San Bernardino terror attacks and presidential tiptoeing

[Derpy Hooves]

I still don't buy that this was a terrorist attack. I think it's more a case of, some nutcases pledge allegiance to ISIS, some commit workplace massacres, but here we have a combination of both. Nothing to do with any actual terrorist organisation and everything to do with gun control. Anyone can pledge allegience to ISIS, it doesn't make them a member of a terrorist cell. But can they then go out and shoot people? Only if they can easily get their hands on guns. And surprise surprise, the guns were legally acquired (the handguns were bought by the couple, and the semi-automatic rifles were legally bought by someone else and then handed over/stolen?).

Terrorists don't attack people they know personally and they don't wait around to get caught by police. My bet is, the couple were planning a terrorist attack at some unspecified point in the future, but were provoked into killing Farooq's work colleagues before they could plan and execute it. It was unquestionably a workplace mass shooting even if it was a terror attack, but it was not intended to provoke terror, it was intented to kill a specific set of people, so I don't think we can call it a 'terror attack' even if the killers were clearly terrorist wannabes.

Which gun control measures would have prevented this from happening?

[PointOfViewGun]

Apparently, the guy stopped going to mosque, which he used to every day, three weeks before the attack. Again, doesn't add up.

Which gun control measures would have prevented this from happening?

How about mental health screening?

[Odenat]

How about mental health screening?

Bah, a christian enters a school and start shooting; he's mentally ill, he was in need of assistance. A muslim enters a school and start shooting; he's a terrorist, let's start bombing more Middle Eastern countries.

RIP to the victims, i'm really sad for them, i'm really sad for the baby that the couple left behind, i'm really sad for the world we are living in...

[Roma_Victrix]

News stations rummaged through the San Bernardino shooters' apartment on live TV

this is just ugly

And unprofessional.

Bah, a christian enters a school and start shooting; he's mentally ill, he was in need of assistance. A muslim enters a school and start shooting; he's a terrorist, let's start bombing more Middle Eastern countries.

RIP to the victims, i'm really sad for them, i'm really sad for the baby that the couple left behind, i'm really sad for the world we are living in...

Muslims are just as prone as anyone else to become mentally ill. That's not the case here, though, where the couple in question openly declared allegiance to ISIS and had a collection of pipe bombs that were obviously meant for a larger terrorist attack. It seems that Farook shot up his workplace in an act of personal hatred, but it was to be just the start of a larger terrorist attack judging by the arsenal he had stowed away. This is a terrorist attack regardless because he had political aims in mind when killing others. The Columbine High School massacre of 1999, on the other hand, involved to kids who didn't have any sort of political reasons for killing others, they were just sociopaths. That's unlike Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, who clearly had political reasons for what he did and proudly stated them. Therefore he was a terrorist. It's that simple.

[Derpy Hooves]

Apparently, the guy stopped going to mosque, which he used to every day, three weeks before the attack. Again, doesn't add up.




How about mental health screening?

The person who bought the guns, if they were bought legally (I honestly don't know), what were his/her mental issues?

[Celsius]

The person who bought the guns, if they were bought legally (I honestly don't know), what were his/her mental issues?

ATF confirmed that the guns were purchased legally in California by a 3rd party and transferred (legally) from that party to the shooters.

[PointOfViewGun]

The person who bought the guns, if they were bought legally (I honestly don't know), what were his/her mental issues?

Syed grew up in an abusive home. A mental health check could come up with issues which would led to him not being able to own a gun.

[Costin_Razvan]

So Obama. About that refugee plan of yours.

[Gaidin]

So Obama. About that refugee plan of yours.

[Copperknickers II]

So Obama. About that refugee plan of yours.

... what about it? Farooq was a born and bred American, of South Asian heritage. Refugees are Syrians, born and bred in Syria, of Syrian heritage. Syrians and Pakistanis aren't even of the same race. Not to mention many of the Syrian refugees are from minority sects, or are Christian, and they are actively fleeing ISIS when they lived literally right next door. Someone who lived in Raqqa and refused to join ISIS is about the least likely person in the world to be a terrorist, because ISIS killed their friends or family.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1223982

Also it seems we are getting a picture of this guys background: apparently his father, Syed Senior, had a history of severe mental illness and domestic abuse, and 'threatened to kill himself on a daily basis'.

