26
   

San Bernardino shooting: At least 14 people killed

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 4 Dec, 2015 11:59 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

What makes me wonder is that although the Islamic State quickly asserted responsibility for last month’s shootings in Paris and for other recent attacks, the group so far does not appear to have done the same for the San Bernardino shooting. At least not on any of the known Islamistic websites.


The Sinai attack was not fessed up to till after the Russians found the explosive at the site, at which point we already knew it was islamic terror we just did not know the brand. That was al-qaeda right? They seem to want us to stew. And we dont know about MH370 either. I will not be shocked if that was Islamic Terror that they decided they should not tell us about because not telling us is more cruel.
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 12:10 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
The Sinai attack was not fessed up to till after the Russians found the explosive at the site, at which point we already knew it was islamic terror we just did not know the brand.
An IS affiliate claimed responsibility for downing the plane shortly after the crash. That's what I wanted to say.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 12:26 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
The Sinai attack was not fessed up to till after the Russians found the explosive at the site, at which point we already knew it was islamic terror we just did not know the brand.
An IS affiliate claimed responsibility for downing the plane shortly after the crash. That's what I wanted to say.


But the people who did the attack did not admit it till the Russians had the science to prove terrorism....right? That is when we got the pic of the bomb.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 12:56 am
@glitterbag,
glitterbag wrote:

Today in the Congress a bill was squashed that would prevent people on the no-fly list from buying guns. In other words, you can be prevented from boarding an airplane, but you can still buy all the guns your heart desires.

Lets give a big shout out to the NRA for making sure that potential terrorists in the US can still buy lots and lots of guns and build bombs. I think the NRA has perverted the intent of the second amendment.


280,000 of the those on the No-Fly list (close to 50% of the entire list) have no recognized terrorist group affiliations. The list relies on names not identities, and so if if you happen to share a name with someone who might actually have ties, your name goes on the list. It's how Senator Ted Kennedy and Weekly Standard writer Stephen Hayes found themselves appearing on the list when they tried to board a plane one day.

Here's how the ACLU (sinister, pro-gun, sister-group of the NRA) has spoken of the list:

Quote:
The government is adding people to its already bloated watchlisting system at breakneck pace, and it’s still hungry for more. That’s the unavoidable conclusion from documents published yesterday in The Intercept.

Those documents vindicate our concerns and warnings about a massive, virtually standardless government watchlisting scheme that ensnares innocent people and encourages racial and religious profiling.

The documents confirm what we have long suspected: It doesn’t take much to get yourself on a terrorist watchlist. The government’s recently leaked Watchlisting Guidance starts with a poorly defined “reasonable suspicion” standard and then subjects it to so many exceptions and caveats as to render it virtually toothless. The unsurprising result, as is clear from these documents, is a set of watchlists experiencing explosive growth.


And once your name get's on the list, unless you are a US Senator or a nationally recognized journalist, you will have a hell of a time getting it off. There is no established process of appeal; no judicial oversight. Effectively, you are guilty until proven innocent, and often if you can prove you are innocent...the government still considers you guilty.

Whether you like it or not, the right to bear arms is protected by the US Constitution and cannot be restricted without serious cause. There is nothing serious about the process of building the No-fly List.

Usually you are more knowledgeable about these subjects, but I suppose the average person who maintains a naive belief that in matters like these, The Government doesn't make mistakes, and certainly not egregious ones, can be forgiven for finding it perfectly logical and quite sound to restrict gun ownership for anyone whose name appears on a governmental list of potential terrorists. However, even that description of the No-Fly List should give true liberals pause. At best it is a list of possible or potential terrorists, and I sincerely doubt you favor the suspension or revocation of the civil rights of people who The Government believes may potentially be criminals. It is not even a list of people legally charged with terrorism, and we know, full well, it is a list on which a great many people who are, in fact, not even remotely potential terrorists find themselves.

So yes, driven by fear of a horrific threat, I guess I can understand how some may be led to overacting. I won't even suggest that the average progressive sees this issue as a convenient means to implement one part of a plan to severely restrict the exercise of the 2nd Amendment, but progressive journalists and political leaders? That's an entirely different matter.

Does anyone believe that President Obama doesn't fully understand the actual nature and short comings of the No-Fly List? Does anyone believe he didn't know that Teddy Kennedy found his name on the list?

And yet this illiberal, liberal president of ours, the supposed Constitutional scholar, had the shameless audacity to go on TV shortly after this tragedy and make the following comment:

Quote:
And for those who are concerned about terrorism, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no-fly list where people can’t get on planes, but those same people who we don’t allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them. That’s a law that needs to be changed.


