San Bernardino shooting: At least 14 people killed

How is "opportunistic" in any way relevant or significant? Are you suggesting that the mother would have to know the precise day, hour, and second of a planned attack in order to know "anything?"

Didn't you doubt that this way "pre-meditated," too? Like they just kinda dressed up in assault clothing for Halloween, or something? Like, they were just on their way to the grocery store, with assault weapons, bombs, remote control devices and tons of ammo when, suddenly, some jew yelled anti-muslim insult at them from outside that building.

After that, I suppose they just kinda pulled into the parking lot to have a rational discussion, but then the dirty jew spit on them, slapped the woman in her Halloween clothing around for a spell, then ran into the building, and they just kinda "snapped," that the idea?

pretty much.


I think it gives off some kind of weird 'Lovecraftian' sense of comfort to be convinced that it was NOT part of a plot against us.

Could be, Farmer. Makes them feel "safer" while actually putting them in more danger.

"What not many know is approximately one hour before these tragic events unfurled, under what appeared to be very normal circumstances, Farook telephoned his mother and asked if she was available to babysit the parties’ six-month old daughter for a few hours. Farook stated he and his wife had a doctor appointment to attend and they did not want to bring the baby with them. Farook’s mother, like any grandmother, was more than happy to oblige and presented at the couple’s residence to watch the child."

http://www.obermayerfamilymatters.com/2015/12/what-happens-to-the-youngest-victim-of-the-san-bernardino-shooting/

ABC News has a timeline which shows Farook entering the banquet event at 9:05 a.m., leaving at 10:37 a.m., and returning at the time of the shooting at 10:58 a.m..

http://abcnews.go.com/US/detailed-san-bernardino-documents-reveal-timeline-shooter-neighbors/story?id=35844401

This suggests that the decision to carry out the attack was made at the last minute, else arrangements for care of the child would have been made in advance, instead of phoned in by Farook at the last moment, about an hour after his arrival at the party. It also suggests that his wife, after handing the child over to the mother, only later joined Farook.

An hour and a half is far longer than necessary to "scout out the scene".

Farook had previously had an argument with one of the attendees, about Israel. Farook is reported to have made a statement that could be construed as a death threat.

http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2015/December/Rabbi-San-Bernardino-Terrorist-Targeted-Messianic-Jew/

It has also been widely reported that Farook left the party angry after a verbal altercation.

On the other hand, his wife, Malik, was surfing the Internet looking for information about ISIS, just before 9:00 a.m., while Farook was driving to the conference/banquet. That sounds less like an operative than it does a self-radicalized individual "jihad shopping". It has also been reported that Farook had previously been in contact with Al Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliated rebel group in Syria, as well as Al Shabab, another Al Qaeda affiliated group in Somalia.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-85230665/

The timeline also reports that Farook placed an undescribed item on the table after he arrived initially, and that a bag with bombs was later discovered by authorities on "a" table. If the "item" should turn out to be the bag with bombs, that would conclusively suggest that the plan had been decided on prior to the event. But the evidence available through the media is ambiguous.

No idea what you mean by a "Lovecraftian" sense of comfort. H.P. Lovecraft's fiction was full of weird cosmic conspiracies against mankind, hiding just below the surface appearance of normality.

There are plenty of well-documented terrorist attacks, both by lone-wolves and by organizations.

Media accounts support the conclusion that Farook and Malik had developed radical and violent Islamic doctrines, that they had previously explored the jihadist webverse and gone "jihad shopping" looking for a group to join or at least identify with and to act independently of, that they had developed and then abandoned previous plans of attack (per the now arrested neighbor), that they armed themselves to be ready, in vague general terms, for the possibility of carrying out some such attack, and that, by inference, the consideration of such possibilities lurked in the background and interacted with their daily lives.

But beyond that, I'm not convinced that the evidence supports popular suppositions.

NBC News reports that an attempt was made to modify one of the rifles to be able to fire in fully automatic mode (like a submachine gun) but that the attempt failed. The same story contains something posted by Farook six years ago:

A profile under the user name "farooksyed49" on the dating website iMilap.com featured a picture of Farook, which Khan confirmed was his brother-in-law. It said the user was Muslim American born in Chicago.

"Farooksyed49" wrote that he was looking for marriage who lived in "California/riverside" — a community about 11 miles south of San Bernardino. His age is listed as 22. IMilap.com describes itself as a "Site for People with Disabilities and Second Marriage."

The user said he was from a "religious but modern family" and listed "Eastern and Western Mix" under family values.

"Enjoy working on vintage and modern cars, read religious books, enjoy eating out sometimes travel and just hang out in back yard doing target practice with younger sister and friends," according to the profile.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooting-suspects-left-baby-daughter-grandma-n473261

This isn't the language of a radical Islamic fundamentalist, so apparently that came later. So far as I know, Farook had never married nor was he himself disabled. The building where the attack occurred serves about 31,000 developmentally disabled individuals in two counties, but six years earlier Farook's connections to (or interest in) the disabled, isn't known to me.

Just curious: Where? I have seen many people say it, but I've never seen it reported.

I am reading one of the LA Times links you posted. It says there:

.

Why "possibily," I wonder? I don't know when this timeline was constructed, but it seems that they were enough survivors to get this straight, one way or the other.