[PointOfViewGun]

I guess over the next few days we're going to figure out if Muslims can be classified as mentally ill as well...

[ABH2]

still don't buy that this was a terrorist attack. I think it's more a case of, some nutcases pledge allegiance to ISIS, some commit workplace massacres, but here we have a combination of both.

Well, the tricky thing here is that the Boston Marathon bombing wasn't actually connected to any terrorist organization. I could sort of by this explanation (that they were planning something, wasn't concrete, something happened that triggered it). How you ultimately want to classify terrorism is subjective. In terms of whether this was planned by ISIS or some such, I don't know. I think it was most definitely inspired by terrorism, though. That seems undeniable at this point to me.

A couple recently married does not get together one morning and decide let's go on a shooting rampage in the office because someone angered me. We'll just drop the kids off with Grandma first. So, some dispute may have made it an opportune moment for something already planned.

Overall, it doesn't much matter to me. I'm tired of the efforts being made by many on the right to collectivize Muslims. They may not identify them all as guilty, but they are far too willing to let these sorts of outbursts influence their decisions. 9/11 was a fluke. America's response to it has really made these sorts of terrorist attacks far more frequent than they ever were before. Meanwhile, America has openly given it to sacrificing liberty for security on this issue.

I'd be willing to bet overall, Muslims commit less crime overall in the United States. Even if they didn't, it's shameful to me that these events influence so much else. This has nothing to do with gun control, immigration policy, taking in refugees...

[Adar]

I guess over the next few days we're going to figure out if Muslims can be classified as mentally ill as well...

I think we can safely rule out the "lone madman" angle.

But given what we know so far I think they would qualify for the "mentally ill who self radicalize with the help of the internet" bracket which they would share with the recent sword attacker in Sweden. People with different backgrounds seem to be drawn to different motivations for this kind of attacks, but the mechanisms behind them are similar.

[Aanker]

That whole "Hillary/Obama won't admit we're at war with Islamic terrorism" claim is broken and the statements upon which it relies were taken out of context. At the Democratic debate, Hillary said she wouldn't admit the U.S. was at war with radical Islam. Radical Islam, as with anything radical (f.e. radical leftism), isn't by necessity violent. To be radical means that one seeks to change current society and its systems - this does not have to be by violent means - and claiming that the U.S. is at war with Islam (even with the 'radical' prefix) would be beyond idiotic as that feeds right into the propaganda machine of ISIS and similar organizations.

Just to further delve into the whole radical Islam matter, within minutes of Hilary uttering the words 'I do not believe we are at war with radical Islam', twitter comments from her Republican soon-to-be opponents went pretty much as follows:
'Yes Hillary, we are at war with radical Islamic terrorism'
'Say it, Hillary, we are fighting Islamist terrorism'
'HC/Obama won't admit we're at war with terrorists'

Republican debaters conveniently added the word terrorism at the end. Effectively falling into the same camp they're trying to attack by mincing their words around the issue.

[tgoodenow]

That whole "Hillary/Obama won't admit we're at war with Islamic terrorism" claim is broken and the statements upon which it relies were taken out of context. At the Democratic debate, Hillary said she wouldn't admit the U.S. was at war with radical Islam. Radical Islam, as with anything radical (f.e. radical leftism), isn't by necessity violent. To be radical means that one seeks to change current society and its systems - this does not have to be by violent means - and claiming that the U.S. is at war with Islam (even with the 'radical' prefix) would be beyond idiotic as that feeds right into the propaganda machine of ISIS and similar organizations.

Just to further delve into the whole radical Islam matter, within minutes of Hilary uttering the words 'I do not believe we are at war with radical Islam', twitter comments from her Republican soon-to-be opponents went pretty much as follows:
'Yes Hillary, we are at war with radical Islamic terrorism'
'Say it, Hillary, we are fighting Islamist terrorism'
'HC/Obama won't admit we're at war with terrorists'

Republican debaters conveniently added the word terrorism at the end. Effectively falling into the same camp they're trying to attack by mincing their words around the issue.

