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: 179
178
<< 176  177  178    180  181  182 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Double post again?
edit on 4-12-2015 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

ATTENTION!!!!!!


This thread is for updates about the shooting.
Not gun control.

This warning will not be repeated.
Warnings will be issued.
You are responsible for your own posts.

The following is more for that "other" debate:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!
edit on Fri Dec 4 2015 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: THEatsking
Oh boy, those numbers are so far off.


There have been 352 mass shootings THIS YEAR only.... a mass shooting is defined as 4 or more deaths in that stat.
Looked at the page for 10 seconds and saw that error.

Stat





In 2013 it was around 250 mass shootings,butt the term is mis leading it also includes GANG KILLINGS and others not just what was seen here. Gang killings usually involve other gang members so really who cares about them? they are already criminals so let em kill each other off. SInce 2013 it has risen to a TOTAL of 352 not just this year. your stats are wrong too.


Sorry I was wrong, 355 Mass shootings (of four or more people dying) this year (as of 2 days ago.).. Not wrong, fact.
355 x 4= 1420 minimum deaths (which isn't an accurate number since 4 deaths is the minimum amount of deaths used to count as a mass shooting)

And no, you can't exclude certain types of shootings because you feel like it, lol



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

edit on 12jY by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Indigo5

His point (I believe), and I agree, is that there is little difference between the xenophobic rants on gun control and the xenophobic rants about terrorism.


Put bluntly...You don't seem to understand the definition of "Xenophobia" and there-in lies the fundamental disconnect in equating a gun control debate to bigotry and xenophobia. It is also that disconnect that keeps derailing this thread into a play of victimhood by the NRA crowd.

xen·o·pho·bi·a
noun: xenophobia
intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries

People being beaten, shot and killed on the streets of the USA because of their religion or ethnicity has no equal to gun-owners advocating lesser restrictions on gun ownership.

It is simply a bizarre and off-topic comparison.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Indigo5

I don't disagree, but what makes you think this is a 'lone wolf' scenario?

Every single piece of evidence so far points to exactly the opposite...despite the left's unending rhetoric to make it seem otherwise.



This is not a "left" or "right" thing...Jesus...Nothing personal, but stop with the politics...really who gives a crap? ISIS did not have political discussions with the Americans it executed to first discern Left or Right.

This is a battle...and to infer that the "left" is somehow less interested in winning the battle is just stupid...this isn't the place to bait.

To your question...My principle suspicion that this is "lone wolf" or Psuedo-Lone Wolf...is target selection. If ISIS leadership was outright directing them, then they would have chosen a more symbolically valuable target vs. just some guys employer he was mad at. They wouldn't waste the resources and opportunity that way IMO. It might very well be "inspired"...it might have well been "encouraged"....but if ISIS knows it has someone willing and able to do this and they invest in the plan, they would choose the target and it wouldn't be the place where the guy worked.

Just my thinking, we can see what the facts show when they uncover more.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

People being beaten, shot and killed on the streets of the USA because of their religion or ethnicity has no equal to gun-owners advocating lesser restrictions on gun ownership.

Again, I am not taking sides, just looking at the comments being posted.

While this thread is supposed to be focused on the "San Bernardino, Calif., fire units responding to reports of 20-victim shooting incident -", a large number of news reports about this case is including discussions of gun control.

One of the first news reports about the incident included a statement made by the President regarding gun control.

As I have said twice before, I am not taking sides on this issue, in this thread, but it does seem to be on topic if the updated information being dispensed by the media, continues to include comments regarding gun control.

I could be wrong, it just seems to be a big part of what is being reported, along with the updated information.

Maybe it is because they don't have anymore information about the case so they are using this as a promotional opportunity.







edit on 4-12-2015 by NightSkyeB4Dawn because: Fixed transfer glitch.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn


edit on 4-12-2015 by research100 because: WILL FIX LATER



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords

It's getting harder and harder to actually know if there is a difference.


....

That pretty girl wearing a hijab you saw at the mall could be another Tashfeen, right?




So I cite an innocent cabbie in NYC that was shot by some guy ranting about ISIS and you respond with a post that starts and ends with the above?

It is that kind of fear mongering that leads to innocent people being killed...as pointed as that is...it's unfortunately the truth.

Check yourself.

It has ALWAYS been hard to spot evil...whether it be a neighbor or a priest...and skin color or religion is not a sign or guarantor of sanity or trustworthiness or danger.

That has always been the world.

You want to start interment camps...you become the evil you fear.
edit on 4-12-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Maybe that’s just a colleague grasping for ways to reconcile how the guy he chatted with at the water cooler could turn around and commit mass murder. A terrorist was hiding in plain sight at work and no one figured it out? Why, he must have been manipulated. Cherchez la femme. The fact that Malik actually took time during the attack to post something about ISIS seems to prove, though, that she a willing co-conspirator. How willing? According to the LA Times, she was the one firing a semiautomatic rifle at cops from the back of the SUV when they were in pursuit after the attack. (So much for her lawyer’s theory that she was too small to wield a weapon like that.) She and Farook apparently met online in 2013 and then married last year, when he brought her from Saudi Arabia to the U.S. on a fiancee visa. Was that online relationship a love connection or a matter of recruiting an American citizen to bring a jihadi operative legally into the United States? (Remember, Farook was reportedly talking to at least one international terror suspect by phone or social media.) Then again, if this was all a ruse to position her inside the U.S. for an attack, why did they have a baby together


Interesting read.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: research100

How is it possible she has a license from 2004-2009 if she has only been in country for 2 years-ish?



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: research100
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

someone asked for a photo of the terrorist wife here is her drivers liceanse pic


[ IMG]http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k45/liBBY-_/above%20topsecret/th_2F102E9A00000578-3345982-image-a-27_1449250663280%20female%20terrorist.jpg[/IMG ]


First thought? The family lawyer on CNN made the argument that things did not "add-up" and that she was "90 pounds" and incapable of maneuvering in the vest and heavy gear with a gun etc...

That DL if real has her at 170lbs



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: research100
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

someone asked for a photo of the terrorist wife here is her drivers liceanse pic


[ IMG]http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k45/liBBY-_/above%20topsecret/th_2F102E9A00000578-3345982-image-a-27_1449250663280%20female%20terrorist.jpg[/IMG ]


Actually...your post is BS...it also has her BDay as 1953...making her 62 years old?



new topics

top topics



 
178
<< 176  177  178    180  181  182 >>

log in

join