"Lone wolves" doesn't mean they weren't influenced by DAESH and other extremist groups. It just means that they weren't in coordination or officially part of a larger structure. They might've just destroyed them to cover up DAESH literature or else their own plans for further attacks. It is certainly possible they are part of a larger attack but given that there weren't other attacks that day and there was a very personal attachment to the target it would seem strange that they were part of a larger plot. It is also possible that they are part of a larger plot and they went rogue because the husband couldn't control their personal feelings. As I said there is a lot we don't know about this and this is unlike any other terrorist attack.
Here's some more speculation. It sounds like the wife was the one who was initially radicalized and she radicalized her husband. What if DAESH didn't fully trust the husband so didn't include them in a larger plan. The husband and wife still considered themselves Jihadis and went ahead with their own plan. If I recall correctly Moussoiu (sp) who had been considered the 20th hijacker for 9/11 wasn't considered by Al Qaeda as being very capable and as a screwup. While he went through some training including taking flight classes wasn't part of the 9/11 plot.
Look, I'm extremely concerned about the situation regardless. It was only a matter of time before more attacks hit US soil and I don't expect this to be the last, nor do I expect anything less than the frequency to increase. But unfortunately, as a society we focus on the aspects that don't matter instead of those that are controllable. What is know is that they were at a minimum influenced by ISIS as the Boston Bombers were at least minimally influenced by external propoganda. This is not something that we can monitor effectively and in reality, no matter how splendid we think our government is, there is nothing they can do about it. Keep your mind and eyes open. Quit passing judgement on color of skin and instead focus on the beauty of the soul and the pain of suffering soul. Help your fellow man and be compassionate. Keep religious views to yourself. Allow everyone the ability to make choices as you have been given.
too elaborate a bit on that thought.... we seem to enjoy conflict as a society. Hell, even in clutchfans we have a forum dedicated to flinging poo, belittling others, while pushing an agenda that is strictly believed in by an individual. there is no real drive to go into the forum to open your mind and potentially change your views. People just seem to enjoy saying their view is the best and yelling louder than the other person. Blow this up onto a global level and add the ability to create wars and you have the middle east and soon to be the whole world.
I largely agree and admit I'm just engaging in speculation to try to understand the situation. I agree to combating an ideology is very difficult to do and not really something that our law enforcement and national security system is set up to do. Bombs and jails can't really kill an idea. Consider that even though Nazi Germany was destroyed and reviled as the evilest regime that ever existed there still are Nazis and people who ascribe to their ideas. What I've stated in the D&D thread is that we can make it more difficult for them to get the means and methods. We can improve our intelligence gathering and we can try to cut off support. This is one reason why I've been critical of blanket denunciations of Islam and Muslims. To find the radicals and the terrorists we need Muslims willing to work with authorities to identify who these people are. We also need Muslim communities to prevent their own people from joining such groups. That is hard to do when they keep on hearing denunciations of themselves and their religion.
agree with the majority of your sentiment, just think you've missed how many religious fanatics have done things in the name of christ. It's not a specific ideology - it's any ideology that becomes radicalized. Not limited to muslims and having been in india many, many times and developing a solid network of friends who are muslim - I can honestly say that people are people. (insert depeche mode)
The burdens of a free society. You can't control all the people. You can't know what everyone is up to. The only way to combat this is to remove our freedoms and have "Big Brother" (ala "1984") controlling us and continually spying on us with brutal forces taking out the bad seeds while keeping the mice in line. The only real way to control this is to remove our freedoms. Otherwise, as much as Homeland Security and everyone else tries to stop stuff like this, there will always be the ones who went undetected. I will say that if such attacks become a common thing...then what we will see is less and less tolerance. Everyone knows this country was built by immigrants and with that came racism, slavery, and stereotyping. And, that still goes on to this day. It wasn't too long ago when 'Murica put Japanese civilians in internment camps thereby basically saying they were all guilty by association. Let us hope the government can get a handle on this before it does go out of control. "Lone wolf attacks" went from being far and few between to a common occurrence. No one (or not enough people) with any power wants to do anything about gun control. Somehow, I don't think our forefathers pictured these scenarios when they came up with the second amendment. But, you remove the guns and then you got Paris anyway. The guns will always make their way where they are needed whether legally or illegally. Gun control...if employed to the fullest...is still just an inconvenience to the evil-doers. You couldn't control it any more than you could control drugs. In summary, society is *****ed. Watch your backs...watch what people are doing around you. If someone gets up to leave and looks angry or suspicious, then you might want to take a bathroom break.
