Atheistforums.com

There's so bloody many of them, we wouldn't want to clog up the whole forum....

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/multiple-victims-california-mass-shooting-203411659.html?vp=1#EAiTXu1

QuoteAt Least 14 Dead After California Shooting

At least 14 people are dead after up to three suspects opened fire at a social services centre in southern California, police say.
San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said another 14 were injured in the attack in the city, about 60 miles (96km) east of Los Angeles.

He said the suspects were armed with "long guns" in the assault, which lasted for "several minutes" at the Inland Regional Center, a facility for people with disabilities.
"They came prepared to do what they did as if they were on a mission," Chief Burguan told reporters.
Up to three men in military gear carried out the attack, San Bernardino Sheriff's Office spokeswoman Teri Adams told Sky News.
The suspects are believed to have fled in a black SUV.
A bomb squad has been sent to look into a suspicious device left in the building.
No arrests have been made.
An FBI spokesman told a news conference: "We do not know if this is a terrorist incident."
Police are interviewing witnesses who reportedly saw men changing clothes near the scene of the shooting, which is along a main road and next to a golf course and recreation centre.
Terry Petit fought back tears as he said he had received texts from his daughter saying she was hiding after gunfire erupted at the facility.
Mr Petit read a message to reporters outside the Inland Regional Center that said: "People shot.
"In the office waiting for cops. Pray for us. I am locked in an office."
Triage units have been set up near the scene, with some people seen being wheeled away on gurneys.
Television images showed people being evacuated from the building with their arms raised.
US President Barack Obama and California Governor Jerry Brown were being briefed on the incident.
"We have a pattern now of mass shootings that has no parallel anywhere else in the world," Mr Obama told CBS News.

Here we f*cking go again.

INB4 the NRA: "More guns would've been better"

An FBI spokesman told a news conference: "We do not know if this is a terrorist incident." - Ermm..... is there actually a definition of what constitutes a 'terrorist attack' and what doesn't?  I'm unsure how US authorities define them.  I'm not being snarky here, I was just wondering how a decision is made (excepting the usual lulz about colour, Arab names etc.)

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on December 02, 2015, 06:03:49 PM
INB4 the NRA: "More guns would've been better"

The number of gun owners are declining, but gun sales are going up. Meanwhile, mass shootings are increasing, and the number of victims in each is also going up. That would lead me to believe that the "more guns" argument only works if you're selling them to the right people, you know, ones who would use them to stop mass shootings, not initiate them. But you know how it is, background checks/permits/mental health screenings/mandatory training = infringing on sacred rights. After all, the right to own a gun even if you're mentally ill trumps someone else's right to not have bullet holes in put in their bodies.

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on December 02, 2015, 06:03:49 PMAn FBI spokesman told a news conference: "We do not know if this is a terrorist incident." - Ermm..... is there actually a definition of what constitutes a 'terrorist attack' and what doesn't?  I'm unsure how US authorities define them.  I'm not being snarky here, I was just wondering how a decision is made (excepting the usual lulz about colour, Arab names etc.)

I agree. I've found that when people get armed to the teeth and start shooting at random in public there's usually some ideology behind it and not, "Hey, I'm bored, it's Wednesday, let's go down to the store and mow some people down. We'll get Taco Bell afterward."

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on December 02, 2015, 06:03:49 PM
There's so bloody many of them, we wouldn't want to clog up the whole forum....

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/multiple-victims-california-mass-shooting-203411659.html?vp=1#EAiTXu1

Here we f*cking go again.

INB4 the NRA: "More guns would've been better"

An FBI spokesman told a news conference: "We do not know if this is a terrorist incident." - Ermm..... is there actually a definition of what constitutes a 'terrorist attack' and what doesn't?  I'm unsure how US authorities define them.  I'm not being snarky here, I was just wondering how a decision is made (excepting the usual lulz about colour, Arab names etc.)

Motive is what constitutes a terrorist attack. Someone killing people simply to murder may terrorize the local populace, but it's not considered terrorism. A terrorist has political and or religious goals, while a spree killer does not. 

The new normal? :embarrassed:

http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/wwqsXUxgzqdcm_4XuNnpjk9kqBM=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3882808/Harvard%20timeline%20mass%20shootings.png)

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/08/mass-shootings.png&w=1484%5D)

I'm surprised that certain people are surprised by this. There is an estimate of 300 million guns in the hands of who knows what. What's to expect... except lots of shootings.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 02, 2015, 06:38:57 PM
. What's to expect... except lots of shootings.

especially when schmucks with no or little life see the notoriety that these previous scum bags get by the media who are determined to go into great detail of the persons life so that their misery can commiserate with others.

Father of Calif. shooting suspect speaks out (http://m.nydailynews.com/news/national/suspect-involved-calif-massacre-identified-article-1.2453471?utm_content=buffer3296e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw)

Quote“I haven’t heard anything,” the elder Syed Farook told the Daily News. “He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”

Here's a lovely (presumably NRA-sponsored) post about this (http://imgur.com/gallery/3gGgSTI):

QuoteMass shootings are a monthly occurrence in the U.S today there are over 15 dead and 20 wounded in the most outlawed state to own a firearm in this country. Criminals do not follow the laws you create to make your utopia you think can exist. YOU are responsible for your own security and YOU alone. Are you ready to take the fight to violence when it tries to find you ?

Be afraid.  Buy a gun.  Be afraid.  If you don't have a gun, you're not safe.  Be afraid.

I don't even know what to say anymore....


This is.... tiring.... why can't this just stop?

Ya know, I'm never going to condone a mass shooting, or any shooting, anytime or anywhere. This tips me over pissed off every single incident. But blaming every gun owner everywhere, every time it ever happens? It's asinine, and a useless blanket statement every single time you say it.

It's not the guns.

Nobody wants my over/under Cowboy or my 22 single six to shoot up a mess of folks, "because it's Wednesday". Come the fuck on. !!??

Yes, I will insure them at a reasonable, non-corporatist rate, sure! They can already be traced back to me should they ever get used.

But will they? Any gun owner reading will agree, no they won't. Not my girlie shit. But assault rifles? Anything marked as "police issue"? Why the FUCK are these guns so easy to get?

And it screams the question, why are they so easy for anyone to get? I like Sanders' New England based ideas on gun control;
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/ (http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/)

Quote“Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country â€" 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.”

I, also, believe in the middle ground still, and that we can work together to regulate some kind of semblance of order that doesn't include extremism on either side.

(edited for clarification)

Mass shootings are practically non-existent in Taiwan.

Hey look: guns are banned in Taiwan.

Quote from: Atheon on December 03, 2015, 03:08:02 AM
Mass shootings are practically non-existent in Taiwan.

Hey look: guns are banned in Taiwan.

If guns are banned, how do they shoot bad guys with guns?

Checkmate, liberal gun-yankers.

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 02, 2015, 06:21:30 PM
Motive is what constitutes a terrorist attack. Someone killing people simply to murder may terrorize the local populace, but it's not considered terrorism. A terrorist has political and or religious goals, while a spree killer does not. 

Mmm... that makes sense to me.  Thanks. I assume that there are subdivisions involved depending on which brand of religion or politics is involved, the spin required, and whether people choose to see it or not.  The most recent example would be the meme 'Muslim shooter=Muslim terrorist, Christian shooter=mentally ill' and all similar Facebook shizzle.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 02, 2015, 06:33:45 PM
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015

(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/wwqsXUxgzqdcm_4XuNnpjk9kqBM=/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3882808/Harvard%20timeline%20mass%20shootings.png)

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/08/mass-shootings.png&w=1484%5D)

Fuck me.  That's appalling....

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on December 02, 2015, 06:03:49 PM

An FBI spokesman told a news conference: "We do not know if this is a terrorist incident." - Ermm..... is there actually a definition of what constitutes a 'terrorist attack' and what doesn't?  I'm unsure how US authorities define them.  I'm not being snarky here, I was just wondering how a decision is made (excepting the usual lulz about colour, Arab names etc.)

Terrorism is a tool used by a weaker opponent against a stronger one to effect political change. (IIRC the term was coined in relation to the Algerian independence movement after WWII.) The one in San Bernardino appears to be a grudge shooting. The "environmental health engineer" (aka "janitor") may have peaked his anger about something or other and went over the edge.

Quote from: Hydra009 on December 03, 2015, 01:02:20 AM
Here's a lovely (presumably NRA-sponsored) post about this (http://imgur.com/gallery/3gGgSTI):

Be afraid.  Buy a gun.  Be afraid.  If you don't have a gun, you're not safe.  Be afraid.

NRA: "More guns make things better, always, forever and without exception."

Quote from: JBCuzISaidSo on December 03, 2015, 01:31:02 AM
Ya know, I'm never going to condone a mass shooting, or any shooting, anytime or anywhere. This tips me over pissed off every single incident. But blaming every gun owner everywhere, every time it ever happens? It's asinine, and a useless blanket statement every single time you say it.

