<BREAKING> Active Shooter in San Bernardino, California

That suggests that he was on the rails at some point.

 

I agree with you.

 

Rails are overrated.

 

http://nypost.com/2015/12/04/now-even-obama-has-to-admit-it-san-bernardino-was-terrorism/

Now, even Obama has to admit it: San Bernardino was terrorism

Now that the FBI’s declared the San Bernardino attack to be a terrorism case, the White House will presumably shut up about how it might’ve just been “workplace violence.”

Not in the wake of news that Tashfeen Malik had pledged her allegiance to ISIS as the attack began, and of Syed Farook’s years of contact with other suspected Islamists.

For a while there, though, President Obama seemed to be the last person in America to not understand this was a terror attack. (Hey, at least he never tried to hint it was part of the “war on Christmas.”)

On Wednesday, he talked of it as part of “a pattern now of mass shootings in this country” — ignoring clear signs that this one was different, such as the bomb the attackers had left behind in a (happily failed) bid to slaughter rescue workers, too.

Worse, he then pushed the “answer” of tweaking gun-control laws — nakedly trying to squeeze this square peg into the round hole of his own agenda.

On Thursday, after the world already knew of the attackers’ massive ammunition stockpiles and al-Qaeda-style pipe bombs, Obama admitted, “It is possible that this was terrorist related.” “But,” he insisted, “it’s also possible this was workplace related.”

“Possible” in the sense that cautious FBI investigators wouldn’t yet rule it out, maybe. But the evidence of Farook and Malik’s motives was huge: Non-terrorists don’t get their wives to don tactical armor and masks for a spur-of-the-moment grudge-settling massacre, complete with rented getaway vehicle.

Later that day, White House spokesman Josh Earnest engaged in endless exchanges with the press about Obama’s gun-control ideas — policies even Earnest said wouldn’t have mattered in San Bernardino.

It’s plain enough why the White House refused to face facts here. The president just doesn’t want to talk about terrorism because he has no interest in fighting it — it’s a distraction from his agenda, from gun control to “climate change.”

With just over a year left in office, Obama is fed up with reality getting in his way.

 

^ More right wing garbage. Waiting for the facts is now considered a bad thing. Jump to conclusions, and they will slam you (See Banghazi). Don't jump to conclusions, and you are all of a sudden capitulating.

So stupid.

 

It's funny you mention Benghazi given that they knew from the very beginning that it was terrorism and they just lied about it. There was no jumping to conclusions, just a lie made up to make it seem like it wasn't the organized terrorist attack that it was.

In this instance, the facts are out and it's pretty clear what it was. Jumping to conclusions could have potentially happened right when it was happening, but by now there's just denying the obvious or accepting it.

 

He jumped to conclusions on other issues.

Look, I think Obama is a very good person and I am not even saying I wouldn't vote for him a third time. However he is falling into a trap many good people fall into. Just because he doesn't want something to be a certain way or feels it is wrong to be that way, doesn't change the fact that it IS that way.

The silly Wheel of Fortune cartoon sums it up.... Stereotyping, labeling go against what his core beliefs of what right and wrong are... But in this case, it IS fundamentalist Islam and they do intend to hurt us based on their religious beliefs.

 

Obama is naive, incompetent, arrogant and blind to what is happening around him. This is an "emperor has no clothes" issue. Obama is isolated and surrounded by advisers who do not share the truth with him. He's lost and ignorant to what is going on.

And, Obama once again has blood on his hands for helping to create the "overly politically correct" environment that led to the neighbor not reporting these terrorists for fear of "racial profiling" or being labeled a racist. That got people killed.

 

Texx did you ever figure out what Per Capita was or are you still struggling with it?

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">New York sheriff urges residents to carry their licensed guns in wake of new attacks in US. <a href="https://t.co/3Se5UtKh3z">https://t.co/3Se5UtKh3z</a> <a href="https://t.co/Z6co2RCJCX">pic.twitter.com/Z6co2RCJCX</a></p>&mdash; NBC Nightly News (@NBCNightlyNews) <a href="https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/672887471160606720">December 4, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

Maybe we're already at war. How silly of me.

The U.S. is running out of bombs to drop on ISIS
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs-missiles-isis/index.html

 

Kind of a stupid article, IMO.

 

He never said it was not terrorism.

I think you should read this and it will explain why Obama AND the FBI are not yet calling this terrorism:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/fbi-definition-of-terrorism/418722/

Terrorism is a technical definition. And right now, the motive is still shaky in terms of what was going on. Terrorism isn't just about killing a lot of people in the name of religion - it's about trying to strike fear in a larger group. There are some strange things missing from this case - if their intent was to strike fear in people - why did they delete everything and try to leave no tracks?

 

Obama was pretty quick to jump to conclusions (which proved wrong) on the Trayvon Martin case....It's funny how he's only willing to "jump to conclusions" when it comes to narratives he wants to further. He's not even willing to "use his brain to come to the obvious conclusion" when it results in something that doesn't further a narrative he wants furthered.

 

exactly.

 

Amazing.

 

This thread is funny. We all know it was Islamic terrorism, now.

Early on when there were three suspects reported and they were supposedly white non-Muslims, people got mad at anyone who jumped to conclusions before the facts were in on the case.

Then it turns out there were only two suspects who were Muslim, anyone who didn't jump to conclusions was feeding an agenda, and not willing to fight or stand up to combat terrorism. LoL!

I guess it's good what humor we can get from a tragic situation such as this.

Even though the criticism doesn't really make any sense. I mean if Obama had said a day earlier that they believed it was Islamic terrorism would it have somehow been more effective in combatting Islamic terrorism? Would it somehow have helped investigators track down any additional terrorists?

Instead you have people with an agenda thinking they can make some kind of relevant point by criticizing those that didn't jump to a conclusion the second time in this case. Because of course the first time when the conclusion was the shooters were white guys who might not be Muslims.

Great thread guys. Keep it up.

 

Which conclusions were that?

Why should it matter that he didn't publicly jump to what you consider as the "obvious conclusion" in the immediate aftermath of this event, when facts are still being gathered about the suspects? As far as I'm aware, we still don't know the exact cause of this attack or what instigated it. And we don't know the degree of involvement from parties outside the US.

 

You're wrong because facts came out, therefore it was the right time to form a position.

You're really chapped over all this, likely because it doesn't fit the narrative you wish existed. It is best for you to take a couple days off, gather yourself, and then come back refreshed.

 

Keep making up your own stories. I mentioned that it was hilarious. At no point was I chapped about anything posted in this thread. Hardly ever am I chapped about anything that happens on an online forum.

You just made up your own narrative about what you wished happened, but didn't in any way reference my post.

Don't have some research on per capita you should be doing?