I largely agree. Freedom of movement and information means that both dangerous ideas and dangerous people will persist and spread. I doubt most of us would be willing to trade those for greater security. Further attempting to stop the free movement of info and people might also lead to more support for terrorism of all stripes. We've already seen paranoia from the right wing side for things like Jade Helm can you imagine what would happen if the government really did deploy troops to prevent people from traveling across state lines. Quite possibly yes and given the rhetoric coming from people like Trump we might not be that far off. Such a solution is inherently problematic. Muslim isn't a race or ethnic group and as we've seen there are many who have been targeted as Muslims who aren't (Sikhs and others from Indian subcontinent). Most importantly though DAESH and Al Qaeda like to speak of this as a clash of civilizations and they are the one's who are the defenders of Islam if the US and other Western government start rounding up Muslims and putting them in camps that just plays right into their narrative. Let's put this in perspective. This attack, the attack on Boston and other Islamic terrorists attacks are horrible but still are very rare occurrences. The vast majority of mass shootings and killings in this country have nothing to do with Islam. I don't have stats but just guessing that the likelihood that any given person in public at any time will become a victim of Islamic terrorism is probably less than the odds of getting attacked by a shark while winning the lottery. Even besides the extremely low probability of becoming a victim of terrorism in this country I still wouldn't let the fear of it change or dominate my life. "Terrorism" by definition is about using fear for an end. Scum like DAESH want us to be afraid. I choose not to be. True determined people will probably figure out a way to get lethal force. That said though why should we make it easy for them to do so? The fact is that these killers got their weapons legally and the casualties they inflicted were from firearms. From the reports it sounds like most of their bombs didn't work because it's actually not that easy to make a practical bomb. Further gun control isn't just about preventing getting weapons but the ability to track and control the movement of firearms. After the Paris attacks one of the co-conspirators was caught by tracking where they got their weapons from. In the US local gun control is hampered by the free movement of goods across states while the ATF doesn't even have a digital database to track gun sales and conduct background checks. Anyway it is a mistake to use this particular situation to argue against gun control. Gun control isn't just about stopping Islamic terrorists since the majority of mass shootings have nothing to do with Islam. Gun control in terms of preventing the Jame's Holmes, Chois and Loughners of the world (people with known mental illness) from getting firearms. We should be doing that anyway. When I teach self-defense I always focus on: 1. Awareness 2. Avoidance 3. Evasion We should always be aware of our surroundings and who is around us. This isn't just about dealing with a potential attacker but in case of other emergencies. Knowing where the exits are could save your life both in the case of a mass shooting and also in a fire. It is always the best policy to avoid danger if you can and if you find yourself in a dangerous situation evading is better than trying to fight it. Again this applies to both an attacker and something like a fire. In both cases to effectively combat it requires training and physical ability which most people don't have. Fighting for most people should be the last resort when the other options are unavailable. Especially in the case of a shooter. Even if you're armed. A shootout with many other people around puts others in danger from the cross fire. Also in a chaotic situation like a mass shooting it may be difficult for LE to distinguish a well meaning armed civilian from the shooter.
True with most ideologies there is a danger of radicalization. There have even been Buddhist groups who committed terrorism. Combating an ideology is an inherently difficult thing and I don't really have any good answers to it.
I dont get your point. Are you suggesting their is no difference between a mentally ill person and a terrorist? Or are you not able to distinguish the difference?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SanBernardino?src=hash">#SanBernardino</a> Shooter Visited 11 School Cafeterias. Thank God he's dead. Kids cld've EASILY been his next target. <a href="https://t.co/zceTtBi10q">https://t.co/zceTtBi10q</a></p>— Shaughn (@Shaughn_A) <a href="https://twitter.com/Shaughn_A/status/674690380823040000">December 9, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
He's saying non-muslim shootings are classified as mentally ill, whether it's been proven the shooter was mentally ill or not. I'm sure one can make the case that any shooter is mentally ill though. You don't kill people in cold blood because you're mentally healthy.
Perfectly logical if you believe doing so will grant you an eternity of paradise and save your family from hell.
I'm sure Adam Lanza thought it was perfectly logical to shoot kids because he was mad at the world, too.
What is you basis for that? I think any reasonable person would do all kinds of things for an eternity if paradise. You don't have to be crazy. I would do some messed up stuff to save my family from eternity in hell if I believed it.
If that's what my religion wanted me to do, then I'd probably not believe in it anymore, but maybe that's just me....or I'd help my family do something else that would save them from hell....just seems llke some pretty backwards logic, to be saved by killing innocent people.