It's not the guns.

Nobody wants my over/under Cowboy or my 22 single six to shoot up a mess of folks, "because it's Wednesday". Come the fuck on. !!??

Yes, I will insure them at a reasonable, non-corporatist rate, sure! They can already be traced back to me should they ever get used.

But will they? Any gun owner reading will agree, no they won't. Not my girlie shit. But assault rifles? Anything marked as "police issue"? Why the FUCK are these guns so easy to get?

And it screams the question, why are they so easy for anyone to get? I like Sanders' New England based ideas on gun control;
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/ (http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/)

I, also, believe in the middle ground still, and that we can work together to regulate some kind of semblance of order that doesn't include extremism on either side.

(edited for clarification)

Nice post. But posting it in this forum will only find the deafest of ears. Shame that.

Also an FYI, some of the mods will yell at you for disagreeing with them if you post that sort of thing too much in these threads. So keep this sort of rational reasonable shit to a minimum unless you want to get smacked.

I've been a shooter and an owner since 1965, as well as doing 20 years in the USN with a wee bit of trigger time during that stint. I believe we have too damn many guns in this country. Sorry if that blows anybody's stereotyping.

The reason for public assault weapons ... is because the Democrats are going to kill and eat the Republicans for watching Fox News truthiness ... so the Republicans need to protect themselves, because the police are a bunch of Marxist goons ... bwahaha

When I was young, it was illegal to have these weapons, and it was enforced.  But then the sheriff departments went Dukes of Hazard on us!

Quote from: JBCuzISaidSo on December 03, 2015, 01:31:02 AM
It's not the guns.

I agree. It isn't the guns. It's the gun culture. It's the poor state of mental healthcare. It's the lobbyists who act like any sort of paperwork required to obtain a firearm is a violation of someone's Constitutional rights. It isn't the guns. It's the way we worship guns.

Quote from: Hydra009 on December 03, 2015, 03:13:35 AM
If guns are banned, how do they shoot bad guys with guns?

Checkmate, liberal gun-yankers.

Guns are banned so it's extremely difficult for bad guys to get guns. They actually enforce these laws, you know, and possession of a gun is a serious crime here. There are very specific exceptions: Aboriginals can hunt with rifles, but the guns must be registered and kept at the police station. There are shooting clubs, but the guns are kept on club premises. Most men are trained in gun use during their military service, but they can't keep the guns at home.

Cops, however, do have guns, and they CAN shoot bad guys.

Follow up question:  how does it feel to live in a far-left dystopia where tyrannical government gun regulations infringe upon individual rights to bear arms however they please?  :P

Quote from: Hydra009 on December 03, 2015, 10:44:14 AM
Follow up question:  how does it feel to live in a far-left dystopia where tyrannical government gun regulations infringe upon individual rights to bear arms however they please?  :P

It's awesome, man!

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 03, 2015, 06:26:44 AM
Terrorism is a tool used by a weaker opponent against a stronger one to effect political change. (IIRC the term was coined in relation to the Algerian independence movement after WWII.) The one in San Bernardino appears to be a grudge shooting. The "environmental health engineer" (aka "janitor") may have peaked his anger about something or other and went over the edge.

Must have been pretty bad to involve 3 people, body armor, sidearms and assault rifles. Strikes me as a bit more than a grudge.

Quote from: stromboli on December 03, 2015, 11:22:16 AM
Must have been pretty bad to involve 3 people, body armor, sidearms and assault rifles. Strikes me as a bit more than a grudge.

Don't forget the pipebombs. They were probably prepared in advance. Making bomb quickly is a good way to kill yourself.

Quote from: Hydra009 on December 03, 2015, 10:44:14 AM
Follow up question:  how does it feel to live in a far-left dystopia where tyrannical government gun regulations infringe upon individual rights to bear arms however they please?  :P

Far-right dystopias are so much better!

Love this:

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 03, 2015, 01:29:41 PM
Love this:

I thought of Anthony Jeselnik. He raised some rather prickly but interesting points about social media and tragedy. While I don't see the point in making jokes about tragedy, I sort of agree that social media and tragedy make interesting bedfellows. In a standup routine ironically named "Thoughts and Prayers," he said:

“When you make a joke on Twitter the day of a tragedy, it seems like you’re making fun of the victims, and that’s wrong. But that’s not what I’m doing. Because you see, the day of a tragedy, victims are not on Twitter. Am I wrong? Tell me I’m wrong. The day of a tragedy, victims have got victim shit to do. No one is ever putting on a tourniquet asking ‘Hey, are we trending? This is who I’m making fun of, when I make a joke on Twitter the day of a tragedy. The people who see something horrible happen in the world and they run onto the Internet. And they run to their social media: Facebook, Twitter, whatever they got. And they all write down the exact same thing: ‘My thoughts and prayers…’ Do you know what that’s worth? Fucking nothing. Fucking less than nothing. You are not giving any of your time, your money, or even your compassion. All you are doing is saying ‘Don’t forget about me today.’ ‘Lots of crazy distractions in the news, but don’t forget how sad I am.’ Those people are worthless and deserve to be made fun of. They’re like a wedding photographer who takes only selfies.”

Ok, I'm going to go ahead of the authorities and call this a terrorist attack.  The name "Farouk", went to Saudi Arabia, came back with a wife of Pakistani origin, pipe bombs at home. Meh, if t isn't a terrorist attack, I will eat my words...

This was workplace violence.

If your work is jihad.

So it wasn't a terrorist attack when men in a black van pop out with assault rifles, masks and body armour and started shooting up a public event?

Way to prove, "it's only terrorism with you're brown" the rule yet again...

This really depends on what definition of "terrorism" you use. I've heard some people define terrorism as "any act that terrorizes people"; I know some people whose driving would count as terrorism under that definition.
Merriam-Webster says " the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal". We don't know (and may never know) if Farouk was "trying to achieve a political goal".
The FBI definition includes "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". A bank robber could intimidates or coerces a small section of the civilian population, again we don't know if this attack satisfies (ii) or (iii).

On the one hand Farouk seems to have known/worked with these people, which seems to discount the idea that he was trying to influence policy/achieve political goals. But, as the police pointed out, having prepared bombs, stock piled weapons and gear, ect, indicates that this wasn't someone who just snapped.
It could be that he had the pipe-bombs already but was planning to blow up junk--not people--just for fun and quickly repurposed them after he snapped, but I doubt it. My suspicion is that he'd been planning to kill his coworkers for a while, but I obviously have no proof of it. It also could be that he intended this as a terrorist attack or, as long as we've opened this up to wild speculation, was planning a different terror attack but then snapped and attacked his coworkers instead.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 03, 2015, 02:42:45 PM
So it wasn't a terrorist attack when men in a black van pop out with assault rifles, masks and body armour and started shooting up a public event?

Way to prove, "it's only terrorism with you're brown" the rule yet again...

no, it's terrorism if they have an ideological motivation, the first scenario has no clear hint of motivational ideology so it cannot be said it was terrorism until further facts become clear, they being devout muslims and coming from islamist countries is a hint of motivational ideology due to how widespread islamic terrorism is. There's still confounding variables though like the the work relationship between perpetrator and victims. This is different from the paris attack. But no one said anything about them being brown that's just you racebaiting.

Quote from: mauricio on December 03, 2015, 04:19:45 PM
they being devout muslims and coming from islamist countries is a hint of motivational ideology due to how widespread islamic terrorism is.

Farook was born in Chicago.

That he was an American citizen radicalized on American soil is a sad irony in light of the intense refugee hating going on in recent weeks. It's proof that if we seal our borders up as tight as North Korea, we still can't shut off the power of the Internet and freedom of association.

Quote...the first scenario has no clear hint of motivational ideology...

How many every day shootings involve a group of three men in masks with body armour and rifles shooting up a public event?

I'll give you a hint... it's zero. Non-ideological gun violence comes in the form of shooting your spouse, shooting someone in road-rage, etc. etc. ... not a premeditated attack that involves armour, a get away vehicle.

QuoteBut no one said anything about them being brown that's just you racebaiting.

QuoteThe name "Farouk", went to Saudi Arabia, came back with a wife of Pakistani origin, pipe bombs at home. Meh, if t isn't a terrorist attack, I will eat my words...

Oops.

Nothing about the act made it seem remotely like terrorist attack; it's only when a person with a foreigners name (of a brown region) did it that it suddenly OBVIOUSLY was a terrorist attack. Right, not racist.

(Although more accurately, as I have said before and will say again, I think these people are predominately xenophobic rather than racist. You are the one putting that on me.)

Quote from: TomFoolery on December 03, 2015, 08:02:18 AM
I agree. It isn't the guns. It's the gun culture. It's the poor state of mental healthcare. It's the lobbyists who act like any sort of paperwork required to obtain a firearm is a violation of someone's Constitutional rights. It isn't the guns. It's the way we worship guns.

