It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 156
178
<< 153  154  155    157  158  159 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

REMINDER....


Please keep the discussion about the San Bernardino shootings and the shooters and not about gun control, Obama, global warming, etc.
You are responsible for your own posts.



and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!




posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
officials are calling the house a "bomb making factory" how can that fbi agent really say this isnt some sort of terrorism? americans can make a bomb factory and attack a govt agency and they wont be classified as terrorists? really?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
postly doublus
edit on 3-12-2015 by tonycodes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkipperJohn
a few things,

#1 all day yesterday the media reported the shooters had "long guns" weird as they always called them assault rifles, military style weapons in the past. Why the change now?

#2 would the Government say there hired help ISIS is responsible for the shooting?




To Americans that are less knowledgeable about firearms, "long guns" was used to help create an association with all guns that aren't hand guns. Preps them for additional brainwashing.

EDIT: As someone else mentioned, it is used to help group hunting rifles and shotguns in with assault rifles.
edit on 3-12-2015 by PresidentCamacho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: butcherguy

That is why ISIS or any terrorist group working in the US will never claim to be behind the deeds, because Americas way of tagging violence, domestic, work related, but not terrorism.

Incidents of terrorism will never get a high numbers if they are kept under any other tagging but terrorism.

Politicians can still pursue their agendas, without been call failure to stop terrorism in America, if terrorist acts are never call terrorism.



Have you read or understood anything about ISIS before making this claim? ISIS will absolutely claim an attack if they are behind it (or even if they are not) - One of their Primary Goals is to draw the US (and the armies of the "West") into a land battle in the middle east. They want SO BADLY to get us into an actual war with them so Allah can swoop in and annihilate our armies when all seems lost...

In this shooting, they did not release a video or make any claims or requests (that we know of), so it's not YET meeting the strict definition of terrorism (other than our knee-jerk reaction of the fact they were Islamic, and potentially "radicalized").

I'm not saying it's definitely not terrorism, we need some more pieces (evidence) to be shown.

What I am cautioning though, is for us not to fall right into IS' "trap" of letting them get under our skin so much that we validate their beliefs by bombing the hell out of ALL of them (killing INNOCENT muslims just makes their rhetoric sound more "true"), or engaging in a ground war (which we already tried, and it just spawned what is now the Islamic State!)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: SkipperJohn
Maybe because up till now, your regular rifles and shotguns were safe. They are also considered standard tools and equipment to farm and country folk. So, they have to demonize and villainize them as weapons, so they can take those when the time comes.

It's just my guess. Since they never called them that before, and they already have the majority of the folk agreeing to ban the assault weapons, the next step is to make people afraid of the ones they think are safe.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




Except you go on and on and on and on about how wrong it is, and you are right, but yet have no issues doing it here.


No just pointing out the LACK of consistency.

Hell it was perfectly acceptable day before yesterday.

Now 'not' so much.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
guys really, martial law and taking usa citizen guns away is not for this thread..
edit on 3-12-2015 by tonycodes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: tonycodes

I think they will get to that title eventually.

It is a semi slow process to piece everything together.
In the end though, I believe it will be labeled radicalized terrorism.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: tonycodes
officials are calling the house a "bomb making factory" how can that fbi agent really say this isnt some sort of terrorism? americans can make a bomb factory and attack a govt agency and they wont be classified as terrorists? really?



LOL,

Now that pretty much sums it up!

If there was a cross on his door and they were identified as Christians, Republican, Libertarian, (hell, anything not supported by by the left) it would be settled Terrorism.

This sure as hell was not spur of the moment workplace violence.

www.cnn.com...



A bag believed to belong to the shooters was found in the conference room. Inside, investigators found three rudimentary explosive devices packed with black powder and rigged to a remote-controlled toy car. The remote for the toy car was found inside the SUV, a law enforcement official said.

That means the pair planned to use the remote to detonate the explosives from a distance, the official said. Either it didn't work because of distance or they just didn't do it. Authorities later rendered the explosive devices safe.


edit on 3-12-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Source: CNN

Officials: San Bernardino shooter apparently radicalized, in touch with terror subjects


San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, law enforcement officials said.

It appears that Farook was radicalized, which contributed to his motive, though other things — like workplace grievances — may have also played a role, other law enforcement sources said.


Syed Farook was apparently in contact with several individuals who were being investigated by the FBI.
edit on 3-12-2015 by Bloodydagger because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Darkblade71

well they dont have to call it islamic terrorism now bc thats not fully developed.. but they look dumb when they say this isnt ANY kind of terrorism..



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SkipperJohn

My wife and I both noticed this. It wasn't just CNN either, even Shep on FOX was doing it.

I edited out the gun debate section. We need a new thread on the use of the term long gun in the last two big shootings.
edit on 3-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger
Source: CNN

San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook was in touch over the phone and via social media with more than one international terrorism subject who the FBI were already investigating, law enforcement officials said.

It appears that Farook was radicalized, which contributed to his motive, though other things — like workplace grievances — may have also played a role, other law enforcement sources said.


Syed Farook was apparently in contact with several individuals who were being investigated by the FBI.


That settles it. Just like the Fort Hood shooter was.

Tactical gear, over 1000 rounds of ammo, 'Assault weapons' pipe bombs.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

Its a damn duck.

Terrorism. of the radical islamic kind.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

Now that makes sense. I was wondering why this 'long gun" term suddenly became popular in the media.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
any idea where the gopro claims came from? was that just a click bait someone made?



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: tonycodes


any idea where the gopro claims came from? was that just a click bait someone made?


it was reported last night on all the MSM's just like a third suspect from qatar



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: tonycodes
any idea where the gopro claims came from? was that just a click bait someone made?


During the presser earlier.

They said that was not confirmed.

So that's anyones guess.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Yep, exactly.



posted on Dec, 3 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
NY Times actually has a decent summary:
F.B.I Treating San Bernardino Attack as Counterterrorism Investigation

I thought this particular section was interesting, as it sums up one big reason why I think so many (especially on a conspiracy-minded site) are having trouble with this:




“You don’t take your wife to a workplace shooting, and especially not as prepared as they were,” said a senior law enforcement official briefed on the investigation. “He could have been radicalized, ready to go with some type of attack, and then had a dispute at work and decided to do something.”

Two other senior United States security officials said that F.B.I. counter-terrorism officials were overseeing the investigation because of the possibility that it might be terrorism, not because they had concluded that it was.

The officials called the case perplexing, saying that no clear evidence of terrorism had emerged and that there were some signs pointing away from it. But they said the shooting was clearly premeditated, and does not fit the mold for typical workplace violence incidents. The idea that this was a workplace argument that spiraled out of control seems far-fetched now, the officials said, given the explosives and the preparation. An overnight review of Mr. Farook’s electronic devices has not provided clear answers to these questions, but the officials noted that the investigation is in its early phases.


So as some speculated in this thread earlier, that seems to be the most likely motive: They were PLANNING some sort of full on terror attack, but something happened that prompted a moving up of their schedule, so it's some bizarre mix of terrorism, premeditated violence, and workplace retaliation?

Also, I find it weird that the title of the article is: F.B.I Treating San Bernardino Attack as Counterterrorism Investigation, yet in the article they say, "Two other senior United States security officials said that F.B.I. counter-terrorism officials were overseeing the investigation because of the possibility that it might be terrorism, not because they had concluded that it was."
Is it just me or is that contradictory?


edit on 12/3/2015 by uberdave223 because: fix URL, add thought about article title



new topics

top topics



 
178
<< 153  154  155    157  158  159 >>

log in

join