<BREAKING> Active Shooter in San Bernardino, California

It would have given him more credibility and calmed america down a bit assuring them he was working to solve a problem (which granted would mean nothing) instead of being terrified to even call it for what it is. I'm honestly shocked "workplace violence" was even a term used as it is a meme at this point.

 

Two Muslim suspects, one of whom at least seems to sympathize with a well known terror group. Stockpiling weapons, bombs. Claims by witnesses that they were meeting with other unknown people recently. This is what I can recall from yesterday's news.

Then there's also these apparent facts:
- There is no terrorist group taking credit for the attack.
- The suspects apparently made an effort to erase information suggesting a terroristic motive for the attack.
- The entire event seemed to be precipitated by an argument at an office party involving one of the suspects.

So, putting everything we know together, what's your position on what we're dealing with here?

 

Uhm... It would only give credibility in the eyes of people who were irrationally scared because of this incident. Folks that like calm measured approaches where folks don't jump to conclusions and wait for actual facts and evidence would be reassured.

I stated that no matter who the shooters were it was terrorism from the beginning even though my definition doesn't fit the official definition. So I didn't even have a horse in the race.

It well could have been workplace violence if these Islamic terrorists who carried it out also had another more high profile target in mind which would explain all of the additional ammo they had (which wouldn't be needed if the holiday luncheon was their only target). It would also explain the witnesses reports that there were angry words/arguments/screaming between one of the suspects and others at the location before the shooting happened.

I don't think any of those that said that it might be workplace violence denied that there were problems with the idea that it was only workplace violence because it was obviously preplanned out, and had been in preparation for some time.

These tragedies are horrible, but the irrational fear about them is what makes it the worst. Very few Muslims will ever carry out an action like this, almost nobody will ever be part of an attack like this, and even still nobody denies that the possibility exists and that people should be vigilant.

 

This is a post full of fluff. Once the name went public within hours of the shooting everyone knew the story except the president. It makes him look clueless and lack credibility. Just saying the words "workplace violence" was a gaff. The attempt to use it to promote gun control is fair play as he said he would use every tragedy for that purpose. But the white house has really looked foolish the last few days.

 

That's all everyone needed to figure it all out, huh? Just a Muslim-sounding name?

 

Anyone that thinks a Muslim sounding name is proof of Islamic terrorism is part of the problem.

It isn't an effective way to conduct a war on terrorism, or an effective way to investigate a crime.

Again, those with an irrational fear may need to be reassured in that fear, but other folks would rather have a fact-based course of action.

 

Combined with multiple shooters toting AK-47's, yeah I think it isn't too hard to figure out. The president has the advantage of reports directly from the FBI so he knew much more than I did 48 hours ago when I was laughing at RJ for calling it workplace violence. What facts came out before you came to the same realization?

I agree. But that was never the only information available. And certainly not the only available to the president.

 

Okay, glad to clear up the name thing. Anyway, the FBI had not stated that it was Islamic terrorism yet, so there was no reason for the President to declare it. Waiting for more facts still seemed like the best course of action.

 

WHEN did the FBI called it as terrorism? Was it the same time Obama made his remarks?.

 

Doesn't matter: the UK is already prepping for a three-year war in Syria. Let's just assume we're going to war again no matter where all our shooters are from.

 

He could wait all he wants but every hour he waited he lost credibility. And if he wanted to wait for more facts the white house should have never brought up the notion of workplace violence. Workplace violence has been a meme since the jihadism at Fort Hood.

 

Is it not possible that its a combination of both that compelled them to go through with it? That is, one of the suspects had a personal issue with his workplace, and the couple were also in part ideologically motivated to carry out an attack?

 

This is just so weird to me:

 

So you still are not considering this to be a case of jihadism. I would say that opinion represents a small minority compared to most americans.

 

I don't think you understood my question. By "ideologically motivated", I am referring to jihadism. What I was asking was if we know that this is the only motive for the attack. Considering there is some evidence also suggesting one of the suspects was a disgruntled employee, who's to say that is not also a factor here? If it wasn't a factor why would the suspect choose to attack his former workplace, anyway?

 

Your question was

"That's all everyone needed to figure it all out, huh? Just a Muslim-sounding name?"

I said no and listed the other factors. Then I asked

"What facts came out before you came to the same realization?"

To which you came back with talk that led me to believe you had yet to accept this as a case of jihadism. Was I wrong there? If not when did you accept it?

 

I have yet to conclude that jihadism is the sole motivation for the attack. But it was obvious to me to be (at least) a major factor once I learned that the couple had some ties with people on the FBI watch list and the backstory of the wife and her sympathies to ISIS.

 

So you prefer the President to jump to conclusion? Or do you prefer him to only mention terrorist and not workplace violence 2 days ago? Or you prefer him to be silence and not mention anything?

This is what he said shortly after the attack.

As you can see, he bought up the possibilities of terrorist, of work place violence or a mix of them because all three were possible. And you know what, work place violence and thus a mix of them has not been ruled out.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...a-terrorism-possible-calif-shooting/76719644/

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/04/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Everyone in the country except Obama and Durvasa has figured that out.