That law that allows them to go into that store and buy that firearm, is the Constitution and that's what he is saying needs to be changed. Of course he has no intention of leading an organized effort to amend the Constitution, as that has zero chance of success and, in any case, he only has a little more than a year left in his presidency. Any effort to amend the Constitution so that it weakened or effectively disarmed (pun obviously intended) the 2nd Amendment would take far more than a year and therefore, if it eventually, and miraculously, worked, he wouldn't be able to claims it as part of his precious Legacy.

Instead he will employ Executive Orders based on authority he does not have to come as close as possible to making it as difficult as possible (and next to impossible if he can) for the average citizen to purchase a gun. All the while he and Democrat leaders (politicians and pundits alike) will be insisting that "No one wants to take away an American's right to own guns!"

It has been pointed out, on far more than one occasion, that none of the increased requirements and/or restrictions that he and his fellow Democrats have been proposing would have prevented the shooters from obtaining the firearms they used in the slaughter in San Bernardino. Apparently, though, President Obama didn't have his TV on when this fact was being pointed out, and perhaps the family dog tore up the pages of his favorite newspapers on the days they printed columns of pundits who were writing about the very same fact.

But then, this fact has never made a difference before so why should it now?

Demagogues always frame problems in the simplest of terms (they have to, their populists) and rely upon the shallowness of their constituents' understanding of an issue, and their pre-established inclination towards certain results, to generate a favorable response to solutions that are, at best, totally ineffective, and, at worst, smoke screens designed to hide the actual intentions and agenda of the populist.

"If you're worried about terrorists, (and, of course, I'm not saying those two Muslims in California were terrorists), then doesn't it make simple sense to prohibit known terrorists and their associates (Hey, they wouldn't be on the No-Fly List if there wasn't something fishy about them.) from buying guns?"

Another tactic, which populists can be relied upon to employ, is to either ridicule and minimize their critics and opponents, or to demonize them. Within Obama's and the Left's rhetoric in this matter is, and will continue to be, the implicit or explicit assertion that his solution is so obviously simple, and so obviously guaranteed of success, that his opponents are either dim-wits or they want madmen and terrorists to be able to buy guns...or at least their gun fetish is so extreme and their subservience to the NRA and gun manufacturers so complete that they don't care if madmen and terrorists obtain guns.

Either way they are the Enemy of America's safety and have got to be stopped...just like those millions of conservative brownshirts who are planning to use their stockpiled automatic weapons and high capacity ammo clips to unleash a horrific backlash against Muslims in America...the next time Donald Trump blows his dog whistle!
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 03:09 am
@izzythepush,
Izzy's anti-Americanism so oozes out of his pores that he couldn't stop himself from writing this bit of brilliant commentary:

izzythepush wrote:

When these atrocities happen elsewhere it's always an act of terrorism. Only in America is there a possibility that some "good ol' boy" has used guns to settle a petty argument.


Really? You're so confident that mass killings outside of the US are all terrorist related and that there is a strain of Good Ole Boys settling petty arguments running through our tragic experience in this regard that I thought I'd do a little research. You never know what topics an A2K member may be an expert in and so I didn't want to dismiss your comment out of hand.

I went to the first article listed by Google. Plus I figured the Huffington Post might not be a source which would entice you to argue validity. In any case:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/deadliest-mass-shootings_n_1688820.html

The article lists 20 of the world's deadliest mass shootings.

The shooting range from 1966 through 2012. It not an exhaustive list and unfortunately there have been a number of additional shootings throughout the world and, of course the US, over the last 3 years. I think, though, it's comprehensive enough to test your premise.

11 of the 20 shootings occurred in the US, but one of these, the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre was committed by a South Korean (Seung-Hui-Cho), and so, as far as this list goes, it's American 10, the rest of the world 10. However your comment relates to motivation, rather than volume, frequency, or severity. Regarding the last measurement, per Wikipedia, the top three incidents in terms of number of fatalities were:

2011 - Finland - Anders Behring Brievik - 77 dead
1982 - S. Korea - Woo Bum-kon - 57 dead (Not on HuffPo's list)
1996 - Australia - Martin Bryant - 35 dead

Apparently William Unek a police officer in Tanzania was responsible for killing 57 people in two sprees. Th

It's absurd to suggest any of these tragedies were the result of an attempt to settle a "petty argument" with guns, but there is no doubt that






izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 03:11 am
@hawkeye10,
Just as Walter said, IS claimed responsibility shortly after the Russian plane went down. What you said is a lie, either you're too lazy to check up your facts or you're not used to having your lies challenged.

