Mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA

[IrishJayhawk]

Do you not believe this is an act of terrorism?

He claimed that there was a cover up and an intentional tamping down of specific facts because the media didn't like it. Source?

 

[NDgradstudent]

CBS Los Angeles reports on the shooting. From the story:

A man who has been working in the area said he noticed a half-dozen Middle Eastern men in the area in recent weeks, but decided not to report anything since he did not wish to racially profile those people.

“We sat around lunch thinking, ‘What were they doing around the neighborhood?'” he said.

You'd hope, at some point, reality would set in. Evidently hasn't happened yet.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

CBS Los Angeles reports on the shooting. From the story:



You'd hope, at some point, reality would set in. Evidently hasn't happened yet.

What was there to report? Were they doing something suspicious?

 

[dublinirish]

What was there to report? Were they doing something suspicious?

maybe there was a new falafel place open nearby

 

[wizards8507]

Lets not get caught up in "Islamic Terrorism" vs. anything else. Let them investigate, then see what is obvious or hopefully is a clear motive. I'm not excusing anyone purposely avoiding the term, but there's really not enough info to make an educated guess.

Come on. This was Islamic terrorism, just like Boston and Fort Hood.

 

[dang227]

Mass shooting in San Bernardino, CA

I read this morning they rigged a remote control car with explosives and left it at the conference center. They had the remote in their car. Sounds like the reason the stayed in the area was to detonate it once law enforcement was there. That doesn't sound like workplace violence to me. It sounds like an act of terrorism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wizards8507]

I read this morning they rigged a remote control car with explosives and left it at the conference center. They had the remote in their car. Sounds like the reason the stayed in the area was to detonate it once law enforcement was there. That doesn't sound like workplace violence to me. It would like an act of terrorism.

I look forward to Mr. Obama's comments on "common sense reforms" to limit access to remote control vehicles.

 

[Rhode Irish]

If you are going to put a qualifer on what countries he can use, generalities of "Rich" should be defined. What is your national GDP cutoff?

Jesus, man. You are missing the point. Do you think there are more mass shootings in Canada, Singapore, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, the UK, etc. than there are in the U.S.? And if there aren't, why aren't there? I don't care if there are more mass shootings in Mexico or Venezuela or Bangladesh or whatever (I'm not saying there are more shootings in those countries). We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Come on. This was Islamic terrorism, just like Boston and Fort Hood.

They are still investigating motives. Just because a person is Middle Eastern and commits an extreme act of violence doesn't automatically label them as an Islamic Terrorist. The guy worked at this company. He was born in America. He was at the party. Let's let this play out. Police and even family members are saying they don't know and workplace violence is still a viable theory w/o any sort of connection to religious ideologies. Is it possible? Sure. But lets not act like it's common sense and 100% certain until they have a confirmed motive.

 

[NDdomer2]

Jesus, man. You are missing the point. Do you think there are more mass shootings in Canada, Singapore, Germany, Sweden, Japan, Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, the UK, etc. than there are in the U.S.? And if there aren't, why aren't there? I don't care if there are more mass shootings in Mexico or Venezuela or Bangladesh or whatever (I'm not saying there are more shootings in those countries). We should be holding ourselves to a higher standard.

I am not saying I disagree with any of this.

BUT - the post you quoted was trying to use population as his control. You came in with some very general specifications that can't be measured. "RICH!"

So what I am catching is that because a country has more commerce they should have less killings?

What are they assumptions that make you draw that conclusion?

Poor people must have no reason to kill because they are poor?

While I agree that the US should hold itself to a higher standard, I dont feel that our economy has any bearing on why that should be.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Come on. This was Islamic terrorism, just like Boston and Fort Hood.

I'm curious what the distinction is between terrorism and mass murder, other than whether the perpetrator was Muslim. I am not really sympathetic to the Muslim cause here - I am generally from the Sam Harris/Bill Maher school of being skeptical of all religions and being frustrated with progressive's willingness to defend Muslims when they would be critical of the same behaviors if they were done by Christians. But in this case, it seems like while this guy has a middle eastern name, this was not a sleeper cell situation, but a crazy dude with a beef who happened to be of middle eastern descent.

From what I have seen reported, he was employed at this place and lived nearby. This isn't the feared ISIS invasion where a terror cell slipped through the border. The distinction probably matters only insofar as we care about having the story straight, but regardless of the motive the act of walking into a place and wiping out handfuls of innocent people is disgusting and a blight upon humanity.

