Shootings!
POSTED BY: Wishimay
UPDATED: Monday, August 31, 2026 02:34
VIEWED: 26983
PAGE 8 of 19
I see you made a very common mistake. You think when someone shoots their coworkers is when they 'snap'. But that happens long before the final act. Before they pull the trigger, before they walk in, before they get their guns out of the car, before they drive there, before they put their guns in the car, before they load them ... they're already on a course of action. They snap when they choose that course.
And btw, thanks for being the usual lying asshole you always are, little rapey. Because NO ONE said it was JUST workplace violence.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Something is wrong with her... She's going around in circles and I don't think she knows it...
Little too much 
???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Personal snark and not a hint of topic?
OK.
I can see trying to have a fact-based discussion with you is going to be pointless. When you get back to the topic I might be around. Till then -
Bye.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And btw, thanks for being the usual lying asshole you always are, little rapey. Because NO ONE said it was JUST workplace violence.
How am I 'lying' ?
You're truly working with a dented brain.
They said, early on in the coverage, that it was work place violence.
Yes, they did. They said that because it was being offered, almost exclusively, more than wanting to utter Farooq's name ( remember, they walked that one back, after reporting that it didn't " wash out ", because it didn't match with any watch lists. I heard the name reported first as Sayeed Farooq, which is getting his first and last name reversed, but regardless, they didn't want to release the name for OBVIOUS reasons )
I know, too much for you to follow.
Point is, multiple times it was reported as possibly being work place violence.
Deal w/ it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
IN THIS THREAD, ya moroon!
My post, specifically ... I said it was BOTH workplace violence AND terrorism.
Politically/ religiously-motivated terrorists tend to attack symbolic targets .... government buildings (like Timothy McVeigh) or Planned Parenthood clinics (like Robert Dear). Once you weed out the truly crazy, who really can't tell the difference between the voices in their heads and reality, you wind up with unstable people who think it's OK to use violence to push their "ism". In this case, while the shooters felt entirely estranged from their society, the one point of contact that they had with "everyone else" was the husband's workplace, and that seemed to have pushed him over the edge more than helped. So he focused on the people he worked with. It's both.
I don't think that motivations can always be assigned that are so clear-cut anyway. MOST people act from mixed motivations, and I think its something of a fantasy that you can parse a person's motivations into one emotion. "Isms" which represent a small minority and which promote violence have a tendency to attract the deviants/misfits/unstable people who are prone to violence. (The reason why I qualify that so heavily is that entire cultures have promoted either all-against-all random internal violence, or specific violence against a targeted group. In that case, you don't need to be a deviant to be violent and most people will think of you as a "good guy" even if you participate in or tacitly approve of violence every single day. That's because it's socially acceptable.)
The only reason to even think about "why" someone did something bad is to try to figure out how to prevent it. Crazy people tend to be obvious on a day-to-day basis. Organized GROUPS (gangs, drug cartels etc) also tend to be obvious. But what about violence-prone, disaffected individuals?
IMHO there's NO surveillance deep enough to ferret out these loose cannons. It's much easier to detect groups of a dozen people or more, because there is more coordination/communication going on. Detecting one, two, or three people ... people who don't come off as "crazy" ... would require deep and extensive surveillance of everyone, you'd almost have to profile everyone on the internet and EVEN THEN you probably wouldn't find those particular needles in the very large haystack (of needles) that you just created for yourself. If Obama is going to use this particular attack as an excuse for yet more surveillance, I think people really should stop being panicked and put their collective foot down.
As far as gun control is concerned, our gun control laws would have to be a lot more like Germany's in order to be effective.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wish, Rap, Jane
How about we have an agreement?
Wish, you are deeply, deeply vested in the notion that the innocent wife was in thrall to that violent, fanatical brute of a husband.
Rap, what can I say? You have a whole list of beliefs, which you state a things you DON'T accept (beliefs, which, by definition, are ideas you hold to be true despite the lack of supporting facts, or despite existing facts to the contrary.)
And Jane, we already know you think all Muslims are a problem.
