(12-08-2015 05:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 04:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  See if you can follow:

Owl posted a theory.
I posted that if that theory was true it would make it partially workplace violence.
His theory can in no way be proven since the shooter is dead.
So no way a workplace violence conclusion can be reached.

I only posted what I did because I was shocked that someone like Owl would reach this conclusion based on his normal positions on things.

That's it. It's not my position now or then. Move along.

I see you are trying to backtrack...

(12-04-2015 06:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My theory. He was part of a cell that was planning something bigger. He got pissed off at somebody in the office and went off the ranch. Just a guess. The rest of his cell is probably mega-pissed.

(12-07-2015 06:03 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  WMD,

I find you a thoughtful, knowledgable, and well meaning conservative. Do you have any ideas of what we could possibly do to keep these weapons out of the crazies hands? I'm interested in your opinion.

I'd be just as interested to get ideas on how to keep them out of thugs from Chicago and elsewhere's hands. It doesn't stop them and I'm sure they wouldn't be interested in legal means of acquiring weapons. Sheesers.


When only the government has weapons you lose your freedom. It happens in every country. That's what the socialist administration of obama wants. It's simple. I don't see why you can't see this.

Turns out that Marquez (the seller of the weapons to the Terrorists) is a Muslim Convert and attends the same Mosque as some members of Farook's family.

He's now out of the Mental Hospital and talking to the Feds. I bet he drops Mom into the grease.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/clues-san-berna...d=35645231

(12-08-2015 06:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 05:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 04:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  See if you can follow:
Owl posted a theory.
I posted that if that theory was true it would make it partially workplace violence.
His theory can in no way be proven since the shooter is dead.
So no way a workplace violence conclusion can be reached.
I only posted what I did because I was shocked that someone like Owl would reach this conclusion based on his normal positions on things.
That's it. It's not my position now or then. Move along.

I see you are trying to backtrack...

(12-04-2015 06:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My theory. He was part of a cell that was planning something bigger. He got pissed off at somebody in the office and went off the ranch. Just a guess. The rest of his cell is probably mega-pissed.

Umm, since words have been put into my mouth suggesting that this may have been workplace violence, let me take those words back out and say no, this is not workplace violence. It may have occurred at the workplace, but there is no indication of any work-related motivation. He wasn't accumulating a small arsenal because some supervisor isn't give him the promotion he taught he deserved. He was accumulating a small arsenal in the interests of jihad. The incident that occurred in the workplace that appears to have triggered this was about Islam, not work.

And what is it about my "normal positions on things" that would cause you to be surprised by my comments regarding this?

(12-09-2015 10:28 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 06:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 05:04 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-08-2015 04:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  See if you can follow:
Owl posted a theory.
I posted that if that theory was true it would make it partially workplace violence.
His theory can in no way be proven since the shooter is dead.
So no way a workplace violence conclusion can be reached.
I only posted what I did because I was shocked that someone like Owl would reach this conclusion based on his normal positions on things.
That's it. It's not my position now or then. Move along.

I see you are trying to backtrack...

(12-04-2015 06:42 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  My theory. He was part of a cell that was planning something bigger. He got pissed off at somebody in the office and went off the ranch. Just a guess. The rest of his cell is probably mega-pissed.

Umm, since words have been put into my mouth suggesting that this may have been workplace violence, let me take those words back out and say no, this is not workplace violence. It may have occurred at the workplace, but there is no indication of any work-related motivation. He wasn't accumulating a small arsenal because some supervisor isn't give him the promotion he taught he deserved. He was accumulating a small arsenal in the interests of terror. The incident that occurred in the workplace that appears to have triggered this was about Islam, not work.

And what is it about my "normal positions on things" that would cause you to be surprised by my comments regarding this?

There you go RWT....

It has been disclosed that the two shooters were radicalized long before they met and that they had plans to carry out attacks at schools. Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained. Obama just refuses to admit to the problem of radicalized ISLAM because it doesn't fit his political narrative. I hope you libs that declared the San Bernadino incident as workplace violence aren't as stupid now as you were then, but I imagine you are.

(12-09-2015 11:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained.

