San Bernadino shooting

[ktchong]

The names of the suspects shot dead by police are:

 

Syed Rizwan Farook

 

Tashfeen Malik

 

 

In a Daily News interview, Syed Farook's (estranged) father said of his son: “He was very religious. He would go to work, come back, go to pray, come back. He’s Muslim.”

 

According to an Associated Press report: co-workder Patrick Baccari said Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia early this year and returned with a wife, (i.e., Malik,) and later grew a beard, (i.e., a sign of becoming a devout Muslim.)

 

The AP report, like 99.99 percent of news reports out there, does not even mention that he is a Muslim.

 

The San Bernardo shooting was no different from the Paris shooting: three organized, planned, well-armed radical Muslims wearing bulletproof vest.  Both shootings had three shooters.  France has gun control, which did not prevent the Paris shooting.  So arguing for gun control in this case is pointless - it would not have prevented this particular shooting.

Edited December 3, 2015 by ktchong

[Amentep]

 

Non-Americans can buy guns in America?

Everybody can buy gun in america

 

Even the guns have guns in america.

 

When Muslims do this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again the "Islam is not the problem" argument fails to hold water.

Correlation does not imply causation.

[Barothmuk]

or blame a religion.

For reference I'm all for condemning religion and its role in these crazy right-wing killing sprees. I just dislike the transparent approach to these tragedies.

 

It's a liberal cliché to point out how whenever a right-wing white guy goes on a killing spree people will bend over backwards to treat it as an isolated incident or simply a matter of "mental illness".

[Hurlshort]

In a somewhat perfect world, the loudest to condemn the use of guns in this type of attack should be gun owners, and the loudest to condemn the use of Islam in this type of attack should be Muslims.  I believe both need reform, but I'm neither a gun owner nor a Muslim.

[Keyrock]

I don't think guns should be banned, though I do think they are entirely too easy to obtain.

[Hurlshort]

 

No you can't.  That's an asinine argument.  Don't treat me like I'm a ****ing idiot.  A gun is a tool.  You can take the gun away from the killer and he or she can still kill people with a different tool or even with their bare hands.  If you take the killer away from the gun the gun does nothing.

 

 

 

"You can take religion away from the killer and he or she can still kill people with a different ideology.  If you take the killer way from the religion the religion does nothing."

[Tigranes]

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

 

Religion of peace at it again or something else? So far it looks religiously motivated. Apparently he was Pakistani, she a Saudi he met through a dating website. He was apparently very religious. His job wasn't in jeopardy, nor was there any bad blood at the workplace - or say they say.

 

They came completely armed and geared up so this was probably in the works for a while.

 

"Look, they were Arab and religious, so it must be that they killed because they were Muslim!"

 

Maybe wait to make a more informed judgment. People also yelled out immediately "the attack hit a disability centre, it must have something to do with that", but now it is being reported that it might have been inter-employee conflict rather than the mission of the centre, unliked the PP attack.

 

 

Its plausible, but then why bring his wife along. And why come decked out for WW3. And just how many co-workers can one person come into conflict with

 

 

Anybody can sit in a chair and put together various pieces of information in a way to support their theory. You might as well say these people must have been clinically insane, since who goes around on a killing spree while they're 6 months pregnant, and how many co-workers can one person come into conf-... yeah. 

 

When Muslims do this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again the "Islam is not the problem" argument fails to hold water.

 

'Lone Wolf' attacks in America are predominantly by whites, and before 9/11, right-wing white supremacists were overwhelmingly the source of such shootings and acts of violence. Recent years have seen a noticeable uptick in Muslim extremists. 

 

Both of you would prefer to generalise and rush to create big theories to explain all the problems, rather than assess all the facts, contradictory as they are. What happened? Two people went on a shooting spree. Do we know yet what their motivations might be? No, not really. So why pretend that all we need to know is they are Muslim, etc? Fine, by that logic we should also deport all white policemen in the country, since those bastards just cannot stop shooting black people. And we should probably make a national database of all less-educated, lower-income white men, because they've been supplying a steady stream of shooters for at least 50 years! 

 

There's obviously a huge problem of Muslim extremist terror, and it needs to be stopped. Maybe that will require doing things that reasonable Muslims do not appreciate. Fine. But try and assess the facts first: a good conclusion is made by accounting for all the contradictory and ambiguous facts and then still finding a way through, rather than ignoring them and throwing huge blankets over the events. 

