Another Terrorist Attack in California
According to early reports from police, at least one gunman shot as many as 20 people at a conference center in San Bernadino, California. A specific yet unknown organization was holding a meeting at the conference center and was specifically targeted. It’s unclear how many people were fatally wounded. I have heard 12 or 13. There might have been multiple shooters. Reports say that one of the shooters or the shooter was dressed in heavy military armor and left the scene in a black SUV.
3 shooters. Still at large
14 dead
14 injured.
Hit SEEK button on my radio as I was driving south thru Dewey Beach today and got Rush on radio . I was in a good mood and his antics were not bothering me . Actually was relaxing me. His BIG ITEM was he was upset that Obama had said in France that “only in America do we have these shootings ” . According to Rush crowd was insulted and upset . Got home and unpacked car and turned on msnbc and saw breaking news. Sorry RUSH …
There is something very wrong with us.
So sad. So sickening…..but here in America nothing can be done because of liberty and freedumb.
You are welcome leave…
It’s so damned sad. And the outrage should cross political lines.
@AQC So do you really think political lines will be crossed if it is Islamic Terrorists?
Hey Bob, if it is Islamic (not likely given current information), will you now be in support of gun control? If you say no, you favor more terrorism.
“A senior federal official who is monitoring the case said investigators believe one of the shooters left the party after getting into an argument and returned with one or two armed companions.”
Quote from LA Times
If that is an Islamic terrorist, he is the palest one I have ever seen
Yup, if this is an act of international terrorism, they surely did not bring their weapons with them. They bought them here in the good old USA, where guns are freely sold to any moron ( or as Tom Kline would spell “Morans”) with cash money in hand.
From the NYTimes
“Investigators believe there were three gunmen and one of them had worked at the facility and recently had a dispute with fellow employees, according to law enforcement officials. A witness has told police that although the gunmen had their faces covered, one of them sounded and appeared very similar to an employee who had left the facility earlier in the day. “They had their appearances covered but a witness believed it had been someone who worked there,” said one official.”
@Bob, huh?
It would appear that Bob’s point is that you, or we, as liberals, would be pleased if it was an Islamic terrorist and thus would not be outraged. And that is because Bob is a piece of shit.
2 dead suspects, 1 male, 1 female. Both were heavily armed.
3rd person is in custody, unsure if it is a 3rd suspect or someone fleeing the scene.
These 2nd Amend. activists are the real victims. I don’t know how, but I’m sure Ted Cruz will fill in the blanks.
Just another case of responsible gun owners going off the rails. Say what Tom-Bob?
If this is Islamic terrorism, then tomorrow morning we must pass laws severely restricting gun possession and sales nationwide. It is time we stop arming terrorists.
“If this is Islamic terrorism, then tomorrow morning we must pass laws severely restricting gun possession and sales nationwide. It is time we stop arming terrorists.”
Please explain how preventing people from defending themselves will keep guns away from terrorists & criminals. Hint: They usually don’t buy them legally.
Please also explain to me how effective this approach was in France. Another hint: An abysmal failure.
Now we wait for all of the liberal/progressive lies. I’ll help you out.
Guns are not effective for self defense: WRONG, every day there are dozens if not hundreds of cases where citizens are able to defend themselves.
Having a gun in the family produces a 90% chance of getting shot. (The “with those odds who would want a gun” argument. WRONG AGAIN, most murder victims know their assailants. Murder is most often a crime of revenge or passion.
Owning a gun has nothing to do with it. Thank God that most shootings are not random acts of violence
If this is Islamic terrorism (Jihad) then maybe it’s time we take a look at Islam.
@Bob J.
BINGO-so glad that somebody gets it.
If only the President would wake up & do something.
We should have a look at all religions. Terrorism is not exclusive to Islam.
Ok Urwrong Tom-Bob, you have facilitated this blood lust and you are responsible. Your pant- pissing cowardess helps to arm all of the bad guys; terrorist, thug, and white crazy guy. There is never a good guy with a gun, and a shit load of bad guys with guns! It is time for sensible gun control! You nut jobs do have need to be concerned, sensible gun control may take your guns away, because you are mentally unbalanced. The protection of society is more important than your delusional rights! Fuck all you ammosexuals. Please stuff all your guns up your ass and blow your twisted brains out before Homeland Security crashes through your front door.
OK, I admit that I am one angry white guy.
Unarmed
@Delawarelefty
Expected response, according to the progressive mantra, all gun owners are crazy & are the root cause of all evil. Fortunately, statements such as yours simply bring attention to the ridiculousness of your point of view.
I’ll actually agree with you on one point. Gun laws need fixing. Laws need to be formulated that don’t prevent honest people from defending themselves (forget about banning guns, magazines etc.), and focus on identifying criminals, terrorists and those who are mentally ill with violent tendencies.
Ever think of working with the NRA & other groups to accomplish this? Of course not, doesn’t everyone know that guns are purely evil? I suggest waking up & funneling that anger toward constructive efforts to solve the problem.
Fuck you unwrong! I am a gun owner and the NRA is the root of the problem! Yes automatic weapons, cop killer bullets, magazines are the problem! Your fuckin fear is also the problem. America use to be the home of the brave, but thanks to your type, we are the home of cowards. I can face daily life gun free, can you?
@u “Ever think of working with the NRA & other groups to accomplish this?”
The NRA has blood on its hands. The ARE the problem.
90% of all gun deaths in America are family and friends of the gun’s owner and the NRA does nothing but promote more of this. They are little more than shills for the gun industry, peddling death to ignorant victims.
The liars about Planned Parenthood have much blood on their hands.
The radical Christian terrorists with easy access to guns have much blood on their hands.
