggest planning for the act in question. Everything else is consistent with a general predisposition to violence and general preparations for it, along with opportunism after an argument at the office party.

The first fact is that the crime was committed in a rented truck. The truck was rented several days before the attack, and though it was rented locally it had Utah plates. It was due to be returned the day of the attack:

http://ktla.com/2015/12/03/san-bernardino-shooting-suspects-were-reportedly-married-motive-sought/

There are several important questions about this. Why was the truck rented? Did the vehicle normally used break down? Was it in an accident? Did Farook or his wife use the rental in the days prior to the attack, and if so, what reason was given (if any) to explain the new vehicle? Was the Utah plate provided with the rental despite being rented locally?

The second question involves the "pretext" alluded to earlier. The New York Times reported that when the pair dropped the child off that morning, they said they had a doctor's appointment. Is there any record of such an appointment?
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 08:48 am
@layman,
Well, if the neighbor who has now been arrested is telling the truth, Farook had terrorist plans ranging from the nebulous to the tentative to the abortive, going back several years, none of which involved the office party. So it's possible that, while terrorism was always lurking in the background, the attack was opportunistic and spur of the moment.

On the other hand, I've just asked some pertinent questions that I'd like to see answered before making further arguments one way or another.
NomoreNoDance
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 09:42 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Nazis often try to disguise their Nazism by directing their hate at Israel instead of at Jews.

They don't fool anyone.


wow isn't that cheap! So, whatever you do your wrong.

zionism ISN't anti-semitic at all!

Gee, it's like saying of you hate chrysler cars you are actually saying you don't like batavus bikes.

How much more crazier can it get?!

Haven't seen the pictures with the jews and their anti-zionists slogans???????????????




what is going on here?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 10:31 am
@NomoreNoDance,
Don't waste your breath. Oralboy is a Nazi. He refers to the Palestinians as vermin and routinely calls for their extermination. Don't try arguing with him, he makes **** up as he goes along and insists it's the truth.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 12:48 pm
CAIR, who promptly hired a bottom-feeder to represent the "family" of the terrorist fanatics, and then suggested that American actions "caused" this slaughter, actually thought they could sue somebody for investigating them, eh?

Quote:
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Thursday that the Council on American-Islamic Relations – a group founded by the Muslim Brotherhood in the U.S. – has no legal basis to claim its reputation was damaged by an undercover investigation documenting its ties to global jihad.


That's how cocky these bastards have become.

Quote:
In its lawsuit, which is scheduled to go to trial, CAIR originally alleged it suffered damages after the younger Gaubatz, posing as an intern, obtained access to some 12,000 pages of CAIR internal documents under false pretenses and made recordings of officials and employees without consent.

CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the nation’s largest terror-funding case, complained of the loss of donor revenue and the loss of contact with legislators and policymakers.

But when asked by defendants in the discovery process to identify its donors and name the lawmakers it has contacted, CAIR replied by stating it was no longer claiming damage to its reputation.


http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/federal-judge-rebukes-cair-in-muslim-mafia-case/


0 Replies
 
layman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 11:51 pm
One big-ass conspiracy goin down, sho nuff! Just think Sandy Hook, I tellya!

Quote:
Syed Farook's family's lawyer uses Sandy Hook truther conspiracy to raise doubt

David Chesley and Mohammad Abuershaid [two bottom-feeders] said on Friday that none of his family members had any indication either Farook or his wife held extremist views.

" it doesn't seem plausible to us that this petite woman [Malik] would be involved in this sort of hyper-caricatured, Bonnie and Clyde insane scenario."

The Mail reported that Chesley, asked directly if he questioned the attack at Sandy Hook, said: "There has been a lot [sic] speculation about it is all I would say". 'There's a lot of people that said it happened but hasn't happened in the way that it was purported to have taken place."

Lawyer David Chesley represents their family, and argued on Thursday that official information about the shooting should not be trusted. They said Farook's mother, who lived with the couple, never saw any of the weapons or bombs authorities found.


http://oceansidepost.com/2015/12/20/syed-farooks-familys-lawyer-uses-sandy-hook-truther.html

Yeah, how could she know, eh? It never even happened, but even if it did, it would have been a Zionist frame-up, so, then, there ya have it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 01:14 am
@AllBunk,
I doubt that the Jews in those pictures would agree with the anti-Semites who refer to Israel as "The Zionist Entity," on what exactly the term "Zionism" means.

I didn't assert that anyone who uses the term "Zionist" or "Zionism" is an anti-Semite, nor do I think that everyone who is displeased with or angered by Israel's behavior is an anti-Semite.

You correctly quoted what I wrote.

Well heeled anti-Semites (and surely you are not going to suggest they don't exist) prefer to call Jews, "Zionists" rather than "kikes." Do you think it is otherwise?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 20 Dec, 2015 01:22 am
@puzzledperson,
They dropped the child off under the pretext that they had an appointment (I believe it was medical) to which to attend. That was a pretext. I'm assuming you don't believe they explained to the grandmother that they had to leave their child because they intended to wage jihad.

Your assumption that the fact that the husband appeared at the party but left is somehow overwhelmingly significant is weak. I could easily explain it as an effort to scout out the scene before launching the attack.

BTW, I did read what you wrote and correct me if I am wrong that you suggested it wasn't certain that the act was premeditated.

I also believe Farook's mother knew that her son and daughter-in-law were up to no good (or perhaps in her mind she thought it was "good"). Has this been proven? I don't believe so, but again I don't feel compelled to wait until it has to express my opinion that she was aware.
 

Related Topics

Was an Assault gun used? - Question by PUNKEY
Guns are your friend - Discussion by dyslexia
CJHSA Surfaces! - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/30/2021 at 05:53:47