[ShadySands]

 

When Muslims do this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again the "Islam is not the problem" argument fails to hold water.

Didn't some Christian shoot up an abortion clinic less than a week ago?

 

Yep

[Drowsy Emperor]

Except were obviously not insane, and were both devout muslims. The likelihood of this having nothing to do with religon is probably in the single digit percentile.

 

But sure, lets blame guns. That's what the narrative is shaping up towards anyway. By the way, Serbia is the second in the world (after US) at number of guns per 100 people and doesn't have a fraction of the US violent crime and homicide rate per 1000 or 10000 people. And in my lifetime I've heard of one mass shooting spree in the country, by some guy who shot up his family and neighbors in his village.

 

As if you're going to be blind and deaf about it consider this. Take into account how many whites there are in the US and their "right wing" terrorist acts and the total number of muslims (clue: its tiny) vs their terrorist acts its plain which is the more troublesome population as an overall ratio. 

 

Regardless, I've said before - this is not an American problem (even if its american made) and its not looking to become one with their population structure and other relevant parameters, its a European problem. 

Edited December 3, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Keyrock]

 

 

No you can't.  That's an asinine argument.  Don't treat me like I'm a ****ing idiot.  A gun is a tool.  You can take the gun away from the killer and he or she can still kill people with a different tool or even with their bare hands.  If you take the killer away from the gun the gun does nothing.

 

 

 

"You can take religion away from the killer and he or she can still kill people with a different ideology.  If you take the killer way from the religion the religion does nothing."

 

Except, when that ideology is steeped in hatred, intolerance, and preaches aggression toward heathens then said ideology does not do nothing, it creates new killers.  And I'm aware Christians have committed their fare share of atrocities throughout history, I'm not giving Christians a pass, nor any other religion...  except maybe Buddhists, I can't think of atrocities committed by Buddhists, though I could be wrong on that one.

[Meshugger]

 

When Muslims do this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again the "Islam is not the problem" argument fails to hold water.

Didn't some Christian shoot up an abortion clinic less than a week ago?

 

 

It was a tranny that wanted to be adressed as "she", i dunno about her religion.

[Tigranes]

You can't blame guns for the attack, or Islam for the attack. Both are groundless until we can have some reasoned, evidence-based, investigated approximation of their motives, logistics and process... as opposed to 'hurr look they have Arab sounding names and guy grew a beard'.

 

Yes, I'm saying that a lot of stuff said in this thread so far is just illogical. So if 1 in 10,000 white males shoot, and 1 in 2,000 Muslim shoot, it's clearly Islam that is the problem? Here, let me make another pointless use of numbers: if there are 60 white male shoot-ups, and 10 Muslim ones, maybe we should care more about the former than the latter? Statistics aren't things you can plug in anywhere in any way you prefer. 

 

Or what about "dude traveled to Saudi Arabia"? This is almost as bad as "hey this guy has an Arab name". Since when is Saudi Arabia the country you go to for Al-Qaeda / ISIS training? Since when is a Middle Eastern person traveling to the Middle East grounds for suspicion, and since when is a Muslim person being devoutly Muslim a transparent proof of terrorist motive? 

[Tigranes]

I'm not even saying these killers weren't Muslim extremists. They may well be. They could be ISIS operatives, or non-affiliated extremists. It wouldn't surprise me. What is so weird is this insistence that as soon as the attack occurs, people just point to the most inconclusive of snippets (Arab name! Beard!) and then think the case is closed. 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Or what about "dude traveled to Saudi Arabia"? This is almost as bad as "hey this guy has an Arab name". Since when is Saudi Arabia the country you go to for Al-Qaeda / ISIS training? 

 

Since forever. If they're not directly training people they finance camps all over the middle east and asia. They're literally the people (along with Bahrein, Qatar and UAE) to get money and everything else if you want to go jihadi.

 

Regardless, I don't think they were trained there or at all. It looks like a personal plan, not "organized" terrorism. And there was probably a personal component to it otherwise they could have just shot up a shopping mall or some such.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Drowsy Emperor

[Hurlshort]

Except were obviously not insane, and were both devout muslims. 

