San Bernardino, Calif., fire units responding to reports of 20-victim shooting incident -

originally posted by: theonenonlyone
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I see what you are trying to do there and I find that it works on people who can be easily swayed.

You basically twisted what I intended into something that fits your point of view.

Turning my statement from fanatics exist in all religions into Christians are the real victims.

Nice try.

What I am trying to do? The article is obviously trying to pull at heart strings for tens of thousands of one religion and almost scoff at the hundred of thousands of another. Sorry, but skewed reporting doesn't cut it for me. I would say that Muslims pushed so hard and so long in that country that the Christians are now finally pushing back. If nobody will do anything about the fanatics then the non-fanatics will do something about it themselves eventually. People can only take so much before snapping and when you have hundreds of thousands that have had to flee one religions persecution because they want to take over, eventually they will fight back....similar to how it is happening now.

I don't know what you intended, but my point of view has nothing to do with it. The article focused on the smaller group as if they somehow matter more than the larger group, regardless of religion. I would ask why they chose to report on the smaller group more than anything....brings agendas that much more to light.

a reply to: Shamrock6

but will "be vigilant about getting the facts before reaching a judgement."

In between the lines: They will be told what judgement to reach.

a reply to: neo96

and a extra to add.

from the wiki,

Semi-automatic firearms that the state has classified as assault weapons, .50 BMG caliber rifles, and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition may not be sold in California. Possession of automatic firearms, and of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, is generally prohibited.

Assault weapon law, §12280, §12285

Illegal to possess, import, or purchase assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles, unless such weapons were acquired by the owner prior to June 1, 1989. While California's Assault Weapons Ban does allow individuals to obtain, transport or possess banned weapons with permission from the DOJ, the DOJ generally does not grant such permission to ordinary citizens. Legally defined assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles listed by make and model by the DOJ must be registered. Their sale and transfer is prohibited. Military look-alike rifles that are not chambered for .50 BMG and are not on the DOJ roster are legal to purchase or possess, with some restrictions in configuration – known as "banned features". Active-duty military members residing out of state and assigned to duty in California may bring personally-owned assault weapons into the state. The military member's residence must be in a state that permits private citizens to own and possess assault weapons, and the firearms must be registered with the California Department of Justice prior to the servicemember's arrival in California by submitting the registration form with a copy of the member's Permanent Change of Station (PCS) orders and an authorization letter from the installation commander.

Detachable Magazine Capacity Restriction §32310

Section 32310 of the Penal Code states: "commencing January 1, 2000, any person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, or receives any large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment". Thus, the offenses listed can be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor at the discretion of the prosecutor.[9] The section continues further by explaining that: "'manufacturing' includes both fabricating a magazine and assembling a magazine from a combination of parts, including, but not limited to, the body, spring, follower, and floor plate or end plate, to be a fully functioning large-capacity magazine". Until January 1, 2014, it was only a crime to "manufacture, import, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, or give or lend any large-capacity magazine". Assembly Bill 48 was signed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 11, 2013 and expanded previous prohibitions by making it illegal to buy or receive a large-capacity magazine or magazine rebuild kit.[10] Peace officers (under Penal Code Section 830) and "person licensed pursuant to [CA Penal Code] Sections 26700 to 26915" are exempt this prohibition on the purchase and sale of large-capacity magazines for personal use. However, federal law enforcement officers are not exempt and must obtain large-capacity magazines through their agency.[11] It is noteworthy that mere possession of a large-capacity magazine is not, in and of itself, a violation of the California Penal Code. That said, the City of Sunnyvale (Chapter 9.44 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code)[12] and the City and County of San Francisco (Article 9, Section 619 of the San Francisco Police Code)[13] have enacted ordinances that make mere possession of large-capacity magazines a misdemeanor offense within their respective city limits. The Los Angeles City Council has passed a resolution stating they want to draft an ordinance similar to those in Sunnyvale and San Francisco but no actual ordinance has been passed.[14]

a reply to: gwynnhwyfar

It sure would be interesting if it turned out the site is being used to recruit and radicalize through marriage, though, wouldn't it?

My thoughts were much simpler.

I was thinking it would be a clever way to communicate clandestinely.

It might prove interesting to read some of the actual conversational exchanges, and to check if he had profiles on any of the other ME social media sites.

Teens have been using apps and social media sites to circumvent the scrunity of their parents for quite a while now. They have their own code and even have alternate sites they kick to. I can see how this can work in the favor or those trying to circumvent, the law or surveillance.

Or my tinfoil hat might just be a little too tight.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I guess all we knew and thought we knew about how our government keeps record and vigilance to possible radicalized individuals, travels and associations is wrong.

In America is not good to tag people due to religious affiliations, races or gender.

So, no wonder so many "persons of interest" has gotten lost of sight, and off their radars.

Or is not enough funding to keep America safe from terrorist.

I DO find it curious that on one hand, the msm and the left really really want Farook to be a "nutter" who freaked out at the office and went on a spontaneous 'workplace violence' rampage; his motives completely devoid of any religious or political ideology (i.e. Radical Islamic Terrorism)...