The jerks who shoot and kill their wives (#1 homicide in America) have much blood on their hands
The asinine rednecks who kill their pregnant wives and girlfriends have much blood on their hands (#1 cause of maternal death for pregnant women in the US).
We’re sick to death (and of death) of all this… and especially people like you who spout ridiculous bullshit arguing that this is all somehow OK.
Someday, America will ban private gun ownership. It’s going to happen. The only question is when will we actually join the first world, and stop acting like a 3rd world nation at the cultural level.
Guess that I’ve been robbed, assaulted & shot at just one too many times.
I have no choice in avoiding areas where these things tend to happen.
I’m a realist, bad things happen. Best option is to not be where they do. Second option is to be prepared to defend yourself.
Here’s how to defend against these things:
1). Practice & teach good situational awareness. Be constantly vigilant.
2). Avoid confrontations
3). As a last resort, be prepared to defend yourself. (Every gathering needs to have at least a few people ready to do so.)
It’s not about fear, it is about reality and being prepared. Just like having a smoke detector & fire extinguisher in your home is not about the fear of fire, it is about knowing how to protect yourself should a bad situations arise.
Your type seems to be in a constant state of denial.
“90% of all gun deaths in America are family and friends of the gun’s owner”
Didn’t I just predict this response?
Check your numbers-URWRONG
By the way, even if your right this simply means that murder is a crime of revenge or passion (think I said that already). Thank God that most murders aren’t random acts of violence. If someone were to kill you-you probably will know them. Maybe your drug dealer, crazy cousin or irate former employee. In all cases the answer is to identify these people and to be prepared in the event that one comes after you.
Again, Fuck You urwrong! I work in Chester and walk the streets unarmed. Admit it, you are a coward. Your reality is false! The true scary people in America are scared white guys with guns.
@u “Didn’t I just predict this response?”
Yep.. Because it’s both relevant and accurate.
“Check your numbers-URWRONG”
It’s close… Last time I did the basic arithmetic, it came to 91 or 92%.
I’m pretty sure that it is at LEAST 90%. And if you get a number that’s way off, don’t forget to include the deaths involving the gun’s owner. He is to be considered to be a member of his own family….
” Maybe your drug dealer, crazy uncle, or irate employee”. No urwrong, more like maybe your husband, boyfriend, ex boyfriend, or good buddy. You justify your handle by continually being wrong.
@u “Guess that I’ve been robbed, assaulted & shot at just one too many times.”
Look. I’ve been the victim of robbery and assault too, and I’ve had a loaded gun pointed at me, but that doesn’t make me throw logic out the window. It’s never made me actually want to go out and buy a gun. …stupid is as stupid does.
@Liberal Elite
I know what the actual numbers are. Usually run just over 70%.
No where near 90%, please check your math.
Again, an expected result. Thank God that murders are generally not random acts.
” but that doesn’t make me throw logic out the window”
Logic dictates that one should be prepared for whatever emergency should arise.
Evey day, good people use guns to protect themselves. There aren’t official numbers but a review of the available news reports indicate well over a 95% success rate for those who defend themselves against criminals.
Here’s a challenge. Post links to stories about unsuccessful self defense attempts.
In trying to find some, you will soon see that URWRONG.
@u “No where near 90%, please check your math.”
Suicides alone are about 60%… It really is 90%.
“Logic dictates that one should be prepared for whatever emergency should arise.”
Ridiculous. Utterly stupid shit. Do I really need to tell you why?
Urwrong and bob are with the terrorists, whether they are radical Christians or radical Muslims or radical Atheists. Because they supply them weapons and love fear
hmmm..
AP: Syed Farook Traveled to Saudi Arabia, Married Tashfeen Malik, Grew Out Beard.
So, What came first the terrorist or the Weapon? And what did I hear about Pipe bombs? Are they legal to buy?
And please get Delaware City some help. He desperately needs some medical aid. Or call the cops, I think he is going to be the next one who pops.
Can someone explain how this “good guy with a guy” scenario works? Let’s say there were “good guys with guns” there yesterday. Would they attend the event with their hand constantly on their guns, ready to open fire? Not likely – and if they were then that is some strong paranoia and they shouldn’t own weapons. Seriously, if you live in constant fear and preparedness of/for something bad happening you need Xanax not a gun.
So… the bad guys with guns – with the element of surprise on their side – burst in and start shooting. Even if the “good guys” have trained SWAT reaction time (LOL) by the time they start firing back it’s chaos – people screaming, running, falling, etc.. How many innocent victims get shot in the crossfire?
What if another person draws a gun and starts shooting? Are they a good guy or a bad guy? How can you tell? Only the “bad guys with guns” know who’s who – they know who is a defender or accomplice. Does the “good guy with a gun” simply shoot everyone with a gun and sort out who’s who later?
In the Oregon shooting there were “good guys with guns” on that campus that day. Did they fire their guns at the bad guy? Nope. When asked why they said they didn’t want the police to arrive and mistake them for a “bad guy with a gun” and shoot them. That seems wise and reality based because the police arriving on the scene of an active shooting are going to take out everyone firing a gun. So, here’s a case where the “good guys with guns” didn’t do a thing.
Want another example? How about Joe Zamudio?
Hats off to Mr. Zamudio.
Counter the above examples of good guys with guns NOT using them with the crazy woman at Home Depot shooting at shoplifters in a crowded parking lot or the tons of stories of family members being shot (and killed) by another family member who mistook them for an intruder.