There are plenty of other countries which have high gun ownership rates and low mass-shooting rates, which lends some credibility to your post.

Quote from: pr126 on December 03, 2015, 02:40:56 PM
This was workplace violence.

If your work is jihad.

Jihad to go there, didn't ya?

Radicalized Muslims killing a bunch of people right as the US is trying to ramp up support for more involvement in Syria? Obama lucks out again. This couldn't have come at a better time for the US government. Now more Americans are going to support action in Syria. Great.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 03, 2015, 05:17:10 PM

Nothing about the act made it seem remotely like terrorist attack; it's only when a person with a foreigners name (of a brown region) did it that it suddenly OBVIOUSLY was a terrorist attack. Right, not racist.

(Although more accurately, as I have said before and will say again, I think these people are predominately xenophobic rather than racist. You are the one putting that on me.)

putting what on you ? you are clearly race baiting and you just did it again, PR is clearly hates the ideology of islam, if in a rather very dogmatic and kind of black and white way but he has not given any indication of being a racist, that's just you with your racebaiting for cheap rhetorical points.

QuoteHow many every day shootings involve a group of three men in masks with body armour and rifles shooting up a public event?

I'll give you a hint... it's zero. Non-ideological gun violence comes in the form of shooting your spouse, shooting someone in road-rage, etc. etc. ... not a premeditated attack that involves armour, a get away vehicle.

Oops.

Seriously? that's a textbook argument of incredulity, so you cannot imagine an scenario where this is not ideologically motivated so therefore it must be? what the fuck. Remember Columbine? Not that hard to imagine a similar massacre that was not terrorism. I would wait for some actual direct indication that there may be ideology behind before even suggesting it maybe terrorism. That's the only honest way when everyone only seems to care about his identity to push their favorite narrative to demonize a group they don't like.

Quote from: TomFoolery on December 03, 2015, 05:12:51 PM
Farook was born in Chicago.

That he was an American citizen radicalized on American soil is a sad irony in light of the intense refugee hating going on in recent weeks. It's proof that if we seal our borders up as tight as North Korea, we still can't shut off the power of the Internet and freedom of association.

his wife was from saudi arabia and he traveled there and brought her back with him, she is also a suspect. Though I agree with you that homegrown terrorists are a serious concern. The unregulated migration in europe is a problem on it's own right too and I do not like how this attacks get used to push narratives about it with appeals to emotion, rather than using reasonable and objective arguments, it's no different from the usage of the picture of the drowned kid to push the open borders and the bombing of syria.

Quote from: FaithIsFilth on December 03, 2015, 05:43:50 PM
Radicalized Muslims killing a bunch of people right as the US is trying to ramp up support for more involvement in Syria? Obama lucks out again. This couldn't have come at a better time for the US government. Now more Americans are going to support action in Syria. Great.

My uncle worked as an interrogator in Afghanistan for many years, and he's pretty much convinced that the radicals want a war. They know exactly how to push our buttons, and they're doing it on purpose. They don't want Islam to co-exist with the West and East, and they know that stirring discontent will drive intolerance against Muslims, and thus radicalize more Muslims. ISIS et al know exactly what they're doing. And the sad part? It's working.

Quote from: SilentFutility on December 03, 2015, 05:29:35 PM
There are plenty of other countries which have high gun ownership rates and low mass-shooting rates, which lends some credibility to your post.

I would wager a much more important factor is criminal and gang culture, also the escalation of violent conflict between police and criminals, not the gun rights types that like to collect weapons and hunt.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 03, 2015, 09:17:12 PM
And the sad part? It's working.

the sad part is they think they are winning as well. They may think they are winning, but very soon, ole jim bob and bubba gonna get one too many of their own killed and you will indeed see the rise of a joint venture of the KKK and black panthers and soccer moms and bowling for dollars and people will just be gunning down people who look like muslims and it won't be long before some billionaire will get pissy as wipe out mecca. Shit be brewing that idjits think they understand that most people are understanding and liberal. That branch is a long and trusted branch, but it can be broken with little effort if the blow is in the right spot. For every muslim wanting to bring on the end of times there are ten thousands willing to end his entire bloodline, They just don't realize it yet because we are mostly a hopeful and loving people, but when the switch is thrown…well, we have seen the device they used in the inquisition….they will be considered toys...

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 03, 2015, 06:26:44 AM
Terrorism is a tool used by a weaker opponent against a stronger one to effect political change. (IIRC the term was coined in relation to the Algerian independence movement after WWII.) The one in San Bernardino appears to be a grudge shooting. The "environmental health engineer" (aka "janitor") may have peaked his anger about something or other and went over the edge.

You're the historian so you might know better than me, but I was under the impression the term terrorist dated back to at least 19th century Russia and the Narodnaya Volya.

ETA: at least whatever the Russian word for terrorist is...

Quote
putting what on you ? you are clearly race baiting and you just did it again, PR is clearly hates the ideology of islam, if in a rather very dogmatic and kind of black and white way but he has not given any indication of being a racist, that's just you with your racebaiting for cheap rhetorical points.

Well... considering I've yet to quote PR, I think you might just be jumping the gun there.

Also, you know what would be an example of "racism" (which I have yet to accuse any one of... more correctly would be xenophobia and bigotry)? A line that said, regardless of the person's actions, the fact that they had a foreign name OBVIOUSLY confirms that they are terrorists and how could anyone think otherwise? That would be a "racist" (xenophobic) comment. One that was posted.

Let me try that with a more realistic scenario...

"The guy's name was Bobby Smith, he was from Kentucky, he met his wife in Alabama and they moved to South Dakota. If he isn't a terrorist I don't know what is."

How far do you think that would fly? Not very. Yet statistically far more likely, as the VAST majority of terrorism in the United States is committed by white hate groups. So why is that wrong to say, but when you put a Muslim name there then, "Well OBVIOUSLY that makes sense, regardless of statistics or reality!"?

QuoteSeriously? that's a textbook argument of incredulity, so you cannot imagine an scenario where this is not ideologically motivated so therefore it must be? what the fuck.

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/8bc621c64e20b5f0321a422e967266d9/tumblr_moupu5XzTe1rrkahjo1_400.gif)

"What the fuck".

Yes... I agree... "What the fuck" are you even on about?

I'M NOT THE ONE WHO CLAIMED IT WAS TERRORISM. I am the one who said, "If it was an act of terrorism... it should be what they did that make it obvious it was terrorism... not the colour of their skin or their name.".

Again... I AM NOT THE ONE WHO CLAIMED IT WAS OBVIOUSLY TERRORISM... and I brought that situation up because that is a far better indicator of if it was terrorism or wasn't.

QuoteI would wait for some actual direct indication that there may be ideology behind before even suggesting it maybe terrorism.

And yet here we are... you are attacking me for saying the exact same thing... do you even read anything posted or do you just instantly go on the attack without having any clue about what you are talking about?

QuoteThat's the only honest way when everyone only seems to care about his identity to push their favorite narrative to demonize a group they don't like.

Again... I was quoting someone who said it OBVIOUSLY HAD TO BE TERRORISM because his name was Islamic. Maybe you should get pissy with him rather than me yeah?

Quote from: Shiranu on December 03, 2015, 09:59:54 PM
Well... considering I've yet to quote PR, I think you might just be jumping the gun there.

Also, you know what would be an example of "racism" (which I have yet to accuse any one of... more correctly would be xenophobia and bigotry)? A line that said, regardless of the person's actions, the fact that they had a foreign name OBVIOUSLY confirms that they are terrorists and how could anyone think otherwise? That would be a "racist" (xenophobic) comment. One that was posted.

Let me try that with a more realistic scenario...

"The guy's name was Bobby Smith, he was from Kentucky, he met his wife in Alabama and they moved to South Dakota. If he isn't a terrorist I don't know what is."

How far do you think that would fly? Not very. Yet statistically far more likely, as the VAST majority of terrorism in the United States is committed by white hate groups. So why is that wrong to say, but when you put a Muslim name there then, "Well OBVIOUSLY that makes sense, regardless of statistics or reality!"?

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/8bc621c64e20b5f0321a422e967266d9/tumblr_moupu5XzTe1rrkahjo1_400.gif)

"What the fuck".

Yes... I agree... "What the fuck" are you even on about?

I'M NOT THE ONE WHO CLAIMED IT WAS TERRORISM. I am the one who said, "If it was an act of terrorism... it should be what they did that make it obvious it was terrorism... not the colour of their skin or their name.".

Again... I AM NOT THE ONE WHO CLAIMED IT WAS OBVIOUSLY TERRORISM... and I brought that situation up because that is a far better indicator of if it was terrorism or wasn't.

And yet here we are... you are attacking me for saying the exact same thing... do you even read anything posted or do you just instantly go on the attack without having any clue about what you are talking about?

Again... I was quoting someone who said it OBVIOUSLY HAD TO BE TERRORISM because his name was Islamic. Maybe you should get pissy with him rather than me yeah?

I was not entirely sure who you were addressing but i was sure it was either PR or joseph and I do not agree with joseph in that it is obvious, but it does seems likely if he was indeed an islamist type of muslim which the newer information of him traveling to marry in saudi arabia makes it a real possibility. But we just don't have enough data yet to know if he was indeed and islamist and then if he actually did this due to jihad.
My main point was that your racebaiting was bullshit since no one said anything suggesting race was the cause but rather about ideological adherence, deal with it. On the scenario of "three men in masks with body armour and rifles shooting up a public event" without any further information. you made an argument of incredulity with the implied conclusion that since the other possibilities are incredible then it must have been terror. Nope, that just makes it a planned massacre, we need actual direct indication of ideological motivation to jump into the terrorism zone. I may have very well misread your message and interpreted that implication from my own bias, if then I have no further argument there.

Quote...since no one said anything suggesting race was the cause...

Quoted for truth since still no one has.

Quote...but it does seems likely if he was indeed an islamist type of muslim which the newer information of him traveling to marry in saudi arabia makes it likely.

I haven't seen any information about that... and frankly it is irrelevant because that isn't what he was found OBVIOUSLY guilty of terrorism for; it was because his last name was "farouq" and not because he had a Radical Islamist background.

Also... 99.9999999 etc. percent of Muslims in the United States who have gone to Saudi Arabia for any reason have come back perfectly fine... law abiding... citizens. This is where I am having the hang-up; statistically Mr. Smith from Georgia is far more likely to be a terrorist... but if I said "Well he was from the South so OBVIOUSLY he was a terrorist" people would jump on my shit left and right. But if you say something with a lower statistical probability is OBVIOUSLY a terrorist then suddenly that sentence makes perfect sense... that shit don't make sense yo.

Quoteyou made an argument of incredulity with the implied conclusion that since the other possibilities are incredible then it must have been terror.

*Sigh*

I will repeat this one more time... if it doesn't go through then I cant help but think you are being intentionally dense.

If we are making the assumption that this was an act of terrorism (as Jason was) then we need to look at the elements that make it a likely terrorist attack. Given that... the fact that they were prepared and had high quality gear is highly more indicative of their agenda than their name. That was the point; that their actions were a better way to gauge on if "they were terrorists" than their names. Because yet again... Smith... Wood... Cole... Yates... Philips are all more common terrorist names but I can't just start instantly assuming people with those names are proven terrorists simply because they have a "white" last name.

I can think of several reasons you would come prepared like this for non-terrorist related reasons... but in this context where it is assumed it was an act of terror... then again what they did and why they did it should be the determining factor of their guilt of terrorism and not their last name.

Quote from: Shiranu on December 03, 2015, 10:48:49 PM
Quoted for truth since still no one has.

I haven't seen any information about that... and frankly it is irrelevant because that isn't what he was found OBVIOUSLY guilty of terrorism for; it was because his last name was "farouq" and not because he had a Radical Islamist background.

Also... 99.9999999 etc. percent of Muslims in the United States who have gone to Saudi Arabia for any reason have come back perfectly fine... law abiding... citizens. This is where I am having the hang-up; statistically Mr. Smith from Georgia is far more likely to be a terrorist... but if I said "Well he was from the South so OBVIOUSLY he was a terrorist" people would jump on my shit left and right. But if you say something with a lower statistical probability is OBVIOUSLY a terrorist then suddenly that sentence makes perfect sense... that shit don't make sense yo.

*Sigh*

I will repeat this one more time... if it doesn't go through then I cant help but think you are being intentionally dense.

If we are making the assumption that this was an act of terrorism (as Jason was) then we need to look at the elements that make it a likely terrorist attack. Given that... the fact that they were prepared and had high quality gear is highly more indicative of their agenda than their name. That was the point; that their actions were a better way to gauge on if "they were terrorists" than their names. Because yet again... Smith... Wood... Cole... Yates... Philips are all more common terrorist names but I can't just start instantly assuming people with those names are proven terrorists simply because they have a "white" last name.

I can think of several reasons you would come prepared like this for non-terrorist related reasons... but in this context where it is assumed it was an act of terror... then again what they did and why they did it should be the determining factor of their guilt of terrorism and not their last name.

Agreed, it is obviously not obvious =p and yes their actions will tell you much more than their names. I think i misunderstood your points since you did not start by specifying with a quote or otherwise what statement in the thread you were criticizing. So I just operated from a vague sense of what some people were saying in the previous pages rather than from a solid and specific statement. Though i think you do a disservice to josephpalazzo by saying his reasoning was only based on the name since he did mention the marrying in saudi arabia and the pipebombs (and PR quoted his father calling him basically devout muslim), which still does not make it obviously terrorism though but is a relevant hint that maybe Islamism was behind this. Kind of like the planned parenthood shooter and his comment about the baby parts. I still need further evidence on both cases and I still consider them pretty irrelevant for demonizing your average pro lifer or Muslim.

How many more times you have to be told that none of this has to do anything with Islam.
They were justifiably peeved by not being invited to the party.

Or  climate change  (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/260210-sanders-doubles-down-climate-change-causes-terrorism).
Or  lack of jobs  (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/17/state-department-spokeswoman-floats-jobs-as-answer-to-isis.html)
Or  poverty  (http://time.com/3694305/poverty-terrorism/)
Or  injustice, oppression  (http://allafrica.com/stories/201003011654.html)
Or  colonialism  (https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/02/11/french-british-colonialism-bred-root-terrorism/GSaZbcZuqXtbRE9CiwWPcO/story.html)
Or  foreign policy (http://sputniknews.com/us/20150608/1023102542.html)
The list is endless.

But NEVER EVER even think that Islam has anything to do with it.

This post was brought to you by the Ministry of Truth.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/12/03/mainstream-media-fooled-by-troll-who-blamed-san-bernardino-shooting-on-gamergate/

Surprise to no one. CNN and other mainstream media sucks at fact checking and vetting before they publish trolls on TV or print. The troll did not even deliver dank memes on air, what a total waste.

Instant news analysis?  Not a good idea ... leave it to the journalism professionals ;-))

The causes don't have to be either/or ... it can be either/and.  And like Oswald, we will probably never know.  People like the shooters are crazy fucks ... even they probably don't know why they did what they did.  But simple people like simple explanations ... and make good voters ;-(

@ Baruch

What I was saying in my previous post that some, actually quite a few people who are unable to handle reality, will look for any other explanation than the obvious one.

To say that Islam the ideology is the cause for all the death and devastation is unacceptable.
That simply cannot be said in public.

QuotePeople like the shooters are crazy fucks ... even they probably don't know why they did what they did.

Nope, not crazy, and they are knowing fully that they are only carrying out what their ideology prescribes.
It depends how devout  they are.
Deny it all you want.

They are constantly telling us, shouthing from the rooftops that it is the will of Allah they are following.

Here one Muslim is explaining on TV in detail, quoting the Quran.
Yet David Cameron said within an hour that it had nothing to do with Islam.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9DbRMIlQ5A

Or maybe cause/effect is ... primitive.  Do you know why I post this particular post?  Maybe not, unless you can read my mind.  But if you think ... in analogy, that there is a war of civilizations between you and say other posters here ... then you are probably over the top ... as opposed to the more probable explanation that ... you don't like a particular poster or particular idea.

On the other hand ... blaming ancient books for your troubles (fear of terrorists) is pretty lame.  Because without that Quran, there would be just pagan Arabs trying to kill Europe, rather than Muslim Arabs trying to kill Europe ... and then you could blame paganism instead.

Baruch wrote:

QuoteBecause without that Quran, there would be just pagan Arabs trying to kill Europe, rather than Muslim Arabs trying to kill Europe

I don't think so.

There are still - (but not for long) - a  number of Christians Arabs in the ME,  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_Middle_East) 10 million  Copts in Egypt alone. Then the Maronites, Druzes, Mandeans, etc.
We don't hear about those running around the planet machine gunning people and blowing shit up.
In fact, they have a hard time just staying alive among the murdering Muslims.

Try something else.

Quoteblaming ancient books for your troubles (fear of terrorists) is pretty lame

The evidence world wide says otherwise.

That "ancient book" in particular the Quran,  is a license to kill.

[spoiler](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/75/85/4f/75854f6b1122db7cb304cd931c54b275.jpg)[/spoiler]

Ha, the smoking gun:

QuoteAfter the couple was killed by police four hours later but less than two miles from the initial attack, police found even more ammunition along with a dozen homemade explosive devices, similar to ones described in an early al Qaeda instructional magazine article.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/potential-terror-probe-widens-san-bernardino-shooting/story?id=35574473

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 04, 2015, 09:43:45 AM
Ha, the smoking gun:



http://abcnews.go.com/US/potential-terror-probe-widens-san-bernardino-shooting/story?id=35574473

It has nothing to do with Islam, or old ancient books. Get with the program!