It's easy to Google about a million newspaper articles citing both survivors and law enforcement as saying there was a dispute before Farook left the party. Here's one which is notable because it quotes the San Bernardino chief of police:

"In addition, the law enforcement source said investigators have a greater focus on whether the shooting occurred after a workplace issue with religion. . . . San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan has said there were indications Farook appeared angry when he suddenly left Wednesday's holiday luncheon at Inland Regional Center, only to return heavily armed."

http://m.wcvb.com/national/fbi-california-shooting-was-act-of-terrorism/36799148

I think "possibly" because while some witnesses reported this, others (who may have interacted with Farook at different times) reported him as merely being "quiet" and withdrawn.

It was reported within hours of the shooting.

There was a link on the first page of this thread

http://able2know.org/topic/304970-1#post-6080252

P.S. The same source has this:

Investigators are exploring Farook's communications with at least one person who was being investigated for possible terror connections. Some were by phone, some on social media.

"These appear to be soft connections," an official said, meaning they were not frequent contacts. Farook's last communication with the contacts was months ago.

http://m.wcvb.com/national/fbi-california-shooting-was-act-of-terrorism/36799148

Well, see there it is again:




That says nothing about an argument, just being angry, and that is only shown by vague, unspecified "indications" of some kind or another.



Maybe. It could also be an indication of differing eyewitness accounts.

I did see, in the link you provided the claim that he got into a "dispute," but it goes on to say that nobody know who the alleged dispute was with. So again, it is more of a vague suggestion than a reportable "fact" that is being given here.

I don't see it there either. All I see is this:

"He was at the party, he did leave the party under some circumstances that were described as angry," Burguan said.

Again, nothing about any argument is said here. I think the "argument" was an inference made by some, but not reported (at least at the time) as such.

In other words, I'm starting to think some people thought he "appeared angry" when he left. They then concluded that since he looked angry *something* must have made him angry, and that "something" must have been an argument.

On the other hand, since this guy hand been internally stewing over decadent westerners for years, and seeing as how he planned to kill all he could, as soon as he could, when he left, it is quite likely that he would have had an "angry demeanor" without anyone saying anything it particular to him.

layman wrote: "That says nothing about an argument, just being angry, and that is only shown by vague, unspecified "indications" of some kind or another."

Good point. I'll search for witness interview quotes, but at the moment my time for online activities is at an end. Meanwhile, here's a little more about the pre-marriage Farook:

Mr. Farook, in a posting on one of the dating services, said he was open to dating a woman of any faith but was looking for “someone who takes her religion very seriously and is always trying to improve her religion.”

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting-syed-rizwan-farook.html?referer=

I would be very surprised if a jihadist type Muslim world be willing to marry a woman of "any" faith.

Heh. Why? Everyone wants to get laid regularly.

I would marry a woman of any race, any creed, and color, any dimension of any kind if she was HOT enough, ya know?

Especially if she was rich.

But, either way, so long as she was willing to let me take out a big-ass insurance policy on her life, eh?

Put another way, I now suspect that the word came, from the top down, not to tell the press that this was a terrorist attack. They wanted, until they knew more, to leave open the possibility (at least to the public) that this could have been a "workplace" related attack where the guy just went postal.

"Postal" here is not being used here as a metaphor. It is a literal comparison to the mailman who went in one day and shot every employee of the post office where he worked that he could. He just didn't like them damn post office people no more. They had pissed him plumb the **** off, ya know?

Speaking of cosmic weirdness, eyewitness interviews, and the San Bernardino shootings, does anyone have an explanation for the "three white shooters" CBS interview:

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/12/eyewitness-to-san-bernardino/#

And documented similar claims, subsequently edited out, as shown by screenshots here:

http://allnewspipeline.com/Confirmed_Third_Shooter_San_Bernardino.php

Offered without advocacy, simply by way of a conversation starter (or stopper).

I've seen this brought up on several "non-mainstream" sites, PP, and I never had any doubts that a least one witness reported it that way. I have even less doubt now, after hearing the phone interview at the first cite you gave.

I just take it with a grain of salt at this point. Are ALL the witnesses saying that? If so, that would be a lot different. But eyewitness account of these kinds of traumatic events (any event really) are often inconsistent, so that's not unusual. If that's what a lot of witnesses are saying, then it can't be suppressed for long (which assumes someone is trying to suppress it, for unfathomable reasons).

There have been mainstream reports that police were initially told by someone that there were 3 shooters and that they stopped a man near the scene who was quickly released. I would be much less surprised to see a "third shooter" emerge, because the cops might have legitmate reasons for not disclosing that they are looking for one right now.

But 3 white shooters? Quite doubtful, to me.

I don't know about "all" witnesses, but here's a second, independent witness named Juan Hernandez, who saw the getaway, interviewed by a local (San Bernardino) NBC affiliate (see the icon in the upper right screen corner), saying that the shooters were "three white men in military fatigues".

Again, no opinion offered by me, just this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s45OeXNRZng

Even if we reject the cosmic weirdness quotient, the fact of two eyewitnesses getting the number and race of the shooters wrong says something about the dependability of (some) testimony.

layman wrote: "Put another way, I now suspect that the word came, from the top down, not to tell the press that this was a terrorist attack."

Well, it's nice to know what you suspect. Here's what the San Bernardino police chief said:

"Farook had attended the health department’s holiday party at the Inland Regional Center on Wednesday. Jarrod Burguan, the San Bernardino police chief, said Farook left after some sort of dispute. He said Farook then returned with Malik, in tactical gear, carrying weapons and explosives, at around 11 a.m.and opened fire."

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/12/san-bernardino-shooting-suspect/418584/

Some sort of dispute. That is vague, and I still say that your request for decisive clarification on this point is valid. But I've tried a Google search for "farook AND (dispute OR argument)" and all I get is either cosmic weirdness or else vagueness, and I'm tired of searching at the moment.