 

[wizards8507]

They are still investigating motives. Just because a person is Middle Eastern and commits an extreme act of violence doesn't automatically label them as an Islamic Terrorist. The guy worked at this company. He was born in America. He was at the party. Let's let this play out. Police and even family members are saying they don't know and workplace violence is still a viable theory w/o any sort of connection to religious ideologies. Is it possible? Sure. But lets not act like it's common sense and 100% certain until they have a confirmed motive.

I'm curious what the distinction is between terrorism and mass murder, other than whether the perpetrator was Muslim. I am not really sympathetic to the Muslim cause here - I am generally from the Sam Harris/Bill Maher school of being skeptical of all religions and being frustrated with progressive's willingness to defend Muslims when they would be critical of the same behaviors if they were done by Christians. But in this case, it seems like while this guy has a middle eastern name, this was not a sleeper cell situation, but a crazy dude with a beef who happened to be of middle eastern descent.

From what I have seen reported, he was employed at this place and lived nearby. This isn't the feared ISIS invasion where a terror cell slipped through the border. The distinction probably matters only insofar as we care about having the story straight, but regardless of the motive the act of walking into a place and wiping out handfuls of innocent people is disgusting and a blight upon humanity.

They had bombs. They had just visited Saudi Arabia. The planned a phased attack where the bombs would detonate on law enforcement personnel. This wasn't some guy who got pissed, snapped, and grabbed his rifle to shoot up his boss. I'm not saying "it is proven that he is an Islamic terrorist," I'm saying "common sense and recent history tells us how this story ends."

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm curious what the distinction is between terrorism and mass murder, other than whether the perpetrator was Muslim. I am not really sympathetic to the Muslim cause here - I am generally from the Sam Harris/Bill Maher school of being skeptical of all religions and being frustrated with progressive's willingness to defend Muslims when they would be critical of the same behaviors if they were done by Christians. But in this case, it seems like while this guy has a middle eastern name, this was not a sleeper cell situation, but a crazy dude with a beef who happened to be of middle eastern descent.

From what I have seen reported, he was employed at this place and lived nearby. This isn't the feared ISIS invasion where a terror cell slipped through the border. The distinction probably matters only insofar as we care about having the story straight, but regardless of the motive the act of walking into a place and wiping out handfuls of innocent people is disgusting and a blight upon humanity.

I sort of agree with the bolded but would like to add my personal stance: Most agnostic, progressives that I know (including myself) criticize extreme radical fundamentalists of any religion. If this act was committed by white Christians, I would be just as critical of the extremists (as I am towards the Planned Parenthood shooter), but w/o using a broad paint brush generalizing the entire population who practices this ideology.

 

[Rhode Irish]

They had bombs. They had just visited Saudi Arabia. The planned a phased attack where the bombs would detonate on law enforcement personnel. This wasn't some guy who got pissed, snapped, and grabbed his rifle to shoot up his boss. I'm not saying "it is proven that he is an Islamic terrorist," I'm saying "common sense and recent history tells us how this story ends."

I guess I could be cool with calling this Islamic Terrorism if we are defining that term as "a muslim that kills a bunch of people at once," although that seems like a pretty lazy definition. But then we also have to call the Planned Parenthood shooting last week Christian Terrorism. I think at this point, it seems more obvious that the Planned Parenthood attack was motivated by religious ideology than this attack yesterday at a social services place that seems to be the least likely terror target imaginable.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

They had bombs. They had just visited Saudi Arabia. The planned a phased attack where the bombs would detonate on law enforcement personnel. This wasn't some guy who got pissed, snapped, and grabbed his rifle to shoot up his boss. I'm not saying "it is proven that he is an Islamic terrorist," I'm saying "common sense and recent history tells us how this story ends."

You absolutely could be correct in your assumption. But it's just that, an assumption at this point. And it's extremely dangerous and completely irresponsible to immediately spout such assumptions as "common sense" facts. This is the type of shit that conservative media outlets do and it's ridiculous.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I guess I could be cool with calling this Islamic Terrorism if we are defining that term as "a muslim that kills a bunch of people at once," although that seems like a pretty lazy definition. But then we also have to call the Planned Parenthood shooting last week Christian Terrorism. I think at this point, it seems more obvious that the Planned Parenthood attack was motivated by religious ideology than this attack yesterday at a social services place that seems to be the least likely terror target imaginable.