So how about we all - me too - agree to shift our ideas to conform to the facts* of this incident, and to which we apply a degree of logic? (* facts are claims for which there exists conclusive evidence) It shouldn't be too much of a stretch to agree to accept all available facts. And it shouldn't be too onerous to change thoughts to align with reality. Both things seem extremely healthy to me. Let's leave the name-calling and snark behind, and tone down the biases, the angst and the rhetoric, and have a reasoned discussion about facts.
How about it?
Wanna know what I didn't believe ?
It was work place violence.
It was postpartum depression by the wifey, which apparently was so bad, it affected the husband as well !
It was likely some right wing militia group, waging war on a govt facility.
It was an attack some how related to Planned Parenthood, which was apparently located 1.5 miles away.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Rap, what can I say? You have a whole list of beliefs, which you state a things you DON'T accept (beliefs, which, by definition, are ideas you hold to be true despite the lack of supporting facts, or despite existing facts to the contrary.)
You're confusing belief w/ faith. Yes, I BELIEVED the news accounts as they were reported to the nation and world, until such a time when there was a reason given to NO LONGER believe. As more facts came in, a clearer picture of what took place did and continues to develop. And is sometimes the case, it's worse than we thought.
A lot worse.
Trust me when I tell you, I have zero faith.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looking over the NYTimes, LATimes, BBC, CNN and Reuters, I have to say the reporting is pretty scrambled.
Farook used to go target shooting. And he, or he and his wife (stories vary) went within days of the attack. (For context, a lot of people here in SoCal - and many of the people I work with - like to go target shooting. It's surprisingly common here compared to other places I've lived.)
Marquez who was Farook's friend bought two semi-automatic 'weapons' three years ago but gave them to Farook at some unspecified time.
And Malik attended a religious school but dropped out to get married.
Currently the FBI says they have no indication the attack was ordered by, coordinated with, or involved foreign jihadis; the FBI seems to be leaning toward the idea the two were 'self-radicalized'.
I'm not finding any timeline for the 'quite some time' part of this statement, as most of what's in the news goes back 2 or 3 years at most. "We have learned and believe that both subjects were radicalized and had been for quite some time." For me, 'quite some time' would go back many years, not just a couple.
Rap, does that track with your information?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://pamelageller.com/2015/12/san-bernardino-jihadis-family-facebook
-photos-and-troubling-facts.html/
https://twitter.com/WalidShoebat/status/674339710144135168
http://www.outloudamerica.com/the-face-of-jihad/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/father-of-san-bernardino-shooting-su
spect-says-hes-very-religious-muslim
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/saudi-columnist-calls-
jihad-in-syria-jihad-for-satan-and-calls-for-a-ban-on-muslims-killing-muslims-but-no-mention-of-non-muslims/
Fmr. FBI Counterterrorism Agent: We’ve Received ‘Nearly Zero Help’ from U.S. Muslim Community Since 9/11
Guandolo said he doesn’t necessarily agree with the idea that “we have to work with the Muslim community in order to solve this problem here in the United States,” but “if you are going to work with the Muslim community, the U.S. government” should not be “exclusively working with Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood entities without exception” like it is doing now. Guandolo named the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Muslim American Society.
“Those are who they’re working with and others that are Muslim Brotherhood or ideologically directly aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood,” he added, pointing out that Attorney General Loretta Lynch spoke at the Muslim Advocates—another such organization—last Thursday.
Guandolo said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson is speaking about Muslim civil rights on Monday evening at The Adams Center in Sterling, Virginia, which is associated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). He said evidence presented at the Holy Land terrorism-funding trial revealed that ISNA is “the nucleus of the Muslim Brotherhood here” and “directly funds Hamas leaders and organizations overseas.” He also pointed out that the Holy Land Foundation, the largest Islamic charity in America, was a “Hamas organization at the time it was indicted and Hamas is an inherent part of the Muslim Brotherhood.”
He said it will be nearly impossible to so successfully combat terrorists “so long as the U.S. government… emboldens and empowers Muslim Brotherhood organizations here.”
“If you expect FBI and others to aggressively pursue them, it’s not going to happen because our leaders — President, Secretary of State, national security adivsers, generals at the Pentagon—are are turning to their advisers who in fact are Muslim Brotherhood leaders to say what should we and what shouldn’t we do,” he said.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME