Well think about it. A terrorist group of 3 killing 14 people in a Social Services Center. That's a waist of their time. They could be doing way worst to a bigger place if this was even tied in with terrorism. 

How is this a waste of time? This will be grabbing headlines for weeks, which is what terrorists want. The people in the past few years who have tried and failed to set off bombs in their shoes or underwear wasted their time, but that's because they f*cked up. These people picked a soft target where kills would be guaranteed, and they did so quite successfully.

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by unr3al

2 minutes ago, unr3al said:

How is this a waste of time? This will be grabbing headlines for weeks, which is what terrorists want. The people in the past few years who have tried and failed to set of bombs in their shoes or underwear wasted their time, but that's because they f*cked up. These people picked a soft target where kills would be guaranteed, and they did so quite successfully.

True but when you think about it, its really a random site to pick. We have Disneyland, Staples Center, huge ports, it would be a greater impact on more popular places, like shown in Paris. They want great damage done. I just feel it had to do with someone that was killed in the party. A boss, ex-wife, and those people ( The Shooters) were impacted by those and wanted to show them hurt/pain back. Its just a really hard story to hit with no motive.

2 minutes ago, Quadkid2 said:

True but when you think about it, its really a random site to pick. We have Disneyland, Staples Center, huge ports, it would be a greater impact on more popular places, like shown in Paris. They want great damage done. I just feel it had to do with someone that was killed in the party. A boss, ex-wife, and those people ( The Shooters) were impacted by those and wanted to show them hurt/pain back. Its just a really hard story to hit with no motive.

The problem with those targets are they are all extremely well secured against people with ski masks and assault rifles compared to the one that was hit today. It would be the equivalent of having a choice between assaulting a police station vs. an ice cream shop. Which target is going to be easier to destroy? America takes terrorism, and therefore it's security measures more seriously than European countries do, I'm afraid, because they have not had a 9/11 yet. If someone is going to kill a boss or an ex-wife in a crime of passion, you don't need a team of people with assault rifles and a getaway SUV to do it.

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by unr3al

8 minutes ago, unr3al said:

The problem with those targets are they are all extremely well secured against people with ski masks and assault rifles compared to the one that was hit today. It would be the equivalent of having a choice between assaulting a police station vs. an ice cream shop. Which target is going to be easier to destroy? America takes terrorism, and therefore it's security measures more seriously than European countries do, I'm afraid, because they have not had a 9/11 yet. If someone is going to kill a boss or an ex-wife in a crime of passion, you don't need a team of people with assault rifles and a getaway SUV to do it.

You got to remember, it was 2 men and one woman. One of the men and the woman involved were killed. I do find it strange they would have tactical gear but if even the FBI don't have a lead on this, had no warning, it just hard to point out terrorism. I think by now the FBI would have said they had a lead, or that they knew something. Heck the cops didn't even know the full description of the people to start with. We will just have to find out what they find out. Like I said, its not every day a terrorist is found in something like this. A conference full of medical staff from the county. Had to be linked with something between the individuals killed and/or injured. I also thought groups like ISIS don't even like woman in their line of work. 

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by Quadkid2

The suspect we've been talking about was in the medical field himself, which is one of the possible reasons for choosing the target; he knew it was there and it was going to be easy. Keep in mind that Muslims in western countries often follow their religion a little differently in order to be able to function in society. I see many Muslim women who do not wear burkas, but they have their heads covered, often have their faces covered and always wear long sleeve shirts and pants. That would not be allowed in Gaza, but it's acceptable in western culture and it technically follows "female dress code" of the Qu'ran so it's good enough while living here. A female may have been used in this instance for the same reason Americans and Europeans are used in terrorist groups: Because they're an available asset. Remember Johnny Taliban or Jihadi John? Or this new Russian kid who debuted today: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/new-jihadi-john-isis-release-6943049

Considering who they are, they should have no business committing terrorism in the name of Islam, yet here they are. Details as you said will emerge in the coming days. We can only wait and see.

Edited December 3, 201510 yr by unr3al

58 minutes ago, Quadkid2 said:

Well think about it. A terrorist group of 3 killing 14 people in a Social Services Center. That's a waist of their time. They could be doing way worst to a bigger place if this was even tied in with terrorism. 

It was also a waste of time for the terrorists that attacked Paris recently to attack a Concert or a Cafe too when ideally it would of been more impactful to bring down the Eiffel Tower. However their mindset is to create shock value, which this most certainly does. Granted one could argue it would be an even bigger shock to bring down an iconic tourist attraction like the Eiffel Tower, but without delving too deep into the what ifs and why's as to what could of happened, their goal is to commonly waste as many "westerners" as possible. This isn't necessarily related to ISIS either, although it embodies the same terroristic values which, again, isn't specific to ISIS. There is a lot of islamic terrorist organizations out there and all it takes is one motivated organization to motivate others to do the same. 

 

Like unr3al said, this sort of stuff is medieval, it needs to be stopped. Other religions have gotten out of this medieval mindset and while no religion is perfect, we don't see Christians/Catholics/Buddhism chopping peoples heads off or going into a food market strapped with bombs and blowing themselves up on the daily all for a hope and literal prayer.  

1 hour ago, Solidefiance said:

we don't see Christians/Catholics/Buddhism chopping peoples heads off or going into a food market strapped with bombs and blowing themselves up on the daily all for a hope and literal prayer.  

I would like to tweak that statement just slightly by adding in "on a massive scale". That recent Planned Parenthood gunman is a hardcore Christian according to an ex-lover of his, which would make sense considering Planned Parenthood's notoriety for providing birth control methods and abortions to those who need it. Oddly enough, Islam doesn't support the idea of the spirit entering the body until the 40th day or the 120th depending on how you interpret the passages, unlike Christianity which actually makes Islam better on subjects such as stem cell research or necessary abortions as a result of rape. Although then again, Islamic culture paints the woman at fault and suggest that she should be killed, not the rapist.

All religions are pretty terrible, in my view, but considering the frequency of these terror attacks committed in the name of Islam, it's very difficult to argue that this particular religion poses the greatest threat to the rest of the world and to its own people.

I'm glad it's over. Hopefully the attacker who was arrested will be willing to explain everything, judging by the fact that he split from his buddies and didn't stay for the big showdown with the cops. Their preparation might indicate a terrorist act but I also suspect something must have triggered it in that conference room. I mean you don't go to a party and then commit a mass shooting at the same place without them being connected somehow. Or maybe you do, I have no idea what's in the mind of those people.

In any case I was very impressed by the level of preparedness and quick response of the authorities handling such an incident. Also listening to what people inside the building did during the attack, barricaded themselves and took precautions to avoid being spotted or struck by stray bullets was reassuring.

I'm very glad people in the USA know what to do in such a case, in my country 90% of the population probably doesn't even know what a gun shot sounds like, nevertheless know what to do in a terrorist attack. A bomb attack was foiled two days ago in Romania, a Hungarian extremist group planned to detonate a bomb during the National Day parade in a small town. Sorry for the off-topic.

10 hours ago, unr3al said:

I would like to tweak that statement just slightly by adding in "on a massive scale". That recent Planned Parenthood gunman is a hardcore Christian according to an ex-lover of his, which would make sense considering Planned Parenthood's notoriety for providing birth control methods and abortions to those who need it. Oddly enough, Islam doesn't support the idea of the spirit entering the body until the 40th day or the 120th depending on how you interpret the passages, unlike Christianity which actually makes Islam better on subjects such as stem cell research or necessary abortions as a result of rape. Although then again, Islamic culture paints the woman at fault and suggest that she should be killed, not the rapist.

Fair enough. I'd like to add onto that and say that sort of attack doesn't occur daily either, which inherently causes just that much more shock value because it isn't a normal everyday occurrence. There is definitely extremists in every religion, or rather the predominant ones. In my view religion is ebola, these sort of radical outbreaks here and there needs some serious stomping on and I think the first goal is to quit being so "politically correct" about it, otherwise innocent people are going to keep dying all because X, Y, and Z is afraid of possibly offending someone.  

So a quick update on the possibility of terrorism: An FBI spokesperson who wished to remain anonymous since they're technically not allowed to talk about the case says that Farook was in contact with terrorist organizations via the internet. That being said, he says they are not ready to call him a terrorist yet. Farook's brothers said he recently memorized the Qu'ran, was very religious and prayed every day. The other person who helped with the attack was his wife. They dropped their 6 month old daughter off with relatives earlier that day.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/14-dead-17-wounded-california-081816288.html

New update: Shootings officially being investigated as terrorism according to CNN. Farooks wife pledged allegiance to ISIS the day of the shooting. She is from Pakistan. Farook took her as a wife during a trip to Mecca and brought her home. They smashed their cell phones in an effort to conceal evidence.

*sigh* they told us this would happen, and yet we heed no caution.

4 hours ago, Pavelow said:

*sigh* they told us this would happen, and yet we heed no caution.

The FBI and CIA have been and still are tracking plenty of people, but unfortunately these two were not among them. Despite how irritating these attacks are, the best way I can spin it is this: There's a great quote from the movie 'The Recruit', which is about a new recruit to the CIA (Collin Ferrel and Al Pacino, go see it, great film). Pacino's character says of the CIA: "Our failures are known, but our successes are not."