I wouldn't be too worried. Now we have women in infantry units.

(12-09-2015 11:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  It has been disclosed that the two shooters were radicalized long before they met and that they had plans to carry out attacks at schools. Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained. Obama just refuses to admit to the problem of radicalized ISLAM because it doesn't fit his political narrative. I hope you libs that declared the San Bernadino incident as workplace violence aren't as stupid now as you were then, but I imagine you are.

Why are we so hung up on what Obama says in public about levels of radicalization or placing blame on a religion or semantics on containment?

Obama asked for Congressional authorization to deal with Syria months ago and they ignored it.
We've been bombing them for a year. Thousands of runs and hundreds of bombings.
We've killed scores of ISIS leaders.
We're sending in special forces to train and assist...and sometimes even fight
Obama has still been asking for Congress for an authorization to deal with ISIS, and they still ignore it.

Please answer some questions:

What should he do different, OTHER than calling them Islamic radicals?
Do you want him to send in ground troops to defeat ISIS?
If so, how should we pay for it?
And most importantly, what would the clear definition of the mission be?

After that, what liberals here declared this workplace violence? I haven't read the whole thread.

(12-09-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Why are we so hung up on what Obama says in public about levels of radicalization or placing blame on a religion or semantics on containment?

Why are we so hung up on what Trump says in public about fixing the obvious problems in our immigration/visa vetting process or placing blame on prayer or semantics on radical vs 'regular' Islam?

Quote:Please answer some questions:

What should he do different, OTHER than calling them radicals?
Do you want him to send in ground troops to defeat ISIS?
If so, how should we pay for it?
And most importantly, what would the clear definition of the mission be?

After that, what liberals here declared this workplace violence? I haven't read the whole thread.

The answer to all of this starts and ends with 'ending the deflection'. I haven't read the thread either, but there were some in the media and elsewhere who suggested initiailly that it was workplace violence.

It seems clear that we have created this sort of convoluted mantra about Islam vs Radical Islam... but that confusing cops vs bad cops is okay... as is Christians of the 1500's vs Christians today...

If radical Islam isn't Islam (and I agree that it isn't) then 'learning more about Islam' isn't going to help us.... any more than learning more about Christianity would help you understand Charles Manson.

THEY call themselves Islam. They consider themselves the TRUE Islam. I'll fully admit that they are RADICAL (or even heretical) Islam, but we need to be able to call them that.

When we insist that despite referring to themselves as Islam and quoting the Quaran and Muhammad.... that they aren't really Islam, and then tell Americans that all those other people calling themselves Islam, quoting the Quaran and Muhammad ARE Islam... how is the average American supposed to be able to tell the difference?

They are actually CREATING the problem they claim to want to solve.

For those who care about Islam, there is plenty to know and learn... but MOST Americans probably don't really care... 'whatever works for you that doesn't harm me'... and deciding that the first religion that the President thinks all Americans need to understand is Islam isn't selling very well for some obvious reasons (from both sides of the aisle)

(12-09-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  It has been disclosed that the two shooters were radicalized long before they met and that they had plans to carry out attacks at schools. Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained. Obama just refuses to admit to the problem of radicalized ISLAM because it doesn't fit his political narrative. I hope you libs that declared the San Bernadino incident as workplace violence aren't as stupid now as you were then, but I imagine you are.

What should he do different, OTHER than calling them radicals?

Lol. You yourself can't even say "Islamic" radicals.

(12-09-2015 01:14 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  It has been disclosed that the two shooters were radicalized long before they met and that they had plans to carry out attacks at schools. Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained. Obama just refuses to admit to the problem of radicalized ISLAM because it doesn't fit his political narrative. I hope you libs that declared the San Bernadino incident as workplace violence aren't as stupid now as you were then, but I imagine you are.

What should he do different, OTHER than calling them radicals?

Lol. You yourself can't even say "Islamic" radicals.

(12-09-2015 01:14 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  It has been disclosed that the two shooters were radicalized long before they met and that they had plans to carry out attacks at schools. Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained. Obama just refuses to admit to the problem of radicalized ISLAM because it doesn't fit his political narrative. I hope you libs that declared the San Bernadino incident as workplace violence aren't as stupid now as you were then, but I imagine you are.