Here’s another question. How many guns do people have in their home for protection and where do they keep them? If home invasion is your fear then I would think you’d need a gun in every room (maybe more than one). I mean, if your gun is upstairs and you’re downstairs in the kitchen when an intruder enters your gun won’t help you, right? In order to “defend” yourself you’ll need to have guns at the ready (which means unsecured) all over your house. Unless, you walk around your house with a gun strapped to your hip at all times? If that’s the case, please seek professional help.
Delaware Dem, Under our system any attempt to keep guns out of the hands of religious terrorists (Christian or other) must be seen as a de facto attempt to take all guns away from everyone. Terrorists (both Christian and other), who have yet to commit an act of terror must have free and unencumbered access to guns, otherwise – tyranny.
It is a basic fact of life in America and one that is not disputed by the gun nuts like Bob.
I really starting to question how this works.
So we curtail gun sales. Great…. the day after sandy hook and black friday saw record gun sales…. do we take guns away from people who already bought them? Don’t you realize these people will defend their guns… WITH their guns? How many shoot outs and deaths will occur because of this? Many right wingers are salivating at the chance so shoot at feds from their porch while Dukes plays on the TV in the other room.
How many would-be terrorists already HAVE the guns they will use?
There is no stopping this. the NRA won.
We can’t do everything, so we shouldn’t do anything?
I don’t think you mean that, but it is an NRA talking point. So, I’d avoid the confiscations and start with the doable. Put gun ownership on par with automobile ownership. We need clear titles, registrations and liability insurance.
Start charging a 1,000.00 a bullet. 🙂
“I don’t think you mean that, but it is an NRA talking point. So, I’d avoid the confiscations and start with the doable. Put gun ownership on par with automobile ownership. We need clear titles, registrations and liability insurance.”
and TRAINING! Don’t forget mandatory firearms training, with repeated mandatory retraining over time.
2016 candidates react to San Bernardino shooting: http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/12/02/2016-candidates-react-to-san-bernardino-shooting
Sen. Tom Carper: My heart goes out to the victims of the tragic events in #SanBernardino. I continue to monitor the situation closely.
Sen. Chris Coons: n/a
Rep. John Carney: n/a
Sean Barney: If the atrocity in San Bernardino were perpetrated overseas by military personnel whose business it is to wear tactical gear and carry assault weapons, it would be a war crime. We cannot continue to allow any individuals who please – whether homicidally disturbed or foreign or domestic terrorists – to roam the streets of our communities with the weaponry of war.
Lisa Blunt Rochester: n/a
Bryon Short: n/a
Bryan Townsend: Another mass shooting. More innocent victims. Together with daily urban gun violence, these events show us how far we have yet to go before we can say we are doing everything possible to protect Americans, even from other Americans.
Thanks for the link. That the “thoughts and prayers” response to these predictable episodes is now being ridiculed is a step forward…I suppose.
Normally just read, not a poster.
1. “Another Terrorist Attack”? Before it was called, workplace violence. “Terrorist” gets more people pointing in one direction. IMHO. I true journalist knows all the facts first, except maybe for a local rag.
2. @c’est la vie: Appreciate who is saying what, but why say anything until ALL the facts are in. Some just shoot their mouth off, because they are running for office and want the press.
3. Brian Stephan: Why isn’t Carpers face on that front page? I heard a number of Democrats say the same thing!
Not a gun owner;
1.If the average person wants to hunt, there are certain guns for that. I don’t think they need an assult weapon.
2. Mandatory background check, no gun until check is done.
3. Something needs to be done about the gun shows. Stricter enforcement, but I don’t have a solution.
Just my 2 cents, Thanks
they dont want assault weapons for hunting, they want them for civil war. Ask any gun nut and they will proudly tell you they are ready to fight the gumment… or isis… or gangbangers… or whatever bad-guy exists in their homicidal fantasy land.
Hmmm… Seems the language gloves have come off at DL.
Well it’s another day and another gun slaughter, and another lack of the famed “good man with a gun”. Do I want to enact gun laws? Hell no! I want to expand second amendment rights to the three areas where they are most needed. That being the senate, house and supreme court. Later we can add NRA headquarters in Washington where for some mysterious reason guns are banned. As for the daily slaughter isn’t that just more “American Exceptionalism”?
DE CitiZen, What statement above isn’t based on known facts? FACT: There was a mass shooting. FACT: There are victims. FACT: The murderers wore tactical gear and carried assault weapons. I expect to hear from our officials and candidates in the hours immediately after a crisis. There is a clear difference in the responses from Ds who call for action and Rs who offer little more than empty platitudes. And frankly, I also hear a clear message from those who remain silent.
…And how about mandatory gun liability insurance to pay for income losses and the medical bills from gun violence?
It’s time for the gun owners to pay for the true cost of their obsession.
Liability for all. That my friends is exactly what is needed.
The sellers, the manufacturers, the owners. All of them responsible for how the gun is used and who is injured or killed by it. No excuses. Strict liability.
Turn the lawyers loose. The gun crowd will long for a return to the day when their biggest fear was the jack-booted government agents coming to kick their doors down.
Watch how quick bio metric trigger locks appear. What those gun show loopholes close. Watch how quickly insurance companies start cutting off coverage. Watch how quickly guns end up locked away. Watch the NRA become irrelevant. Watch how quickly gun companies support research on gun safety.
Watch how many people are alive as a result.
Praise be to God/Allah/Yahweh/the Spaghetti Colander
Can we PLEASE stop calling it by its many euphemisms…….
Gun Violence….
Mass Shooting……
What if the headlines read: “MASS EXECUTION in San Bernadino”
“Mass Execution of children in Sandy Hook”
Let’s call it what its really is, call on the media to call it what it really is and then maybe the HORROR of it all will sink in
using these pretty little euphemisms isn’t doing any good if stopping it is what you want.