Quote from: aitm on December 03, 2015, 09:31:10 PM
the sad part is they think they are winning as well.

Are they not winning though? They are winning the way I see it. ISIS is both an enemy and ally of the US at the same time. The US probably had something to do with that shot down Russian fighter jet. Radical Muslims kill a bunch of people in the US, and who does that help? It helps both sides. The Americans and the Muslim terrorists in Syria. Now Obama can go into Syria to protect the Sunni terrorists from Assad and the Russians with a no fly zone. His excuse will be that Syria is giving ISIS a base to operate out of. To 'destroy' ISIS, the US will protect ISIS from the Russians. Yeah... we're going to destroy ISIS by protecting them and groups like them and helping them get into power in Syria.

Is this why these Muslims in particular attacked inside of the US? I don't know, but that would make sense. Either they did it for that reason, or they were pissed at the minor air strikes the US does on ISIS. The US has no interest in defeating ISIS, but still, they do bomb women and children and hospitals, so it would make sense that some Muslims would be legitimately pissed about that and strike the US as a form of vengeance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1BLgXCaK5w

OK, case closed. FBI is treating it as a terrorist attack:

QuoteWASHINGTON â€" The woman who, with her husband, killed 14 people in San Bernardino pledged allegiance to the Islamic State in a Facebook post the day of the attack, officials said Friday, and the F.B.I. announced it was treating the massacre as an act of terrorism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?_r=0

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 04, 2015, 04:10:35 PM
OK, case closed. FBI is treating it as a terrorist attack:


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?_r=0

“so far we have no indication that these killers are part of an organized larger group, or form part of a cell. There’s no indication that they are part of a network.”

“At this point we believe they were more self-radicalized and inspired by the group than actually told to do the shooting,”


Yep this was pretty much my theory, this did not seem like a big operation by a terrorist cell (like in paris) rather inspired and radicalized shooters maybe with some communication with terrorist communities but no strong material connections. This is why the war of ideas is so important, bad ideas spread like a virus. And so the international jihadist insurgency wages on...

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3vfvtc/ethics_the_mainstream_media_is_currently_going/

The Mainstream Media is currently going through San Bernardino shooters appartment on live televesion.

QuoteMSNBC claims the police were already done with the investigation. They used the landlord in order to get in. But how come they didn't seal the appartment?

You may be witnessing the biggest failure of journalism ethics in the century. The MSM activley ruining a crime scene. The police have confirmed that it is still an active crime scence.

The MSM are now spinning this as legal though that crime scene thing might make things difficult. Still highly unethical, they fucking showed the mothers Soical Security number on live televison!

ASHE SCHOW has shared her experience viewing the infamous live stream http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/msnbc-embarrasses-itself-inside-san-bernardino-attackers-apartment/article/2577662

Time Magazine just published this: https://archive.is/ApUe9#selection-2247.0-2260.0

    It is rare for media to get access to a terrorist suspect’s home so soon after the crime.

hmmm I wonder why. They are seriously trying to sell to us that the investigation was completed. Today Journalism died.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/1608/most-insane-thing-you-have-ever-seen-live-tv-ben-shapiro



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfgU5S36e6g

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/04/journalists-refuse-to-talk-about-storming-san-bernardino-suspects-home/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/04/landlord-media-forced-their-way-into-san-bernardino-terrorists-apartment/

Ooh ooh, so much more. Turns out that the woman may have been the radicalized one who turned her husband- a new twist.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/04/san-bernardino-the-most-twisted-terrorist-plot-yet.html

Oh and btw, turns out it appears that one of the money men for ISIS is actually a Russian and a Christian.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/04/russia-s-isis-money-men-exposed.html

Their baby was in the black SUV with the parents during the shootout, apparently. Didn't even bother to drop the kid off.

What a fine moral world we live in.

Quote from: stromboli on December 04, 2015, 05:13:39 PM
Ooh ooh, so much more. Turns out that the woman may have been the radicalized one who turned her husband- a new twist.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/04/san-bernardino-the-most-twisted-terrorist-plot-yet.html

Oh and btw, turns out it appears that one of the money men for ISIS is actually a Russian and a Christian.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/04/russia-s-isis-money-men-exposed.html

Their baby was in the black SUV with the parents during the shootout, apparently. Didn't even bother to drop the kid off.

What a fine moral world we live in.

gives a whole you meaning to "Don't stick your dick in crazy"

Quote from: PickelledEggs on December 03, 2015, 01:28:30 AM
I don't even know what to say anymore....


This is.... tiring.... why can't this just stop?

It will stop soon, as soon as we sterilize the planet.

Quote from: Unbeliever on December 04, 2015, 05:29:57 PM
It will stop soon, as soon as we sterilize the planet.

Start in the Middle East.

The FBI, the journalists, the land lord they all are washing their hands unwilling to take responsibility for the breaching of the boarded up apartment.

Quote from: mauricio on December 04, 2015, 05:34:44 PM
The FBI, the journalists, the land lord they all are washing their hands unwilling to take responsibility for the breaching of the boarded up apartment.

Let them be the first people drafted and first into combat.  There isn't room in this world for sniveling cowards who are only looking out for number one!

Quote“At this point we believe they were more self-radicalized and inspired by the group than actually told to do the shooting,”

How does this work?
Does one send off a request "please send a DIY kit for how to become a terrorist"?

And by return post you receive a Quran a Kalashnikov and the Al Quaida manual for 'pipe bombs made easy'?


Self radicalised? WTF?

Anyone can apply or does one have to belong to a certain religion   cult that must not be named?

Quote from: pr126 on December 04, 2015, 11:23:06 PM
How does this work?
Does one send off a request "please send a DIY kit for how to become a terrorist"?

And by return post you receive a Quran a Kalashnikov and the Al Quaida manual for 'pipe bombs made easy'?


Self radicalised? WTF?

Anyone can apply or does one have to belong to a certain religion that must not be named?

I think they mainly mean that he did not have many material links with international terrorist groups that he was rather inspired by their rhetoric and planned the attack out of his own volition, procuring the means on his own. Apparently he bought the guns here and learning how to make small bombs is not hard at all with google. But he did interact with international terrorists through the internet.

QuoteI think they mainly mean that he did not have many material links with international terrorist groups that he was rather inspired by their rhetoric and planned the attack out of his own volition, procuring the means on his own.

Aha! so this is how it works.
One minute he is "moderate" and the next he becomes "self radicalised".
I wonder what causes this. Probably stress. Yes. That must be it.

Hang on a moment, this is just in:

  San Bernardino female attacker pledged allegiance to ISIS  (http://kron4.com/2015/12/03/mass-shooting-san-bernardino-shooter-was-in-contact-with-terror-subjects-officials-believe/)

Well then, Islam has nothing to do with it. We all know that ISIS is not Islamic. Obama told us sometime ago.

And of course after every jihad attack the obligatory fear of backlash.

Attorney General's 'greatest fear' isn't Islamic terrorism - it's attacks on Muslims because of a backlash in wake of shootings (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346148/Attorney-General-s-greatest-fear-isn-t-Islamic-terrorism-s-attacks-Muslims-backlash-wake-shootings.html)

Who will be the first politician to declare on public broadcast that this jihad attack had nothing to do with Islam? 
I don't think we have to wait long.

What no one is allowed to say publicly, that there may be, just maybe something wrong in Islam.
You can dismiss and ridicule any other religion, - even encouraged to do so -  but never Islam. That is taboo.

Quote from: mauricio on December 04, 2015, 05:00:36 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3vfvtc/ethics_the_mainstream_media_is_currently_going/

The Mainstream Media is currently going through San Bernardino shooters appartment on live televesion.



http://www.dailywire.com/news/1608/most-insane-thing-you-have-ever-seen-live-tv-ben-shapiro



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfgU5S36e6g

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/04/journalists-refuse-to-talk-about-storming-san-bernardino-suspects-home/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/04/landlord-media-forced-their-way-into-san-bernardino-terrorists-apartment/

Iirc, from my forensics class, someone is suppose to guard the crime scene so some jackasses (also known as journalists) don't ruin shit. We actually specifically had to learn how to keep media at bay.

Two things come to mind:
Fuck the media.
Someone didn't do their job well.

F.B.I. Treating San Bernardino Attack as Terrorism Case (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?emc=edit_th_20151205&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60854848&_r=0)

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 05, 2015, 01:48:41 AM
Iirc, from my forensics class, someone is suppose to guard the crime scene so some jackasses (also known as journalists) don't ruin shit. We actually specifically had to learn how to keep media at bay.