Try living in the real world for once instead of your fantasy one.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 03:17 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
In other countries it's an isolated incident, but in America it happens on a daily basis. This horse **** may go well with your inbred inadequate Republican buddies but don't expect anyone who's had an education to swallow it.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 03:31 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Somehow this got posted before I finished it. Can't seem to delete it so here it will remain and I'll post the complete response at a later date
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 05:20 am
@Walter Hinteler,
We decide based on the motivation of the murderers...
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:22 am
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/05/far-right-muslim-cultural-civil-war?CMP=twt_gu
The UK facing increasing push back against immigration issues.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:36 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

The UK facing increasing push back against immigration issues.
You've given a wrong link - the one in your response is about a report that right-groups become more openly Nazi, about the anti-Muslim groups in the USA and Australia .... but not about 'immigration issues' (which would be more anti-EU or perhaps anti-Catholic or anti-Orthodox, if you prefer to label it in relation to religions)
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:45 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Today, three days after the attack, Islamic State said in an online radio broadcast that the two attackers were followers of their group.

"Two followers of Islamic State attacked several days ago a center in San Bernadino in California," the group's daily online radio broadcast al-Bayan said.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:46 am
@Walter Hinteler,
That's about par for the course.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 06:53 am
@Lash,
Which we still do not know yet or else there would already be an announcement. FBI are investigating the mass shooting as a terrorist act but as of yet, they are not calling it a terrorist act. When or if they do, then is the right time to call it a terrorist act.

It could have been an act of terror but not one organized by IS group but one carried out by the woman and her husband. Or they could have been intending to carry out some terrorist plot at some point and the holiday party set them off and they came back and carried out their terrorist act which would make their motive both work related and terrorist related. Or it could have been an organized attack by IS. You do not know, none of us do until the FBI completes their investigation.

Quote:
The FBI announced Friday it is investigating the mass shooting as an act of terrorism. If proven to be terrorism, it would be the deadliest attack by Islamic extremists on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001. A U.S. law enforcement official said Malik used a Facebook alias to pledge her allegiance to the Islamic State group and its leader just before the shootings.

FBI Director James Comey would not discuss whether anyone affiliated with IS communicated back, but he said there was no indication yet that the plot was directed by any other foreign terror group.

"The investigation so far has developed indications of radicalization by the killers and of potential inspiration by foreign terrorist organizations," Comey said. He cautioned that the investigation has not yet shown evidence the couple was part of a larger group.

Despite signs of the couple's radicalization, there "is a lot of evidence that doesn't quite make sense" at this early stage, he said.


source


In all cases, just about any mass shooting is an act of terror and I think that is what Walter and Izzypush are getting at.

Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:02 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
In all cases, just about any mass shooting is an act of terror and I think that is what Walter and Izzypush is getting at.
That's what I've learnt - but I studied law of a different juridical and legal system than yours. (Here, "whoever participates in an
organisation as a member or forms an organisation the objectives or activity of which are directed towards the commission of murder, manslaughter, hostage-taking or other serious criminal offences" is a terrorist.)
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:03 am
@Walter Hinteler,
That is a hilariously selective, head in the sand filter you're attempting to view the world through. Very tortured summary, there, Walter. You aren't doing anyone a favor by denying facts.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:05 am
@Walter Hinteler,
So according to that definition the shooters, as they were acting on their own, were not terrorists, even though they had IS sympathies.

It's ridiculous. Terror is terror regardless of who the perpetrator(s) are.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:07 am
@Lash,
Walter's not denying facts, you're not understanding them. The Guardian has an extremely high reading age, perhaps you should try something more on your level.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:13 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

That is a hilariously selective, head in the sand filter you're attempting to view the world through. Very tortured summary, there, Walter. You aren't doing anyone a favor by denying facts.
I'm not only subscriber of but also a member of "HOPE not hate" (the Guardian's report is about their latest release of document)
Perhaps you read those nearly 50 pages and make a less selective one-sentence-summary.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Sat 5 Dec, 2015 07:18 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

So according to that definition the shooters, as they were acting on their own, were not terrorists, even though they had IS sympathies.
Not when you look at how the office of the Federal Public Prosecutor General deals with it.
 

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 10/22/2021 at 03:52:56