You people and your talk radio/NRA sponsored tribal party oppose any gun restrictions on terrorists
Maybe they ought to implement background checks for buying pipe. Or maybe only Government certified Union plumbing shops could only buy pipe.
@Aoine, Call it by it’s true Name “Terrorist Attack”
@mouse. you have the network media, what’s the difference?
It’s true name is Jihad, and it is unwavering and relentless. Say what you want about christian terrorists, but I think the numbers point towards islam as being dominant in the “terror” field.
And as far as gun control is concerned, that won’t solve the violence problem in this country. It’s like taking the tin foil away from a schizophrenic and saying it is curing him from delusions. Besides 21 million background checks in 2013 alone means there are plenty out there. I guess the only way to get your utopia would be door to door searches.
@BJ “And as far as gun control is concerned, that won’t solve the violence problem in this country.”
How many people would not have died yesterday if congress had not let the assault weapons ban lapse??
Why is it always “Aw shucks… we just can’t solve this problem” ???
Of course there are things we can do. There are LOTS of things that we could do to make it less risible than it is.
Why is it always “Aw shucks… we just can’t solve this problem” ???
Because Supreme Court appointments are for life.
I don’t think liability insurance, as great an idea as it is, would survive an infringement challenge in the current court, or perhaps even in a more liberal court. Also, I don’t like the idea of gun ownership being only for the wealthy.
What’s needed is a ruling that semi-automatic weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment. If we can ban machine guns we can damn well ban semi-automatic weapons. That machine gun legislation by the way was signed by Ronald Reagan.
@puck What is this “machine gun” legislation? Fully auto weapons are legal in some states, including our neighbor in PA.
@lib elite I never said “aw shucks..blah blah blah.” what I said was that wasn’t a solution. The solution needs to find the root of the problem. The illegal use of firearms is a symptom of a much greater problem. Economic strife, lack of morals (not saying christian per se, just old fashioned golden rule), and of course, religious violence (islamic being number one with christian a distant second).
This past shooting, we should be lucky that he didn’t bring in a $10.99 pressure cooker.
I will call it what I have the evidence to call it
There is evidence to call it – MASS EXECUTIONS
And nothing else
there is NO ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that this is Jihadist or Christian terrorism or workplace violence – or anything related to any race creed or religion ….
See , I believe in facts and investigation and well –truth
When the evidence reveals the motive and the motivation and the causes behind this – then I’ll call it what the evidence says it is
Until then – I’ll leave it to the professional, the forensics specialists and the TAPESTRY experts to do their job
See – my professional background in these types of things have taught me not to jump to extremes and point the finger until I have the facts and evidence to form a working theory
Instead of having a theory based on prejudice and forcing the evidence to fit the theory – which is what you are trying to do Bob and reasonable, intelligent people are waiting for the facts
@Liberal Elite
I can’t locate any data whatsoever to support your 90% number.
https://top5ofanything.com/list/8a1bf3d1/Murders-by-Relationship-to-the-Victim-in-the-United-States
While about 60% of suicides do involve guns, you simply can’t add that percentage to that of murders committed with guns & by known assailants.
Even if you assume that all murders by known assailants used a gun (not a valid assumption by far), the average of all homicides & suicides that used a gun is only 15.74%. This would apply only for cases where the assailant is known to the victim.
Also-from the FBI:
FBI Violent Crime in the United States (2011):
67.7 percent of all murders, 41.3 percent of robberies and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults were conducted with guns.
More than 128,900 cases of robbery involved firearms, compared to 24,300 with knives and more than 27,000 with other weapons. More than 130,000 cases were “strong arms.”
More than 137,200 cases of aggravated assault involved firearms, while more than 126,800 involved knives, more than 222,100 involved “other ” weapons and more than 154,100 “hands, fists, feet, etc.”
Strunsky points out though that much of the data regarding guns and crime is based on voluntary reporting. To Strunsky, surveys have the potential to be limited by small sample sizes that are then expounded upon to make assumptions about trends representing the whole country. This is why he believes the most reliable numbers come from homicide data.
I’m guessing that you are neither a scientist nor a math major.
Smoke and mirrors…
Here’s the exact quote:
“90% of all gun deaths in the US are family and friends (of the gun’s owner).”
So why are you talking about what fraction of suicides are caused by guns?
Why are you obsessing about what fraction of murders are caused by guns.
They are totally irrelevant to the quote you are trying to refute.
I’ve done the analysis here before (go look for it), so I won’t go through it again, but yea… It really is 90%.
About 65% of all gun deaths are suicides, and of the remaining gun deaths, about 2/3rds fall into the family and friends class. I think that even you could do that math.
@Aoine-
>there is NO ABSOLUTE EVIDENCE that this is Jihadist or Christian terrorism or workplace violence – or anything related to any race creed or religion …
No court of law in the USA requires “absolute evidence”, as it is a virtually impossible standard to meet. No one would ever be convicted of anything if “absolute evidence” was the standard that prosecutors must meet.
Ok, I get all of the gun control arguments, pro and con. But what about the other elephant in the room? Islam.
Now before you start shouting islamaphobe/racist/bigot/etc…, just think about this situation going on.
He was a US citizen, born and raised.
What does this tell us? It tells us that even though he was rasied here, he still identified more with his parents culture, and the culture of islam.
He also was married with a child and had a good job at a state agency.
What does this tell us? That he wasn’t suffering from economic strife (poverty, not basic money issues; everyone has those), or was being marginalized in his community (i.e. shut out of nice neighborhoods, persecuted due to ethnicity, or failed to be given economic opportunities due to his ethnicity).