Even though this has been posted before, it still relates. When applying those results to the overall Pakistani population (which is what statistics are used for), those numbers translate to: In Pakistan, about fifty-one million people don't support ISIS, fifteen million support ISIS, while one hundred and twelve million are unsure if they support ISIS.

The democrats don't want to call the perpetrators what they are - a radical interpretation of Islam - because they are afraid of how many people actually support it which would go against their narrative.

[Aanker]

Even though this has been posted before, it still relates. When applying those results to the overall Pakistani population (which is what statistics are used for), those numbers translate to: In Pakistan, about fifty-one million people don't support ISIS, fifteen million support ISIS, while one hundred and twelve million are unsure if they support ISIS.

The democrats don't want to call the perpetrators what they are - a radical interpretation of Islam - because they are afraid of how many people actually support it which would go against their narrative.

So we are at war with fifteen million (probably muslim) Pakistanis? What is your point, exactly?

And you're still dancing around with semantics. You still insist on specifying the 'perpetrators' before mentioning radical Islam. Yes, ISIS militants are radical Islamists, but radical Islamists are not ISIS members.

[tgoodenow]

So we are at war with fifteen million (probably muslim) Pakistanis? What is your point, exactly?

And you're still dancing around with semantics. You still insist on specifying the 'perpetrators' before mentioning radical Islam. Yes, ISIS militants are radical Islamists, but radical Islamists are not ISIS members.

I'm not trying to dance around with semantics. I'm trying to say that radical Islamists that encourage these types of attacks needs to be held accountable in the same manner that white supremacists that encouraged violence have been held accountable in the past. Preachers like Anjem Choudary have the right to free speech, but when their speech encourages violence they need to be held accountable. Preachers like him need to be held accountable in Muslim countries as well. Everyone has a right to an opinion and they can hate anyone they want. But, when one encourages violence they need to be held accountable.


Amazing how this has turned into a gun control thread. Pipe bombs are illegal, but these people got pipe bombs. The United States government is a bloated bureaucracy capable of doing very few things right. Our postal service is running billions of dollars in deficit, our education system is an absolute joke even though we dump billions of dollars into it, and our department of homeland security is so inept they had seventy three people working for them that were on the terrorist watch list. Let me rephrase that last part again: the government agency in charge of protecting our country from terrorists is so poorly run that they employed the very people they're supposed to be on the lookout for. Not one, not ten, not fifty, SEVENTY THREE.

However, our testing showed that TSA did not identify 73 individuals with terrorism-related category codes

(https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/...5-98_Jun15.pdf)

Your solution to reducing terrorist attacks is to disarm ourselves and hope these idiots can protect us?

[DaniCatBurger]

Everyone has a right to an opinion and they can hate anyone they want.

No one should promote hate.

[Aanker]

I'm not trying to dance around with semantics. I'm trying to say that radical Islamists that encourage these types of attacks needs to be held accountable in the same manner that white supremacists that encouraged violence have been held accountable in the past. Preachers like Anjem Choudary have the right to free speech, but when their speech encourages violence they need to be held accountable. Preachers like him need to be held accountable in Muslim countries as well. Everyone has a right to an opinion and they can hate anyone they want. But, when one encourages violence they need to be held accountable.

When you put it that way, I find it hard to disagree. They need to be held accountable. I do think, however, that going after every radical Islamist (not what you're suggesting here but an altogether simple downhill roll) would be a non-solution.

[snuggans]

News stations rummaged through the San Bernardino shooters' apartment on live TV

CNN's Anderson Cooper said that police had cleared the apartment before media were invited in by the landlord. But the landlord apparently told CBS News that he didn't allow media into the apartment, saying that they "rushed" in.

A San Bernardino sheriff's deputy told Los Angeles Times reporter Joe Serna that federal authorities "told us it's still an active investigation" and said that he didn't know why people were in the couple's apartment.

this is just ugly