I agree with this completely.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I sort of agree with the bolded but would like to add my personal stance: Most agnostic, progressives that I know (including myself) criticize extreme radical fundamentalists of any religion. If this act was committed by white Christians, I would be just as critical of the extremists (as I am towards the Planned Parenthood shooter), but w/o using a broad paint brush generalizing the entire population who practices this ideology.

Right, I agree with that. There is some nuance here in that while all Muslims aren't evil terrorists (in fact, the overwhelming majority aren't), the mandate for violence that the evil terrorists perpetrate is drawn directly from their holy text. So it does create a pretty difficult situation where these people are recruiting others to their cause by legitimately siting scripture that calls upon them to commit violence in the name of their religion.

 

[wizards8507]

I guess I could be cool with calling this Islamic Terrorism if we are defining that term as "a muslim that kills a bunch of people at once," although that seems like a pretty lazy definition. But then we also have to call the Planned Parenthood shooting last week Christian Terrorism. I think at this point, it seems more obvious that the Planned Parenthood attack was motivated by religious ideology than this attack yesterday at a social services place that seems to be the least likely terror target imaginable.

The criterion for whether it's "terrorism" has nothing to do with whether it's motivated by religion. It's about the goal of the attacker, not his/her rationale. The goal of a terrorist is to kill people and incite terror. The Planned Parenthood guy apparently had a goal in mind. That doesn't make it better, just a different category.

You absolutely could be correct in your assumption. But it's just that, an assumption at this point. And it's extremely dangerous and completely irresponsible to immediately spout such assumptions as "common sense" facts. This is the type of shit that conservative media outlets do and it's ridiculous.

That's EXACTLY the mentality that this guy's neighbor had when he decided not to report suspicious activity because he didn't want to seem racist for saying his Muslim neighbor was up to something.

 

[Rhode Irish]

The criterion for whether it's "terrorism" has nothing to do with whether it's motivated by religion. It's about the goal of the attacker, not his/her rationale. The goal of a terrorist is to kill people and incite terror. The Planned Parenthood guy apparently had a goal in mind. That doesn't make it better, just a different category.

Right, but I'm not talking about whether or not it is terrorism, but rather whether it should be labeled "Islamic" terrorism. It obviously does matter if the act was religiously motivated when it comes to adding a religion tag to Terrorism. And also, do we know that this guy's goal was to terrorize a population rather than just to kill certain people? I feel like we don't know enough to say at this point unless all we need to know is the ethnic origin of the perpetrator's name.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The criterion for whether it's "terrorism" has nothing to do with whether it's motivated by religion. It's about the goal of the attacker, not his/her rationale. The goal of a terrorist is to kill people and incite terror. The Planned Parenthood guy apparently had a goal in mind. That doesn't make it better, just a different category.


That's EXACTLY the mentality that this guy's neighbor had when he decided not to report suspicious activity because he didn't want to seem racist for saying his Muslim neighbor was up to something.

Do you know what the "suspicious activity" was? Because unless he saw something that was obvious enough to report, then yes, it would have come across as bigoted/racist. "Suspicious activity" is too subjective unless this guy heard his neighbor make threats verbally or online or saw him with guns/bomb materials.

Edit: See Rhode Irish's post above this one. Adding a religious label to an act of terror should be done only if it is certain that that particular ideology played a role in the violence. Adding such label w/o evidence that religion played a role is bigoted. That's what the neighbor was trying to avoid, imo.

 

[wizards8507]

Do you know what the "suspicious activity" was?

Large number of packages delivered to the home. Large number of young adult males coming and going. Dude disappears for a month to visit Saudi Arabia.

Because unless he saw something that was obvious enough to report, then yes, it would have come across as bigoted/racist.

See this is the problem with the PC culture. Our priorities are all backwards. Big fucking deal if it would "come across as bigoted." FOURTEEN PEOPLE WOULD STILL BE ALIVE TODAY.

"Suspicious activity" is too subjective unless this guy heard his neighbor make threats verbally or online or saw him with guns/bomb materials.

Nobody is saying lock him up and throw away the key based on the guy's suspicion. Just give the police a heads up and say "you might want to look at this, I'm not sure if something's up but it doesn't feel right." Burden of proof applies to criminal trials, not reporting suspicious activity to police. You can report suspicious activity for no reason at all. It doesn't require evidence or facts. A gut feeling is enough.