Two things come to mind:
Fuck the media.
Someone didn't do their job well.

There is some merit for transparency. In this case, people get to see how "normal" people were supposedly living when in actuality, they were planning mass murder - call it the new voyeurism. What's striking, or perhaps not, about this case is that not even the mother nor the sister knew what Farouk was up to. Not even a sign of distress a day or hours before the attack.  As Weinberg once said, only religion can compel good people to do bad things. It's a sad state of affairs that the media don't repeat these wise words publicly.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 05, 2015, 05:37:53 AM
F.B.I. Treating San Bernardino Attack as Terrorism Case (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?emc=edit_th_20151205&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=60854848&_r=0)

Sorry kiddo, beat you at post 58, ;-)

Yeah, but you didn't do it with style and panache.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 05, 2015, 05:40:52 AMAs Weinberg once said, only religion can compel good people to do bad things. 

Money, power, lust, envy, hate...

I'm trying to remember a case of a Muslim carrying out a mass murder who was just a nice average guy wanting to live a life of tolerance and peace.  You know, one who's motives were not driven by the Quran.  Accurate or not, it's one thing to say "Most Muslims just want peace" (the latest poll today puts that belief at 45% for American voters, with Republicans at 60% and Democrats at 30%), but to assume a Muslim who commits mass murder is not a terrorist, wouldn't be a good bet, IMO.  Innocent until proven guilty is the same as guilty until proven innocent, both make unwarranted assumptions prior to the facts.  In jurisprudence, innocent until guilty makes sense because it guards against the unjustified incarceration or capital punishment of an innocent.  But in determining odds or just normal speculation, I'd bet heavy on a religious motive when a Muslim commits mass murder, beheads a journalist, or stones a woman.  I don't have a problem with speculating either.  Almost everyone does it (come on, admit it) and the right to speculate is a Constitutional right as far as I know.

But in this case, the facts came to light within a day after the first speculation showed up, although I wouldn't exactly call a prediction of Islamic terrorism rocket science in this case, so I'll probably not go out of my way to congratulate the first person in the forum who got it right.  Anyway, I was already thinking it before anyone posted it.

If the authorities just knew what everyone was up to (hearing me NSA?) ... then they could pre-crime stuff for shoplifting, not just terrorism.  Arguing semantics is pretty much mental masturbation.  If you say that the San Bernardino thing was just two crazy people married to each other ... that might be too selective, and if you say that all immigrants or all Muslims are evil ... that is probably too general.  You choose the first alternative for police work ... unless the police are really out to rob, rape and murder everyone.  You choose the second alternative (extreme) if you are psyching up the public for a war.  As a peaceful person, I naturally distrust the second ... and Pr126.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 05, 2015, 05:40:52 AM
There is some merit for transparency. In this case, people get to see how "normal" people were supposedly living when in actuality, they were planning mass murder - call it the new voyeurism. What's striking, or perhaps not, about this case is that not even the mother nor the sister knew what Farouk was up to. Not even a sign of distress a day or hours before the attack.  As Weinberg once said, only religion can compel good people to do bad things. It's a sad state of affairs that the media don't repeat these wise words publicly.

Columbine HS.  The parents didn't know.  Since their kids are dead, we can always blame the parents ... because we are assholes.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 05, 2015, 05:40:52 AM
There is some merit for transparency. In this case, people get to see how "normal" people were supposedly living when in actuality, they were planning mass murder - call it the new voyeurism. What's striking, or perhaps not, about this case is that not even the mother nor the sister knew what Farouk was up to. Not even a sign of distress a day or hours before the attack.  As Weinberg once said, only religion can compel good people to do bad things. It's a sad state of affairs that the media don't repeat these wise words publicly.

It's not that transparency isn't merited, it's that the apartment was an active crime scene. The media just fucked the crime scene in the interest of getting another story to feed people. Any potential evidence is now tainted.

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 05, 2015, 12:01:49 PM
It's not that transparency isn't merited, it's that the apartment was an active crime scene. The media just fucked the crime scene in the interest of getting another story to feed people. Any potential evidence is now tainted.

Before they let the people in, the investigators had already combed the place from to wall to wall, so I don't think much will be lost. Anyway, both terrorists died so there's no one to prosecute.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on December 05, 2015, 01:44:40 PM
Before they let the people in, the investigators had already combed the place from to wall to wall, so I don't think much will be lost. Anyway, both terrorists died so there's no one to prosecute.

Hey, Allah might be hiding in there someplace.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 05, 2015, 02:08:51 PM
Hey, Allah might be hiding in there someplace.

Nope, Allah is in the Kaaba. Why do you think every Muslim must prostrate toward Mekka?

Here it is:

[spoiler](http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/The-Kaaba-Black-Stone.jpg)[/spoiler]

While the Black Rock is interesting ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLxb7aI--fA

This is supposed to be the real thing.  Seems much like the Jewish Temple 2000 years ago ... so I can hardly object.  The inner chamber of the Herodian Temple was supposed to be empty.  The Seraphim/Cherubim and Ark were long gone.  Of course the Hajj is much like the insane pilgrimages to Jerusalem.  I do enjoy Arabic singing.  Of course Mecca and Medinah have been made into tourist traps, just like Jerusalem ;-)  This is very old, goes back to Babylonia and Sumeria and Old Egypt.

I find this less disturbing than the open tombs of Lenin and Mao.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 05, 2015, 07:31:15 AM
Money, power, lust, envy, hate...

the point of the quote is that religion (though more specifically self gratifying delusional and dogmatic thinking) unlike other motivators will make you be able to do bad things while believing yourself to be righteous, think about the crusades: pillaging and raping Saracens imbued in holy fervor.

Quote from: mauricio on December 05, 2015, 03:27:38 PM
the point of the quote is that religion (though more specifically self gratifying delusional and dogmatic thinking) unlike other motivators will make you be able to do bad things while believing yourself to be righteous, think about the crusades pillaging and raping Saracens imbued in holy fervor.

And I was suggesting that the other motivators aren't that far off.

Quote from: pr126 on December 05, 2015, 02:27:07 PM
Nope, Allah is in the Kaaba. Why do you think every Muslim must prostrate toward Mekka?

Here it is:

[spoiler](http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/The-Kaaba-Black-Stone.jpg)[/spoiler]

Muhammed originally prayed toward Jerusalem.

Quote from: pr126 on December 05, 2015, 02:27:07 PM
Nope, Allah is in the Kaaba. Why do you think every Muslim must prostrate toward Mekka?

Here it is:

[spoiler](http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/The-Kaaba-Black-Stone.jpg)[/spoiler]

So, Allah is a big pussy?

Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 05, 2015, 05:22:42 PM
So, Allah is a big pussy?

Allah is actually the projected mental image of Muhammad.
When Allah speaks in the Quran, it is in reality Muhammads fears and desires in written form.
Allah is just a sock puppet of insane Mo.

Quote from: pr126 on December 05, 2015, 11:45:43 PM
Allah is actually the projected mental image of Muhammad.
When Allah speaks in the Quran, it is in reality Muhammads fears and desires in written form.
Allah is just a sock puppet of insane Mo.

Yes and know.  Allah as an object of worship, existed before, in the minds of Arabs and under other names, among quite a few other people.

Muhammad, while alive, had his Allah as a sock puppet.  Muhammad continues to influence Muslims thru the Quran and Hadith.  However I give people alive today more credit ... they aren't helpless zombies programmed by Islam.  For a modern Muslim, their Allah is their sock puppet too.  Just as Christians frequently see the same Jesus they see in the mirror each morning.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on December 05, 2015, 02:08:51 PM
Hey, Allah might be hiding in there someplace.

And who are you to question the will of Allah the great and his great plan for humanity?!??

I just found out today that ammo sales surged after the San Bernardino tragedy.

Apparently this is nothing new (https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=post+tragedy+bullet+sales)...

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/california-dad-killed-son-argument-165852452.html

QuoteCalifornia: Dad killed by his son after argument over washing machine leads to mass shooting


A New Year's Eve fight ended in a quadruple killing when a man killed his wife and two others, before his son fatally shot him. The victims were the son's 48-year-old girlfriend, who also lived at the property in Rowlands Height, California, as well as a 27-year-old man who was visiting.
"We're still trying to corroborate the versions of events that occurred and what we're being told occurred," sheriff's lieutenant John Corina said. "It looks like it was a dispute between the dad and the son's girlfriend, probably over using the washing machine. For some reason, this set the dad off."
The 54-year-old father was a heavy drinker with a large gun collection, according to authorities. The mother and brother of the 27-year-old who was killed told the San Gabriel Valley Tribune his name was Ernesto Calzadilla and that he had an eight-month-old daughter.