I'm quite confident that for every successful Islamic inspired terror attack on U.S. soil, our government has likely foiled tens if not hundreds hundreds of others. There's not much the average citizen or the police could have done to better prepare for this situation anyway. We can't all walk around in flak jackets and carry our own assault rifles 24/7 and report people with brown skin for being reclusive. That's no way to live life. Unfortunately, our "white privilege" phobia teaches a lot of us to ignore things we probably shouldn't, such as the U.P.S. driver for that neighborhood not reporting a strange amount of packages being delivered to the suspects house for fear of infringing on someones privacy, or the neighbors for not reporting suspicious activity for fear of appearing bigoted, or the suspects relatives and friends trying to cover up their concern for the suspects will to strictly keep to themselves. The director of the F.B.I. is encouraging Americans to report things like this now, and to not be afraid of appearing racist. And he's right. Ultimately people need to be able to point out problems with behavior regardless of skin color. These events certainly aren't limited to one ethnic or religious group.

Today in Boston, somebody planted a backpack next to a homeland security SUV parked outside a federal building and walked away. The Boston Police had to shut down a section of the city for hours, and then detonate the backpack after picking it up with a robot. The guy who did it turned out to be a local criminal, Caucasian, well known to police, and he was arrested at gun point in Lawrence, further north later in the evening. Luckily it was a hoax bomb. Nobody knows why he did it as of yet. But as was the case with the Christian Planned Parenthood gunman the other week; being a sh*t head transcends all races colors and creeds.



My biggest problem with the U.S. and perhaps even the entire western world right now is that we're not taking terrorism committed in the name of religion seriously enough, which unfortunately is predominantly influenced or committed by the Muslim parts of the world. The theology at play here needs to be discussed honestly, without fear of appearing racist. None of the problems we face today are going to be solved until that happens.

Maybe this will shut Trump's mouth up for good. After the attacks on Paris, he said people died because they didn't have guns to defend themselves. We can see there's no difference between a country or another when some mentally ill psychos decide to shoot people randomly.

1 hour ago, Hystery said:

Maybe this will shut Trump's mouth up for good. After the attacks on Paris, he said people died because they didn't have guns to defend themselves. We can see there's no difference between a country or another when some mentally ill psychos decide to shoot people randomly.

Except that's ignoring the fact that California has some of the most strict gun laws in the country, where all of the shooters' weapons were illegal. And there is the fact that 97% of all mass shootings occur in places known as gun free zones, which, shockingly, only prevent potential victims from carrying firearms and leave them at the mercy of the psychopath until someone with a gun shows up, which almost always results in the shooter killing himself or surrendering to the person with the gun.

Also considering that Obama's policy on ISIS has been drastically underwhelming, and his statements before the French terror attacks calling them "contained" and his statements immediately following this shooting claiming it was "workplace violence" and that the US was safe from ISIS attacks, this only strengthens Trump's ratings.

Just wait until multiple terror cells strike at the same time, which circumstances around this shooting such as the neighbors saying half a dozen middle easterns visited the suspects house and the police referring to the house as an IED factory all night on the scanners make it highly likely. When that happens and many of them turn out to be immigrants that ISIS has been bragging about sneaking in with since 2012, Trump will shoot up in the polls.

On 12/3/2015, 6:17:22, unr3al said:

As much as I like President Obama, he is not helping by refusing to use the word 'Islamic' when referring to terrorism that happens in its name. The rest of the world needs to get on the same page and go after these terrorist organizations with a vengeance, and start giving proper exposure and funding to Muslims who wish to reform their religion into something that won't condone this type of violent behavior. It's medieval and needs to stop.

Ok, lets pretend that the President and the rest of the US government acknowledges that these terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims. What does that accomplish? I'm all for trying to destroy these extremist (Muslim or not) that are trying to bring harm to innocent people but I don't understand what the obsession with trying to make Obama use the word "Islamic" as if that brings us a step closer to solving the problem. Our military and intelligence services are already focused mostly on the Middle East where much of this extremism is coming from, does that not prove that our government already knows where the majority of the problems are? Lets stop focusing on words and focus on actions.

5 hours ago, l3ubba said:

Ok, lets pretend that the President and the rest of the US government acknowledges that these terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims. What does that accomplish? I'm all for trying to destroy these extremist (Muslim or not) that are trying to bring harm to innocent people but I don't understand what the obsession with trying to make Obama use the word "Islamic" as if that brings us a step closer to solving the problem. Our military and intelligence services are already focused mostly on the Middle East where much of this extremism is coming from, does that not prove that our government already knows where the majority of the problems are? Lets stop focusing on words and focus on actions.