Adding a religious label to an act of terror should be done only if it is certain that that particular ideology played a role in the violence.

Why? I'm not trying to convict him in a court of law. I'm just saying what appears to have happened to my eyes as an observer. I'm not forbidden from having an opinion just because proof hasn't come out yet.

Adding such label w/o evidence that religion played a role is bigoted. That's what the neighbor was trying to avoid, imo.

Yeah well the neighbor allowed fourteen people to get killed. I hope he sleeps well at night with his white guilt knowing he didn't come across as bigoted.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Terrorism is definitionally political and not personal violence. I've never heard of a terrorist attack at someone's workplace before, not counting Hassan whose workplace also had a an overtly political symbolic value.

I'm not ruling out terrorism, because the message very well could be we will come at you anywhere, anytime, don't trust the Muslims who live amongst you, but that would be new. And it also wouldn't explain reports of the guy leaving the office party angry right before coming back.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I find your response immature in that you felt it necessary to dissect my every sentence. A short rebuttal: I have packages coming to my house every day (it's almost Christmas). My house is also the center hub for my friends, my wife's friends, and both of our families. There are always people coming and going. I guess that's suspicious in your eyes? But I'm not a Muslim, so maybe not. And now you've moved on to blaming the neighbor for the deaths of these 14 people. Awesome.

 

[T Town Tommy]

And this is a common strawman response.

No one is arguing to ban guns. At least no one that I've heard. There is an argument to study the problem, require background checks, require training, require that all gun sales are tracked, etc. This is why I think we could actually have a conversation. You and I wouldn't agree on the final result completely, but we have some common ground. Let's find the common ground and legislate it. As it currently stands, we ANY gun legislation is viewed as an anathema.

Just to be clear, I am all for gun ownership in America. But I am also not some NRA toting card member either. I would support a large number of initiatives that would make purchasing guns more difficult. I have no problems with more extensive background checks, the current waiting period on hand gun purchases, mandatory trigger locks for all hand gun purchases, closing loop holes on gun shows, stiffer penalties up to and including loss of dealer licenses for gun dealers who intentionally sell guns illegally, limiting clip size to no more than 20 rounds, etc.

The issues with what I just stated is the fact that the laws, measures, etc are geared toward law abiding citizens who are responsible and want to do the right thing. What about those individuals in our society that don't want to do the right thing? How are any gun laws going to stop the drug dealer, criminal element, etc from getting a gun? Easy answer is it won't. And if those individuals get caught with an illegal gun? Do what? Throw them in prison for years? Have harsh mandatory sentencing for violators? We would likely end up with the same argument we have with illegal drugs. "well... they didn't hurt anyone so why lock them up so long."

There has to be an acceptable middle ground in all this. But when you have competing sides who want to play a zero sum game, you usually end up with very little in the way of successful measures that actually address what the real issues are. I am willing to live with tougher laws for hand guns.... criminal element be damned. But I am also not willing to live giving up my right to own a gun.

 

[Wingman Ray]

I'm not ruling out terrorism, because the message very well could be we will come at you anywhere, anytime, don't trust the Muslims who live amongst you, but that would be new. And it also wouldn't explain reports of the guy leaving the office party angry right before coming back.

Make sure you note; left a CHRISTMAS party angry.

Lets see...radical muslim leaving pissed off from a party with Christian roots.

Hmmmm

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Just to be clear, I am all for gun ownership in America. But I am also not some NRA toting card member either. I would support a large number of initiatives that would make purchasing guns more difficult. I have no problems with more extensive background checks, the current waiting period on hand gun purchases, mandatory trigger locks for all hand gun purchases, closing loop holes on gun shows, stiffer penalties up to and including loss of dealer licenses for gun dealers who intentionally sell guns illegally, limiting clip size to no more than 20 rounds, etc.

The issues with what I just stated is the fact that the laws, measures, etc are geared toward law abiding citizens who are responsible and want to do the right thing. What about those individuals in our society that don't want to do the right thing? How are any gun laws going to stop the drug dealer, criminal element, etc from getting a gun? Easy answer is it won't. And if those individuals get caught with an illegal gun? Do what? Throw them in prison for years? Have harsh mandatory sentencing for violators? We would likely end up with the same argument we have with illegal drugs. "well... they didn't hurt anyone so why lock them up so long."