Maria Cruz confirmed that her son, Ernesto Calzadilla was among the dead. She did not know the family, but her son had socialised with them.
"He would always come around and hang around here because they were really nice to him," Cruz said. "I think the dad had some issues, mental issues."
A neighbour said the family was known for partying. "It looks like they drink heavily every day," Corina said.
Christopher Morey, the 33-year-old son managed to wrestle the semi-automatic pistol away from his father and shot him. Morey is being held on suspicion of murder and on $1m bail, authorities said an NBC report.
According to a police official, Morey and his girlfriend were staying at the Rowland Heights house to look after the 54-year-old mother, who had recently suffered a stroke. "They had been taking care of her," Corina said. "She was in a hospital bed there in the middle of the living room."

Good grief....

It wasn't guns but mental issues//s

It's good to have a loaded gun nearby.  You never know when some asshole is going to argue over the washing machine.  If the asshole is younger than you, and if you're too drunk to think clearly, you can kill him with your gun.

Quote from: Youssuf Ramadan on January 03, 2016, 06:03:37 AM
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/california-dad-killed-son-argument-165852452.html

Ayyyh... This is a fucking nightmare.

And here I am with my little .22 rifle in the corner wondering why I even have it. Thing's been collecting dust four the last five years, I think. Should probably take it apart and clean it one of these days.

If you ever had a close relative who had a terminal or lingering debilitation illness ... then you would understand murder/suicide.  If you ever went thru a divorce ... then you would understand murder/suicide.  This seems to be a murder/suicide that went different than planned, because the family members taking care of the mother, interfered.  I don't think it had anything to do with a washing machine, though heavy drinking is known to cause bad results.  An over-zealous DA is probably also involved.  The son who shot the father, was probably engaged in self defense of his mother, his girlfriend and himself.  The washing machine angle doesn't match any MO ... but murder/suicide does.  The father could have 'turned" in seconds given the availability of the guns and alcohol.

If you haven't had a suicide or murder in your family, then you won't understand.

Quote from: drunkenshoeYes, gun worshipping is a problem. But most importantly, Americans are angry. Different Americans from different groups. They are angry.

Quoted from a different thread, but I felt it's response was more relevant to be post here than there.

This just happened a couple days ago to someone from the city I live in.

http://smmercury.com/2016/01/01/san-marcos-high-school-alumna-dies-from-gunshot-wound-in-road-rage-tragedy/

QuoteDENTON â€" A 20-year-old former Martindale resident died in a north Texas hospital this evening after being shot in the head during what police have a characterized as an early morning road rage incident.

Sara Mutschlechner, an University of North Texas junior who graduated from San Marcos High School in 2013, was driving friends home from a party in Denton at about 2:03 a.m. when “words were exchanged between the occupants of the SUV and the occupants of the victim’s vehicle,” Denton police officer Shane Kizer said in a written statement to media. Mutschlechner died this evening after being taken off life support, Kizer said.

Here is the full press release from the Denton Police Department followed by video from the FOX network local news affiliate in Dallas:

The Denton Police Department received a call at 2:06 a.m. Jan. 1 in reference to a gunshot victim. Officers responded to the 1700 block of North Elm Street and found a single gunshot victim lying on the ground next to a four-door sedan. The sedan had crashed into an electrical pole.

Witnesses on the scene said the victim was in the driver’s seat operating the vehicle. There were three adult passengers in the vehicle, as well. A dark colored Toyota or Lexus sport’s utility vehicle drove up next to the sedan on N Elm St. Several words were exchanged between the occupants of the SUV and the occupants in the victim’s vehicle. As both vehicles were crossing the University Dr intersection, an occupant in the SUV fired multiple rounds at the victim. The victim was struck in the head. The victim’s vehicle ran into an uninvolved vehicle and then crashed into an electrical pole, finally coming to a stop. The SUV fled from the scene.

One of the passengers in the victim’s vehicle suffered minor injuries from the accident. The female passenger was taken to Denton Regional Medical Center where she was treated and released. The 20 year old female shooting victim was also transported to DRMC by Denton Fire and Rescue where she remains in critical condition. She is a current student at the University of North Texas and a former resident of Martindale.

This is something I have worried about myself, that I have had to actively think about while driving... "What if I cut off some idiot on accident, or do anything remotely offensive to him, and he decides to start firing into my car?". It happens, this is certainly not the first time I have heard of road rage escalating into a shooting (or even someone getting out with a baseball bat or crowbar and wailing on someone).

I have seen videos from Eastern Europe and Latin America where people will pull guns to intimidate other drivers... but I don't live in a recovering failed communist state or a drug cartel stronghold... I live in supposedly the most advanced and developed country in the world. So why the fuck should I have to be concerned with someone shooting or beating me for the absolute smallest of perceived slight?

And yet I do, and I know other people who feel they have to watch what they say to avoid offending someone to the point they will get shot.

I don't know if it's so much of Americans being angry though drunken as much as it is Americans being immature brats with fragile egos and no balls... I think being just angry gives these type of people too much credit.

More relevant,Shir. I was reacting to Baruch's "Americans are violent" statement and thinking of mass shootings and gun violence. I do believe in what I said, but I don't think it is limited to road rage and you all please be becareful. Let it go, don't react harshly whatever people do.

Fear, anger, hate ... and violence ... make the world go round.  Securing resources without regard to morality, just to get the wife to stop nagging ;-)  I bet Genghis Khan had a hell of a mother, mother-in-law or wife ;-)

This particular instance isn't a gun control issue ... if a murder suicide ... the husband could have tired to end his wife's life with a baseball bat.  Of course it would then have been easier for the other family members to defend ... trivially so if the son had an NRA full automatic ... and could out-weapon his baseball bat wielding father.

Also isn't this (per original reference) ... American-violence porn for the Brits to poo poo over?  Does the Guardian report every violent act in N America?  On the other hand ... is it just a meme that the British are some kind of pacifists?

I have been the cause of two cases of road rage in the last 20 years.  I am not a very good driver I am afraid.  Both were unintentional cutoffs.  The last time the other guy went completely psychotic ... but was unarmed.  Otherwise I wouldn't have gotten to know you folks.

Do I have to repeat myself: if everyone around you owns a gun, you are more likely to want to own a gun (NRA propaganda works very well in the US). Reverse that logic: if no one around you owns guns, then it is most likely that you will not seek to own a gun (that which the NRA doesn't want you think). So far, NRA is winning by a long shot, therefore dumb Americans...

Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 04, 2016, 07:15:13 AM
Do I have to repeat myself: if everyone around you owns a gun, you are more likely to want to own a gun (NRA propaganda works very well in the US). Reverse that logic: if no one around you owns guns, then it is most likely that you will not seek to own a gun (that which the NRA doesn't want you think). So far, NRA is winning by a long shot, therefore dumb Americans...

How many Americans own guns?

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2016, 07:20:22 AM
How many Americans own guns?

In the absence of a gun registry, that is not known, however, there is an estimate of an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents. By all accounts, that's pretty high.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 04, 2016, 07:28:14 AM
In the absence of a gun registry, that is not known, however, there is an estimate of an average of 89 firearms for every 100 residents. By all accounts, that's pretty high.

I think I've mentioned that fifty of my relatives have a collective 7,000+ guns, with the rest of them having diminishing numbers. This, if extrapolated to the general population, would skew the results with regard to individual ownership, I think. The hypergunners make it seem like everybody in the US is armed, which I suspect is not the case. They certainly don't have as many guns per person as non-US sources would have us think.

According to the Pew Research Center about 1 in 3 US household has a gun.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 04, 2016, 07:50:15 AM
According to the Pew Research Center about 1 in 3 US household has a gun.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

Actually, it says

"Overall, about a third of all Americans with children under 18 at home have a gun in their household, including  34% of families with children younger than 12. That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home."

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2016, 07:37:32 AM
I think I've mentioned that fifty of my relatives have a collective 7,000+ guns, with the rest of them having diminishing numbers. This, if extrapolated to the general population, would skew the results with regard to individual ownership, I think. The hypergunners make it seem like everybody in the US is armed, which I suspect is not the case. They certainly don't have as many guns per person as non-US sources would have us think.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 04, 2016, 07:50:15 AM
According to the Pew Research Center about 1 in 3 US household has a gun.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2016, 07:57:28 AM
Actually, it says

"Overall, about a third of all Americans with children under 18 at home have a gun in their household, including  34% of families with children younger than 12. That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home."

Let's break this down, using ballpark numbers: 89 firearms for every 100 residents. Consider that 50% of people are divorced, and a birthrate of 1.9, that brings the family average of 3.4 people per family ( 1.5 + 1.9), so that's 89 firearms per 30 families or every family owes on average 3 firearms - very close to what PopeyesPappy has posted.

You don't account for the hypergunners, like my relatives. That was my point. Burt Gummer Lives!!!

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2016, 08:32:35 AM
You don't account for the hypergunners, like my relatives. That was my point. Burt Gummer Lives!!!