What should he do different, OTHER than calling them radicals?

Lol. You yourself can't even say "Islamic" radicals.

So what? Why is it always the first reaction of many around here to not debate the issues but instead focus on the minutia of my personal views or comments on something?

(12-09-2015 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 01:14 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  It has been disclosed that the two shooters were radicalized long before they met and that they had plans to carry out attacks at schools. Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained. Obama just refuses to admit to the problem of radicalized ISLAM because it doesn't fit his political narrative. I hope you libs that declared the San Bernadino incident as workplace violence aren't as stupid now as you were then, but I imagine you are.

What should he do different, OTHER than calling them radicals?

Lol. You yourself can't even say "Islamic" radicals.

So what? Why is it always the first reaction of many around here to not debate the issues but instead focus on the minutia of my personal views or comments on something?

"Minutia"..........rrrrrriiiiiiightttt........

(12-09-2015 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So what? Why is it always the first reaction of many around here to not debate the issues but instead focus on the minutia of my personal views or comments on something?

because those who do are often ignored or accused of being long winded.



Short answers to complex problems are almost by definition, focused on the minutia, not the debate.

(12-09-2015 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 01:14 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  It has been disclosed that the two shooters were radicalized long before they met and that they had plans to carry out attacks at schools. Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained. Obama just refuses to admit to the problem of radicalized ISLAM because it doesn't fit his political narrative. I hope you libs that declared the San Bernadino incident as workplace violence aren't as stupid now as you were then, but I imagine you are.

What should he do different, OTHER than calling them radicals?

Lol. You yourself can't even say "Islamic" radicals.

So what? Why is it always the first reaction of many around here to not debate the issues but instead focus on the minutia of my personal views or comments on something?

Do as I say not as I do, amiright?

The pair were seen at a Target Range the weekend before which raises an interesting point. Large capacity magazines are banned under California Law. If you show up at a range with a large capacity magazine you'd probably stick out like a sore thumb and be asked to leave. The receiver modifications also are very obvious.

I bet they didn't do the rifle modifications until a couple of days before the operation.

And if I'm at a Target Range and I see a woman wearing a hajib and shooting an AR-15 you damn well know she would get 100% of my attention.

(12-09-2015 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 01:14 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  It has been disclosed that the two shooters were radicalized long before they met and that they had plans to carry out attacks at schools. Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained. Obama just refuses to admit to the problem of radicalized ISLAM because it doesn't fit his political narrative. I hope you libs that declared the San Bernadino incident as workplace violence aren't as stupid now as you were then, but I imagine you are.

What should he do different, OTHER than calling them radicals?

Lol. You yourself can't even say "Islamic" radicals.

So what? Why is it always the first reaction of many around here to not debate the issues but instead focus on the minutia of my personal views or comments on something?

Why don't you first fix the minutia so we can then debate the issues.

(12-09-2015 02:42 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  And if I'm at a Target Range and I see a woman wearing a hajib and shooting an AR-15 you damn well know she would get 100% of my attention.

This X 1,000

(12-09-2015 03:20 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 01:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 01:14 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 11:09 AM)usmbacker Wrote:  It has been disclosed that the two shooters were radicalized long before they met and that they had plans to carry out attacks at schools. Ash Carter just declared before Congress that IsIs is not contained. Obama just refuses to admit to the problem of radicalized ISLAM because it doesn't fit his political narrative. I hope you libs that declared the San Bernadino incident as workplace violence aren't as stupid now as you were then, but I imagine you are.

What should he do different, OTHER than calling them radicals?

Lol. You yourself can't even say "Islamic" radicals.

So what? Why is it always the first reaction of many around here to not debate the issues but instead focus on the minutia of my personal views or comments on something?

Why don't you first fix the minutia so we can then debate the issues.

because then he would have to debate the issue.

(12-09-2015 03:22 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(12-09-2015 02:42 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  And if I'm at a Target Range and I see a woman wearing a hajib and shooting an AR-15 you damn well know she would get 100% of my attention.

This X 1,000

religionists!!