There has to be an acceptable middle ground in all this. But when you have competing sides who want to play a zero sum game, you usually end up with very little in the way of successful measures that actually address what the real issues are. I am willing to live with tougher laws for hand guns.... criminal element be damned. But I am also not willing to live giving up my right to own a gun.

I actually think that most of those things are what Obama would refer to as "common sense gun reform." I don't see any disagreement there. Why can't we do those things?

I just don't hear anyone saying that we should ban all guns. Republicans love guns. Democrats love them just a bit less.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Make sure you note; left a CHRISTMAS party angry.

Lets see...radical muslim leaving pissed off from a party with Christian roots.

Hmmmm

A christmas party that he'd attended without issue for the last four years. And maybe you've seen something I haven't, but when you say "radical Muslim" I feel like you're assuming the conclusion here.

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Just to be clear, I am all for gun ownership in America. But I am also not some NRA toting card member either. I would support a large number of initiatives that would make purchasing guns more difficult. I have no problems with more extensive background checks, the current waiting period on hand gun purchases, mandatory trigger locks for all hand gun purchases, closing loop holes on gun shows, stiffer penalties up to and including loss of dealer licenses for gun dealers who intentionally sell guns illegally, limiting clip size to no more than 20 rounds, etc.

The issues with what I just stated is the fact that the laws, measures, etc are geared toward law abiding citizens who are responsible and want to do the right thing. What about those individuals in our society that don't want to do the right thing? How are any gun laws going to stop the drug dealer, criminal element, etc from getting a gun? Easy answer is it won't. And if those individuals get caught with an illegal gun? Do what? Throw them in prison for years? Have harsh mandatory sentencing for violators? We would likely end up with the same argument we have with illegal drugs. "well... they didn't hurt anyone so why lock them up so long."

There has to be an acceptable middle ground in all this. But when you have competing sides who want to play a zero sum game, you usually end up with very little in the way of successful measures that actually address what the real issues are. I am willing to live with tougher laws for hand guns.... criminal element be damned. But I am also not willing to live giving up my right to own a gun.

Bolded. The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed by those who bought the guns illegally, or stole the guns. I am all for better screening for those purchasing weapons, but that will solve what...5% of the gun related violence in America? I think the better question is why do people feel like its a reasonable option to gun someone down on a sidewalk because they looked at you wrong or are in a different gang? Or why some nut case thought it was logical to go shoot up a planned parenthood. Or why some reasonably well educated man and woman perverts religion to morally permit a massacre of more than a dozen people. Liberals and conservative can finger point all they want for political points but I think its tastless and flat out disgusting.

 

[wizards8507]

Terrorism is definitionally political and not personal violence. I've never heard of a terrorist attack at someone's workplace before, not counting Hassan whose workplace also had a an overtly political symbolic value.

I'm not ruling out terrorism, because the message very well could be we will come at you anywhere, anytime, don't trust the Muslims who live amongst you, but that would be new. And it also wouldn't explain reports of the guy leaving the office party angry right before coming back.

He came back with manufactured bombs. You can't manufacture bombs on the spur-of-the-moment.

A short rebuttal: I have packages coming to my house every day (it's almost Christmas). My house is also the center hub for my friends, my wife's friends, and both of our families. There are always people coming and going. I guess that's suspicious in your eyes? But I'm not a Muslim, so maybe not.

White guys and their wives and children and parents aren't waging a global jihad on western civilization. Twenty-something Islamists and their twenty-something Islamist friends who disappear to the middle east for a month are.

And now you've moved on to blaming the neighbor for the deaths of these 14 people. Awesome.

It's obviously not the moral equivalent of murder, but his PC fear of being labeled a bigot absolutely allowed this to happen (if the reports of him refraining from reporting this behavior because he didn't want to seem racist are true).

 

[tommyIRISH23]

A christmas party that he'd attended without issue for the last four years. And maybe you've seen something I haven't, but when you say "radical Muslim" I feel like you're assuming the conclusion here.

I think that falls into the category of educated guess. Muslim guy with a well thought out plan who was tactically sound in his movements and strategy. Not to mention body armor, bombs and an escape route. He was trained. Mass shooters are not that sophisticated. And given the current events over the last decade plus, given the facts its a well educated guess.