So all in all, he had a wife, a new child, a good paying job, and a home of his own. Sounds like he was actually succeeding at the American dream.
What does this tell us? That as he learned more and more about the Koran, he then reached out to known islamic extremists. The IED’s that were found were the same design that was used in boston. These designs are from inspire magazine. This was also a planned attack, so not just some nut going off the rails.
So, where do we go from here? It’s time to acknowledge the inherent violence that is the history and teachings of Islam. This is Jihad plain and simple.
Now I know there is someone reading this saying “I’m a muslim,” or “not all muslims are terrorists!” I agree with this.
Though, I feel that the association is too great for moderate muslims to keep themselves banded together. There needs to be a 99 thesis moment. A modern reformation of Islam to really make the battle lines clear. Whether we want to face the truth or not, the western world is at war with Islam (extremist if you will) and has been for the past 1400 years.
@B “This is Jihad plain and simple.”
Not buying it. This was more likely workplace violence (aka going postal).
And you probably have the 1400 years thing backwards. We were there jihadists!! We were arguably the most violent. Back then, Islam had the Seven Pillars of Wisdom (the 7 great libraries of the ancient world), while we (Christians) were wallowing in the mud of central Europe. It was the pillaged library at Alhambra, when taken to Italy on the backs of donkeys, that spurred the Renaissance. That’s when we got important words like “zero” and “horizon” and “zenith”…
…and that’s also when we left Islam behind, as we moved forward on all fronts.
The problem isn’t that Islam is violent. It’s that some have been denigrated and left behind (not to mention all that we’ve killed). It’s inequality and denigration that fuels more violence and hatred. Just think for a moment about how many Muslins the US has killed since 2003. We’ve suffered losses less than 1% of that amount. And it’s our cultural mismatch that makes us think that that’s somehow OK.
I read your screed as nothing more of less a call for more such violence. Your vision is myopic and dangerous for all.
@ lib.
I think you need to check your history. I assume when you say that “we were the jihadists” you are referring to the crusades. The crusades was a defensive measure to help protect the christians that were being slaughtered by muslims in the middle east. Muslims attacked christians throughout the middle east and into europe. The middle east before the rise of islam was predominately christian and jewish. Islam grew fast because it conquered and forced conversions or just out right killed everyone.
By the time the first crusades started, (1080) Muslims had already invaded spain, were attacking france, decimating sicily, raiding and taking slaves on the italian coast, and hammering constantinople. The crusades were an answer to a plea for help from the eastern catholic church. The spaniards fought the muslims for 400 years before kicking them out. If andalusa was such a golden age, why did they fight so fiercely for so long.
Wallowing in the mud lol. One of the reasons that central europe declined was a lack of food. Considering that islam conquered eygpt in the mid 600’s it cut off a vital food supply to europe. Besides, eastern europe had the byzantine empire then as well. also destroyed by muslims by the way. I almost forgot, they sacked the library in alexandria, and the library Nalanda. So their “knowledge” is what the happened not to destroy when the burnt down multiple institutions of learning.
You really need to educate yourself about the muslim conquest of the classical world to truly understand the dynamics of what was going on then.
So, in answer to your one question, I give you another. How many christians, jews, africans, and europeans have muslims killed in the name of allah? We’ve inflicted less than 1% of that amount. And it’s their cultural mismatch that makes them think that that’s somehow ok?
I reed your screed as nothing more or less than apologizing for a dangerous ideology. Your vision is myopic and dangerous for all.
Sounds like well planned workplace violence as reported by the Washington Times.
“The Muslim husband and wife behind the mass shooting in San Bernardino began erasing their digital footprint a day in advance of the deadly attack, deleting email accounts, disposing of hard drives and smashing their cellphones, according to law enforcement investigators who are treating the probe as a counterterrorism case.”
Why can’t you guys say Islamic Terrorist?
I haven’t drawn any conclusions about this incident, unlike Bob who claims to know exactly what happened. The reasons behind this shooting still aren’t clear. Targeting co-workers is pretty personal and doesn’t come across as what we expect from terrorism – that doesn’t mean it wasn’t terrorism, only that this story doesn’t fall neatly into that box.
The guy attended the luncheon and left due to some sort of an argument – at least that’s what’s been reported. He then comes back and starts shooting. To me that seems personal.
As far as the Islamic Terrorist game… you guys ready to call the people who do the shootings, arson, bombing, etc. at Planned Parenthood Christian Terrorists?
And you might want to check your history when it comes to people killing in the name of their god. Your take is extremely one-sided. It’s like listing Christians killing for their god doesn’t suit your agenda. Why not just add Muslims to the long list of things you’re afraid of?
Who cares what the motivation was? This is somehow “worse” if it’s Islamic-inspired terrorism than if it’s anti-abortion-inspired terrorism? How?
Are the Bobs interested in treating Christian evangelicals like Muslims? Why not?
Personally, I’m fine with calling all these mass shootings terrorism… because they really are.
I’m fine calling it terrorism too. And so are the Feds.
“Domestic terrorism” means activities with the following three characteristics:
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.”
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
I think the appellation “terrorism” requires some sort of political agenda. Yes, this inspires terror and, whatever else, the kiler(s) want people to be afraid.
But Timothy McVey was a Terrorist. Dylan Roof is a Terrorist. Robert Dear is a Terrorist. The scum that attacked France are/were terrorists. So these two… either they are not politically/religiously motivated and this is some kind of Natural Born Killers sick fantasy… or they are politically motivated and were trying to advance the notion that the West is at war with Islam (just like Daesh and the GOP are doing). It shouldn’t be considered Islamaphobia to be able to acknowledge what is (if it is) and join the millions of true Muslims who condemn it. What resonates for me is, once again, the bought their weapons legally. They had no problem arming themselves and the “next one” is already fully armed.