...while, on the other hand, the msm and the left bent over backwards to portray 'Dear',..not as just some 'crazy loon in a cabin', but a Right Wing Christian militant.

The number of wounded has risen from 14 to 21.

14 dead, total wounded raised to 21. #SanBernardino mass shooting. Watch live briefing here: t.co...— KSLA News 12 (@KSLA) December 3, 2015

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: theonenonlyone
a reply to: Vasa Croe

I see what you are trying to do there and I find that it works on people who can be easily swayed.

You basically twisted what I intended into something that fits your point of view.

Turning my statement from fanatics exist in all religions into Christians are the real victims.

Nice try.

What I am trying to do? The article is obviously trying to pull at heart strings for tens of thousands of one religion and almost scoff at the hundred of thousands of another. Sorry, but skewed reporting doesn't cut it for me. I would say that Muslims pushed so hard and so long in that country that the Christians are now finally pushing back. If nobody will do anything about the fanatics then the non-fanatics will do something about it themselves eventually. People can only take so much before snapping and when you have hundreds of thousands that have had to flee one religions persecution because they want to take over, eventually they will fight back....similar to how it is happening now.

I don't know what you intended, but my point of view has nothing to do with it. The article focused on the smaller group as if they somehow matter more than the larger group, regardless of religion. I would ask why they chose to report on the smaller group more than anything....brings agendas that much more to light.

You would be correct in than the Christians are fighting back but does that make the acts they are committing less atrocious than the acts committed by ISIS?

No, an act of brutality is no better under one religion than another.

the fbi agent said this doesnt fit the fbi's definition of terrorism? what definition is that?

a reply to: tonycodes

Yes, but the response to that kind of got me thinking if he was under surveillance, when the police official said that they needed to screen the videos first to make sure they do not expose anybody as per police? or agents?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
I DO find it curious that on one hand, the msm and the left really really want Farook to be a "nutter" who freaked out at the office and went on a spontaneous 'workplace violence' rampage; his motives completely devoid of any religious or political ideology (i.e. Radical Islamic Terrorism)...

...while, on the other hand, the msm and the left bent over backwards to portray 'Dear',..not as just some 'crazy loon in a cabin', but a Right Wing Christian militant.

It just goes over everyone's head. No one believes 'he wasn't just some crazy loon in a cabin'

But it must be referred to as a christian terrorist until the muslims are no longer discriminated against. It's a point to the christians and instead of taking and understanding the point, they turn it into the 'oh my goodness, woe is me' attitude.

I'm a white christian by the way.

a reply to: marg6043

oh ok i gotchya.. yea they are witholding some info... and can someone post what the fbi's specific definition of terrorism.. im not getting an exact google search..

What the hell is going on in the world, looks like another attack with terroristic motives..

Innocent people again died today , my thoughts are with them .

The fact that this was husband and wife, they had a 6 month old baby, they were Arabic, presumably muslim. Ages about right for sleepers. They dumped their baby which suggests they were called upon and the mission was more important and their held for a long time goal. They were tooled up and wearing sky masks. This is a terrorist act by radical sleepers.

An everyday husband and wife with 6 month old baby don't suddenly forget it and dump it and leave it without parents.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Bloodydagger
although, I dare say, having a baby come into your life might just give that worthless life a bit of meaning?

Depends what kind of parents they are honestly. But yeah, I see what you mean.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Bloodydagger
although, I dare say, having a baby come into your life might just give that worthless life a bit of meaning?

Depends what kind of parents they are honestly. But yeah, I see what you mean.

a reply to: 0bserver1

What the hell is going on in the world, looks like another attack with terroristic motives..

looks like a duck and quacks duck, most likely is a duck

the reporters just laughed at the officer when he said the third suspect wasnt involved

Just to make it explicitly clear here in the forums: The individuals were not carrying GoPro cameras.

It was denied twice in the press conference.

the fbi agent said this doesnt fit the fbi's definition of terrorism? what definition is that?

The FBI agent said that they have a very specific definition of terrorism. He also said that they cannot call it terrorism before they have a motive.

a reply to: marg6043

Looks like he had some known associations with those being watched.


www.cnn.com...

Syed Rizwan Farook -- one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre -- was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.

Farook's apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.

Still, it wasn't necessarily the only driver behind the carnage, as workplace grievances may have also played a role. President Barack Obama hinted as much Thursday when he said that the attackers may have had "mixed motives."

Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia for several weeks in 2013 on the Hajj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca that Muslims are required to take at least once in their lifetime, which didn't raise red flags, said two government officials. It was during this trip that he met Malik, a native of Pakistan who came to the United States on a "fiancée visa" and later became a lawful permanent resident.

Officials had previously said that neither Farook and Malik were known to the FBI or on a list of potentially radicalized people. Nor had they had any known interactions with police until Wednesday's deadly shootout that culminated in their deaths.

Yet Farook himself had communicated by phone and via social media with more than one person being investigated for terrorism, law enforcement officials said. A separate U.S. government official said the 28-year-old has "overseas communications and associations."

As to what role those all played in the San Bernardino carnage, the official acknowledged, " We don't know yet what they mean."