What will it accomplish, you ask? We need to be able to identify a disease before we work on a cure. The common misconception or cop out answer is that these people are simply crazy and nothing more. That's simply not true, it comes from their own theology specifically. Killing Isis troops won't accomplish anything because this religion contains 1.5 billion people. There will be infinite reinforcements as such. Attacking people will do no good. We need to have the rest of the world confront the ideology head on and then empower moderate Muslims who do wish to reform the faith for the 21st century by giving them whatever resources they need. Money, books, internet access, and open denunciation of supposed allies such as Saudi Arabia. If we are to go back to the medical analogy I started with at the beginning of this reply; we are currently treating the symptoms, not the cause.

Edited December 5, 201510 yr by unr3al

On 12/5/2015, 10:53:31, unr3al said:

What will it accomplish, you ask? We need to be able to identify a disease before we work on a cure. The common misconception or cop out answer is that these people are simply crazy and nothing more. That's simply not true, it comes from their own theology specifically. Killing Isis troops won't accomplish anything because this religion contains 1.5 billion people. There will be infinite reinforcements as such. Attacking people will do no good. We need to have the rest of the world confront the ideology head on and then empower moderate Muslims who do wish to reform the faith for the 21st century by giving them whatever resources they need. Money, books, internet access, and open denunciation of supposed allies such as Saudi Arabia. If we are to go back to the medical analogy I started with at the beginning of this reply; we are currently treating the symptoms, not the cause.

But what I'm saying is that we already know what the cause is and our military is (or was) fighting to do exactly what you are talking about. If Obama and Clinton decide they are too scared to use the words "radical Muslims" then let them be, the people who are actually doing the fighting and intel work know the truth and know what the cause is (for the most part). I really don't care that a couple of politicians want to dance around what words they are using, they do that all the time anyway.

The problem I see is that not enough people in these Middle Eastern countries want to stand up to these insurgent and terrorist groups because if they did then groups like ISIS wouldn't be able to just sweep across Iraq virtually unopposed and Iraqi Army units wouldn't be abandoning equipment and retreating without even putting up at least a little resistance. If people don't care enough about fighting back against these groups then why should we spend all these resources trying to rebuild for them, give them all this money, and political power if they are just going to throw it all away as soon as we leave.

5 hours ago, l3ubba said:

But what I'm saying is that we already know what the cause is and our military is (or was) fighting to do exactly what you are talking about. If Obama and Clinton decide they are too scared to use the words "radical Muslims" then let them be, the people who are actually doing the fighting and intel work know the truth and know what the cause is (for the most part). I really don't care that a couple of politicians want to dance around what words they are using, they do that all the time anyway.

The problem I see is that not enough people in these Middle Eastern countries want to stand up to these insurgent and terrorist groups because if they did then groups like ISIS wouldn't be able to just sweep across Iraq virtually unopposed and Iraqi Army units wouldn't be abandoning equipment and retreating without even putting up at least a little resistance. If people don't care enough about fighting back against these groups then why should we spend all these resources trying to rebuild for them, give them all this money, and political power if they are just going to throw it all away as soon as we leave.

The correct measures to take in the middle east need to be a movement of the people. People are not motivated to challenge theology concepts that spur this terrorism. They're motivated to be scared of a non-existent small groups of radical Muslims. The citizens of the United States and other western countries are mislead by politicians and political pundits that the ideas that promote this kind of behavior are fringe. They aren't. Terrorist militias may have small numbers but they have an unending pool of replacements because their way of thinking isn't incomprehensible. This fact needs to be pointed out by people at the top level of our society. The military can only do so much without backing from the people. Otherwise most people will incorrectly think we'd be charging into another pointless war against people who we shouldn't be at odds with.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that not enough (if any at all) Middle Eastern countries are standing up against extremist groups that not only cause problems all around the world, but even kill their own kind for not following the Qu'ran to the letter. Part of this is due to the fact that there isn't any motivation. They have no backing from their governments, because western countries aren't confronting them about the source of these problems. Countries should not run under Shariah Law. That might have worked in the bronze age when these books were written, but it's not applicable in 2015. Women should have basic human rights. Young people should be able to peacefully protest or assemble themselves for rallies against government policies if they so desire, without the penalty of being crucified alive, then beheaded. We can attack terrorist groups all we want, but the only two ways to completely solve this would be a war of attrition that we couldn't possibly win, or confront the middle eastern governments and the citizens they rule over with the truth. It all starts with turning people in the west towards that same truth first. With that knowledge, there will be motivation from the people to implement economic policies against countries that mistreat their citizens in the name of theology, and motivation to take more serious military action against countries or terrorist groups that repeatedly attack us or our allies.

Edited December 7, 201510 yr by unr3al