Sigh …. At Bob Back to MASS EXECUTIONS
Can you say and remember the name Timothy Mcveigh (note proper spelling) MAYBE David Koresch – any other Anti- government – anti-abortion nut. Anti- abortion group Like Gods Army, Operation Rescue … Hurtatah militia
Their tactics where pure white dude terrorism. They may have learned the details from the magazine INSPIRE – but that means we could be dealing with a hybrid type terrorist .. American tactical gear/weapons with foreign influences …. Interesting concept …
But I’ll wait until too those better informed let us know – like intelligent people do
The first days after OKC everyone was saying ISLAM – and low and behold. White dude. Home grown terrorist. So, let’s wait for context
I’m fine with calling it terrorism … If a known political/religious agenda is uncovered
As far as the absolute evidence I was referring to – that would be a law enforcement standard – not that in a court of law
We are not there yet and abviouslty the two Shooter’s will never be tried in a court of law
Any accomplasis might
So before you go jumping to conclusions and mixing metaphors and – seeing as the Shooter’s will never be in a court of law- the standard of a preponderance of the evidence or any weight of civil or criminal evidence will never be brought to bear
Therefore – whatever the investigators want to call the weight of their evidence will stand as stated
Obviously you Have no experience as a LEO. LEA or attorney
You are Just another uninformed opinion…. Like flapping to push an agenda – leave it to the experts – they generally don’t should so prejudiced or stupid (notice the generally)
Here’s a handy guide.
White Person = Lone wolf/mental problems
African American = Culture of Violence
Arab = Terrorism
#’s of dead bodies don’t really play a part. It all come down to skin tone.
Not that I suppose anybody paid much attention to Bob. J’s distorted little “history lesson,” but just in case:
Islam grew fast because it conquered and forced conversions or just out right killed everyone.
In fact, following the Muslim conquest of Egypt they re-installed the Coptic Christians who had been persecuted by the Byzantine Empire, helped them rebuild their churches and protected their forms of worship. Taxes on Egyptians went down compared to what the Byzantines (and, briefly, the Persians) had been charging.
In Spain the Muslims protected the Jewish minority and intermarried freely with the Christian population.
While Muslim slavers did harry Sicily, Italy and Greece, they were doing in competition with European slavers seizing people from Dalmatia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Crete.
Portraying the Crusades as a “defensive measure” is one of the biggest revisionist laughers of all time. Aside from the Crusaders committing massive atrocities in “defense of Christendom,” any examination of the Crusades in any detail debunks this myth: like the Fourth Crusade wherein the men so supposedly interested in defending Christendom stopped on the way to the Levant (they never actually got there) to sack Christian Byzantium and depose the Christian Emperor.
But, hey, thanks for playing.
I find the debate about whether it is terrorism to be silly and non-productive. Thus far the motive appears to be ideological, although that has not been validated. We have people in this country who believe that killing for ideological reasons (political, religious, or other beliefs) is a legitimate act to either further their ideological beliefs or as a response to a perceived threat or slight against those the beliefs.
We, as a nation, make it easier for them to carry out these ideological acts because of our freedoms facilitate those who would commit these acts to acquire the enabling tools necessary to achieve their objectives. The 30 round magazine weapon freedoms we enjoy are the tools whose only purpose is to commit mass homicide. There has to be limits and that limit should be governed by the specific purpose for which the tool is intended. In my opinion that’s what the discussion should be about.
Thanks for schooling the obviously christian home schooled guy, Professor.
On one level it is self-evident; the purpose of the 30 round magazine is for killing more people faster.
However, in gun nut mythology, the purpose of the 30 round magazine is to be the symbolic leading edge of freedom. If the 30 round magazine is challenged, gun nuts regard it as inevitable that other bans and confiscations would follow.
The formulation (which no gun nut denies) is, “All mayhem is allowable, otherwise – tyranny.”
“All mayhem is allowable, otherwise – tyranny.”
Sadly, there are countless pro-gun commenters across the interwebs who show that what Jason says is not hyperbole. They actually defend that position.
@pandora
He frequently had arguments about Islam with a jewish coworker that was killed. His wife pledged allegiance to ISIL on social media after the attacks (cnn).
Yes christians that murder innocents in the name of religion are terrorists. I use the term Jihad for islamic terrorists, because it is defined as such by mohammed himself in the medina koran, sunna, and the hadith.
Yes, Christians have committed atrocities in the name of religion. Does that give a pass to Islam in modern day? Even steven?
@brian
Great definition. According to your definition, this all checks out. Basically anyone who doesn’t tolerate, or condemns Islam will be dealt violently.
@ben
While I see what resonates with you, the Tsarnaev brothers used a cheap pressure cooker with household items. Imagine if he brought one of those in that conference room and went up with it. a lot more casualties would of resulted.
@aoine
Basic tactical gear is just that, basic. Its used everywhere, it may even of been made in china, and just sold here. would that make it chinese tactical gear? maybe we should look into that link….
yes, it will not be going to trial, but as more trickles out in the news, its starting to take shape.
Over time became more and more devout. Had contact with known Islamic extremist groups. Had a bomb making factory at their home. This implies planning an attack for sometime. Wife pledged loyalty to ISIL after attacks.
I appreciate how you left personal insults to the end and kept it short.
@jason
I agree that some do look at it like that, and that’s sad. But the bosnian islamiv terrorists were eastern european. no arab or brown skin tone. The link was islam.