When you take a class average on a test, say an average of 60%, there will be some with 90%, like some in the 10%. It's math, dummy... ;-)

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2016, 08:32:35 AM
You don't account for the hypergunners, like my relatives. That was my point. Burt Gummer Lives!!!

Just like everything else, it is a statistical pattern that doesn't necessarily represent the whole picture. When I worked at one segment at Hill-aircraft welder- virtually everybody, including me, were multiple gun owners. Where I worked last, as a technical editor, virtually everybody (again including me-I got rid of my guns for personal reasons) had no guns.

Where I live now there are very few people that own guns. I know this for reasons I won't get into. I could go to another area and be in a place where there are multiple gun owners.

If you go to a gun show you will see a certain bracket of society. Go to an art show a different one. Interestingly, I have been to both. It is never a simple and easily defined picture.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 04, 2016, 08:44:27 AM
When you take a class average on a test, say an average of 60%, there will be some with 90%, like some in the 10%. It's math, dummy... ;-)

Me no math, but if we say there's one gun for every three Americans, and fifty of my relatives have on average 170 guns I think that's some kind of number.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2016, 09:02:52 AM
Me no math, but if we say there's one gun for every three Americans, and fifty of my relatives have on average 170 guns I think that's some kind of number.

I'm not sure if you are joking or being serious, but why am I always surprised as to how dumb people are when it comes to deal with fractions/percentage...

Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 04, 2016, 09:07:09 AM
I'm not sure if you are joking or being serious, but why am I always surprised as to how dumb people are when it comes to deal with fractions/percentage...

My maximum was 7 guns at one time. I knew people that had 3 times that number. Everybody I'm aware of now, other than myself, own none.

Quote from: stromboli on January 04, 2016, 09:11:31 AM
My maximum was 7 guns at one time. I knew people that had 3 times that number. Everybody I'm aware of now, other than myself, own none.

Is this a replay of Dumb and Dumber to?

I actually own a bunch of guns - haven't counted recently but at least 20.  I collect them.  Still have the first gun that I shot a pheasant with... Still have the first gun that I killed a deer with... Still have the first gun that my dad ever gave me.  Have the shotgun that my grandfather used for 40 years.  I have an H&H 375 that was used to kill a large grizzly bear... will never use that gun again and will never sell it. They all mean something to me.

And honestly, I haven't shot a gun in nearly 5 years.

I would be considered a gun nut by any measure... but if you met me you would never guess that I have a cache of guns like I do.  I don't talk about them.  They are not a part of my everyday life... but they are a part of the historical me.

Many of my friends are just like me. They love guns.  Have a lot of guns.  Rarely, if ever, do they shoot their guns.  But they would fight like hell if you tried to take their guns away - because they mean something to them - and it is something that can't be replaced.  My grandfather and father are both dead... and having the 50 year old weapons that they used for hunting really means something to me.  If they told me I had to turn in my guns - I would hide them... quietly.

There are no easy answers - but you are setting yourself back quite a bit by throwing all gun owners into a single bin of maniacs and crazies.  By and large, I trust cops and security officers less with their guns (they have limited training and no street smarts on guns) than I do my buddies - who have used and respected guns their whole lives. 

Quote from: GreatLife on January 04, 2016, 12:00:19 PM
I actually own a bunch of guns - haven't counted recently but at least 20.  I collect them.  Still have the first gun that I shot a pheasant with... Still have the first gun that I killed a deer with... Still have the first gun that my dad ever gave me.  Have the shotgun that my grandfather used for 40 years.  I have an H&H 375 that was used to kill a large grizzly bear... will never use that gun again and will never sell it. They all mean something to me.

And honestly, I haven't shot a gun in nearly 5 years.

I would be considered a gun nut by any measure... but if you met me you would never guess that I have a cache of guns like I do.  I don't talk about them.  They are not a part of my everyday life... but they are a part of the historical me.

Many of my friends are just like me. They love guns.  Have a lot of guns.  Rarely, if ever, do they shoot their guns.  But they would fight like hell if you tried to take their guns away - because they mean something to them - and it is something that can't be replaced.  My grandfather and father are both dead... and having the 50 year old weapons that they used for hunting really means something to me.  If they told me I had to turn in my guns - I would hide them... quietly.

There are no easy answers - but you are setting yourself back quite a bit by throwing all gun owners into a single bin of maniacs and crazies.  By and large, I trust cops and security officers less with their guns (they have limited training and no street smarts on guns) than I do my buddies - who have used and respected guns their whole lives. 

That might seem as reasonable for you to keep your guns, but put it in a different perspective, there are 40,000 deaths/year due to guns ( I'm counting crimes, accidents and suicides by guns). Even if a total ban on guns would save 1,000 of those deaths (2.5%), that far outweighs your desire to keep your guns for nostalgic reasons.

But ... but my desire for dictatorship outweighs your desire to protect yourself, your family or your business ;-)

Frankly human life isn't worth much ... I know almost nobody will admit it ... but with 7 billion people now ... it is true.  And in dollar terms, since the dollar isn't worth the paper it is printed on ... that pretty much means a human life is worthless.  Personally, I value life ... but most people will kill their neighbor in a pinch.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 04, 2016, 12:46:10 PM
That might seem as reasonable for you to keep your guns, but put it in a different perspective, there are 40,000 deaths/year due to guns ( I'm counting crimes, accidents and suicides by guns). Even if a total ban on guns would save 1,000 of those deaths (2.5%), that far outweighs your desire to keep your guns for nostalgic reasons.

Way more people die from alcohol and cars.  Why are you not banning them... if not for nostalgic reasons.

I suggest it is due to the irrational fear that liberals have about guns.  And the irrational response by gun fanatics...

What we need is intelligent debate - not more liberal ultimatums about taking away everyone's guns.  One could lead to solutions, the other only trouble.

Quote from: GreatLife on January 05, 2016, 11:30:57 AM
Way more people die from alcohol and cars.  Why are you not banning them... if not for nostalgic reasons.

I suggest it is due to the irrational fear that liberals have about guns.  And the irrational response by gun fanatics...

What we need is intelligent debate - not more liberal ultimatums about taking away everyone's guns.  One could lead to solutions, the other only trouble.

Funny is that most left-wing members of this forum see me as right-wing. Go figure.

On another note, I don't see the gun issue in terms of left/right politics. I see it as a logical issue, which I will reiterate: if everyone around you owns a gun, you are more likely to want to own a gun (NRA propaganda is working very well in the US with this argument). Reverse that logic: if no one around you owns guns, then it is most likely that you will not seek to own a gun (that which the NRA doesn't want you to think).

Quote from: josephpalazzo on January 05, 2016, 11:38:59 AM
Funny is that most left-wing members of this forum see me as right-wing. Go figure.

On another note, I don't see the gun issue in terms of left/right politics. I see it as a logical issue, which I will reiterate: if everyone around you owns a gun, you are more likely to want to own a gun (NRA propaganda is working very well in the US with this argument). Reverse that logic: if no one around you owns guns, then it is most likely that you will not seek to own a gun (that which the NRA doesn't want you to think).

If you aren't liberal when you are young, you have no heart.  If you aren't conservative when you are old, you have no brains ;-)

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on January 04, 2016, 07:57:28 AM
Actually, it says

"Overall, about a third of all Americans with children under 18 at home have a gun in their household, including  34% of families with children younger than 12. That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home."

It also says 1196 of 3243 of the adults surveyed said they or someone in their household had a gun. That's 36.8% which is technically a little closer to 2 in 5 than it is 1 in 3, but I said about 1 in 3...

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 06, 2016, 07:58:25 AM
It also says 1196 of 3243 of the adults surveyed said they or someone in their household had a gun. That's 36.8% which is technically a little closer to 2 in 5 than it is 1 in 3, but I said about 1 in 3...

I know people that have gun safes. I also know people that have gun rooms. Pretty sure that 10-20 guns owned by one person tends to skew the numbers a bit. I'm more worried by the fact that there are probably a few hundred thousand if not a few million guns that are floating around nobody is counting or knows about.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on January 03, 2016, 08:35:15 AM
And here I am with my little .22 rifle in the corner wondering why I even have it. Thing's been collecting dust four the last five years, I think. Should probably take it apart and clean it one of these days.

Well certainly don't try to fire it until you do clean it! That could be really dangerous.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on January 06, 2016, 07:58:25 AM
It also says 1196 of 3243 of the adults surveyed said they or someone in their household had a gun. That's 36.8% which is technically a little closer to 2 in 5 than it is 1 in 3, but I said about 1 in 3...

Quote from: Edward Frenkel, Love and Math: The Heart of Hidden Realitya drunkard may not know which number is larger, 2/3 or 3/5, but he knows that 2 bottles of vodka for 3 people is better than 3 bottles of vodka for 5 people.