@Steve Taxes went up for those who didn’t convert to Islam. To become a protected non-muslim you became a dhimmi. You paid a per person tax, exluding the very old and children, and a property tax. The tax was removed if you converted, creating an incentive to convert to islam; smart. The first time the muslim army attacked alexandria, it surrendered peacefully. however, the romans (byzantine) retook the city. The second time (and last) that the muslims retook the city, it was only after a prolonged siege. What does this tell us? That the populace after being under muslim rule would rather a siege and lose by force than surrender to the “benevolent” muslims that protected their traditions.
Spain. By protected, they had to become a dhimmi. Pay a non-muslim tax. They also never received equal status. They were not allowed to practice in public, or to ring church bells. The restrictions also grew worse as time went on. It’s easier to enact changes over time and gain acceptance than to change it all at once. Dhimmis were not allowed to marry muslims, and any muslim male that took a christian female forced them to convert.
Slavery. European slavery all but died out by the year 1000. At this time Arabic slavery was steamrolling right along. Just do a quick google on slavery on midieval europe, and the arab slave trade. way too much to explain here.
about the crusades. Major Islamic battles from the rise of mohammed to modern times, yes modern times just look at the ottoman empire, number around 540. Muslim forces attacked christian regions for 450 years before the first crusade. And yes, constantinople was sacked by a group of crusaders but that was condemned by the church, not sanctioned by it. If you want atrocities though, just look into the arab conquest of india.
Thanks for not getting too snarky until the end.
All in all, I appreciate the civil tone of the debate thus far. It’s always so counterproductive when it devolves to name calling and swearing.
Sorry not to get back sooner, it was a lot and had to be typed when I had bits of time here and there.
@BJ “Thanks for not getting too snarky until the end.”
But you do realize that you’ve been spouting basic racist claptrap… Right?
Do we really need this anti-Islam propaganda from you? Does this help in any way?
Islam is not the problem here.
The losers of the world always need a scapegoat to blame for their miserable life. For BJ it is Islam.
Actually, I have nothing against race. black, white, brown, whatever. That doesn’t matter to me in the slightest. And technically, I do not even have anything against the “religion” aspect of Islam. Prayers never hurt anyone. Political islam, and how it is used today is the real threat. I think one of the problems is that the religion and political aspect gets too blurry for people to sort out. ISIS actually shows a line from the koran, sira, or hadith to justify all of its actions and laws. They are strict followers. Honestly sit down and read the sira first, then the hadith, then the koran. why is learning about the social structure that is actively trying to harm you considered propaganda?
Oh, and the more news reports that roll in, it does seem like another islamic extremist event.
Not a scapegoat at all. Technically speaking, other than me going to war in ’04, islamic extremism hasn’t affected my life personally at all. If I watch someone get mugged across the street, and I have the capacity to help in some, should I? I’m not being affected.
Oh, and actually, i am quite happy with my life!
@BJ “Political islam, and how it is used today is the real threat.”
That’s the real threat??
I think that your ability for threat assessment is rather poor.
That particular threat wouldn’t even make the top 10, in my judgement. There are many serious threats to our world’s civilization. That just isn’t one of them.
“Actually, I have nothing against race. black, white, brown, whatever. That doesn’t matter to me in the slightest.”
Fine… But it still meets the modern and accepted definition of blatant racism. That goes well beyond simple color.
“why is learning about the social structure that is actively trying to harm you considered propaganda?”
Because you are not doing it honestly. This is not scholarship.
What’s so infuriating is the way we address mass shootings depending on who does the shooting. Jason posted this above:
That’s why this discussion over Muslims and Islam is so dishonest. We simply do not apply this standard to white male shooters who appear to be considered as American as apple pie.
Is there a problem with Islamic extremists? Yes, but there’s an even bigger one with white male shooters and we never address that. I’m fine with addressing both, but we never do that. The San Bernardino shooting is the 353rd time four or more people have been shot in an incident this year. Perhaps it’s time to focus on the other 352 shootings this year with the same intensity.
Right now we have people (Presidential candidates, congressmen/women, etc.) suggesting a Muslim data base among other things for American citizens. These restrictive ideas are exactly what the gunners and the GOP have been freaking out over when it comes to them personally, and yet, here they are, happy to apply their worst nightmare to other citizens. They should be very careful with what they’re wishing for.
As an agnostic I am equally wary of all religious extremists, but white guys with a gun top my list when I’m assessing risk.
The difficulty with Bob J. and his view of history is that while he sees many facts he doesn’t understand them, and there are also many facts that escape his attention.
It is not worth going through the entire argument of trivia again, because he will simply cite more of them without getting the main argument, but here are two telling examples for anybody who cares.
1) Egypt: (a) Of course taxes went up on some of the conquered people. This is not a function of Islam, it is a function of conquest during the period. Conquerors (including the Byzantines, the Romans, the Spanish Habsburgs, you name it) always attempted to make the conquered territory pay for itself. But in fact the Christian Copts of Egypt (whom Bob does not mention in his rebuttal) fared much better under the Muslims than they did under the Byzantines; (b) the siege of Alexandria in the second conquest had nothing to do (as Bob J. erroneously infers) with popular fear of conquest, but with Byzantine politics–the knights and levies that defended the city were not part of the rank-and-file of the Egyptian populace so the example is hopelessly flawed
2) Muslim conquest–you have to read Bob’s response carefully to realize that it is not how the Muslims conquered, or where the Muslims conquered, but the fact that the expanding Muslim empires conquered anywhere at all that really bothers him. All Muslim conquests are illegitimate and bloody and horrible, and all Christian conquests or campaigns are justifiable responses. All Muslim conquests involved awful atrocities, and when the Christians committed such (if they are admitted at all), those get a pass because the Pope condemned them or they were apparently an understandable response to Muslim savagery.
Bluntly (and completely without snark) this is bullshit. Large-scale warfare is inherently inhuman and monstrous throughout world history regardless of who is waging it, and it was especially during the pre-Modern era just before the establishment of the first gunpowder empires. For decades (centuries even) the two opponents at the opposite ends of the Med were the Ottomans and Habsburg Spain, and one only has to look at battles initiated by either side to find routine and regular examples of barbaric practices that should make you retch. But Bob focuses only on the Muslim dhimmi status in Spain without looking at the Habsburg persecution and expulsion of the Jews and Moriscos, or the Spanish Inquisition, or the bloody ways in which the monarchy put down the many revolts against it. Bob is unaware, apparently, that Spanish Habsburg armies sacked Rome itself, and left piles of civilian corpses and miles-wide trails of blood across southeastern Europe in the conquest of the Balkans after the last siege of Vienna. Bob is, finally, unable to separate the Turkish aspects from the Muslim aspects of the Ottoman Empire, for example, because he has only researched history to learn about the terrible Islamic record, and not to understand what really happened.
With appropriate cherry-picking and judicious use of Wikipedia or suitably slanted sources, anybody can play this game in the vacuum of response, while continuing to live in an intellectual world where the study of history is intended to support our pre-existing beliefs, not open a window on the past that improves our understanding of what really happened.
And if that’s snark, so be it.
What a pointless argument Bob J has.
Is Islam any better or worse incitement for shooting up a place than white resentment/supremacy (Dylan Roof) or inability to get laid (Elliott Rodger)? Do you think that either of those shooters represented the sum total of murderous white supremacists and misogynists? Why do I have more to fear from Islam than any other ideology that prompts people to go on shooting sprees?
Because the Islamist brand of terrorism uses religion to recruit and to convince others to carry out violent acts. These organizations also desire a religious state governed by religious laws and take credit for inspiring the act in this case, also. This is what makes this brand different than the others. It’s actually quite obvious what the difference is. Although it’s easier to dismiss it if you claim not to see it, or if you think this is an indictment of everyone that practices that faith. Of course it isn’t, but hey, you do you.
The things Dorian sights as obvious differences don’t seem very obvious when you consider the high profile acts of terror against abortion providers going back to 1982 are nearly all connected to “The Army of God.”
Using religion to recruit and to convince others to carry out violent acts, desiring a religious state governed by religious laws and taking credit for inspiring the acts…? It is all AOG stuff, right down the line.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think my Comrade, Dorian Gray, believes that he is pointing out some kind of liberal hypocrisy here – an unwillingness for liberals to admit Islamic religious fanaticism is real.
I admit that it is real. But in so doing, I don’t go on to say that Islamic fanaticism is more evil than any other religious fanaticism.
No need to correct you. Religious fanaticism is evil across the board. There’s just one brand that’s quite a bit more dangerous right now. When we begin to see strong evidence of Mormon or Quaker or Jain international terrorism, I’ll deal with them in due course.
I’ve written very clearly here that I don’t not think any measures monitoring US mosques or punishing Muslims across the board is warranted. Probably counterproductive. But to ram one’s head in the sand and refuse to admit what’s right in front of one’s nose makes one look very, very silly.
What’s “right in front of my nose” here? Anti-abortionists recruit. Militiamen recruit. White supremacists recruit. As best I can tell, the Elliott Rodger pick-up artist community recruits.
Religion is neither more nor less dangerous than any of the ideologies that incites the imbalanced to murder, and your pants-pissing doesn’t change that.
My pants are bone dry I assure you. But I appreciate your concern. I like how you change the subject and start discussing other attacks rather than the ones were talking about though. It makes it even more clear that my argument is winning.
I agree with your last statement. Any ideology that incites violence is very dangerous. I never excluded the others as you seem to want to exclude or explain away the Islamist type. You’re arguing a point that I have never made.
I disagree. You seem to be arguing that Islam deserves special scrutiny. I am arguing against that.
I really don’t see the difference between Islamists and Christianists; indeed, as there are far more of the latter than the former in the U.S., I am in general more worried about the Christians.
Seriously, if your point is not that Islam is a special threat, then what is it? If every ideology is a problem, why is Islam a special one?
Also, what’s this bullshit about “changing the subject”? When this thread started, we didn’t know the ideology behind the shootings. It could have been anything, which is exactly my point.
And finally, “my argument is winning”? What kind of asshattery is that?
I’m not arguing for anything except for this: people must admit that in the cases of ISIS inspired terrorism religious factors are the motivation. That’s it. It wasn’t long ago that we were suppose to pretend religion had nothing to do with it. It does. The entire context of it is a religious context.
I didn’t argue for increased scrutiny for anybody. In fact I made it explicit that I wasn’t, so I have no idea with whom you’re arguing. Am I not allowed to make this point? Because you are more scared of other type of terrorism I’m not suppose to make the point here? Because other types of mass shooting/violence are perpetrated by other people for other reason we can’t draw conclusions about the ones that are inspired by ISIS?
Your entire line of argument is very, very strange. All the protests you make about what personally scares you more or who did what and why at some other time in some other place are non sequiturs and completely irrelevant to the point I’m making. (See again the first few sentences of this comment.)
I don’t know why we’re arguing either, as my initial comments were to Bob J., and I thought you were backing him up. So apparently we aren’t arguing at all.
I’m not scared about any type of terrorism. I said “worried,” not “scared,” and I’m worried only in the sense that 10,000 firearm murders a year is a cause for concern. If someone shoots me, I’ll assume it wasn’t random until I find out otherwise.
Hear hear dammit