 

That is not really obvious to me.  

[ktchong]

You can't blame guns for the attack, or Islam for the attack. Both are groundless until we can have some reasoned, evidence-based, investigated approximation of their motives, logistics and process... as opposed to 'hurr look they have Arab sounding names and guy grew a beard'.

 

Yes, I'm saying that a lot of stuff said in this thread so far is just illogical. So if 1 in 10,000 white males shoot, and 1 in 2,000 Muslim shoot, it's clearly Islam that is the problem? Here, let me make another pointless use of numbers: if there are 60 white male shoot-ups, and 10 Muslim ones, maybe we should care more about the former than the latter? Statistics aren't things you can plug in anywhere in any way you prefer. 

 

Or what about "dude traveled to Saudi Arabia"? This is almost as bad as "hey this guy has an Arab name". Since when is Saudi Arabia the country you go to for Al-Qaeda / ISIS training? Since when is a Middle Eastern person traveling to the Middle East grounds for suspicion, and since when is a Muslim person being devoutly Muslim a transparent proof of terrorist motive? 

 

The problem here is the so-called "regressive leftists" in America are using this shooting as an opportunity to call for gun control.  On the other hand, they refuse to even acknowledge that shooters were Muslims, (given that regressive leftists are also Islam apologists.)  So they are being opportunistic and using this opportunity to attack one thing (guns, which they do not like) while ignore the other (Muslims and Islam, which they love to coddle.)  That is just pure biased.

[ShadySands]

 

 

When Muslims do this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again the "Islam is not the problem" argument fails to hold water.

Didn't some Christian shoot up an abortion clinic less than a week ago?

 

 

It was a tranny that wanted to be adressed as "she", i dunno about her religion.

 

What?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/us/robert-dear-planned-parenthood-shooting.html

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

When Muslims do this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again the "Islam is not the problem" argument fails to hold water.

Didn't some Christian shoot up an abortion clinic less than a week ago?

 

 

It was a tranny that wanted to be adressed as "she", i dunno about her religion.

 

What?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/02/us/robert-dear-planned-parenthood-shooting.html

 

 

Huh, must've thought of someone else. My bad.

[Tigranes]

 

You can't blame guns for the attack, or Islam for the attack. Both are groundless until we can have some reasoned, evidence-based, investigated approximation of their motives, logistics and process... as opposed to 'hurr look they have Arab sounding names and guy grew a beard'.

 

Yes, I'm saying that a lot of stuff said in this thread so far is just illogical. So if 1 in 10,000 white males shoot, and 1 in 2,000 Muslim shoot, it's clearly Islam that is the problem? Here, let me make another pointless use of numbers: if there are 60 white male shoot-ups, and 10 Muslim ones, maybe we should care more about the former than the latter? Statistics aren't things you can plug in anywhere in any way you prefer. 

 

Or what about "dude traveled to Saudi Arabia"? This is almost as bad as "hey this guy has an Arab name". Since when is Saudi Arabia the country you go to for Al-Qaeda / ISIS training? Since when is a Middle Eastern person traveling to the Middle East grounds for suspicion, and since when is a Muslim person being devoutly Muslim a transparent proof of terrorist motive? 

 

The problem here is the so-called "regressive leftists" in America are using this shooting as an opportunity to call for gun control.  On the other hand, they refuse to even acknowledge that shooters were Muslims, (given that regressive leftists are also Islam apologists.)  So they are being opportunistic and using this opportunity to attack one thing (guns, which they do not like) while ignore the other (Muslims and Islam, which they love to coddle.)  That is just pure biased.

 

 

One is just as ridiculous as the other. Seeing a shooting happen on TV and immediately screaming "GUNS GUNS GUNS" is just as stupid as screaming "MUSLIMS MUSLIMS MUSLIMS". Guns and Islam extremism is obviously part of the phenomenon, but both types of blanket theory need to be thrown out to arrive at real solutions (which may or may not involve some form of gun control and actions against religious extremism, but would need to then go further). 

 

After all, we want to get rid of both San Bernardino and Planned Parenthood, both the Timothy McVeighs and the Paris shooters, both shootings in gun-happy America and gun-shy Europe, both shootings by police and shootings by 'lone wolves'. 

[213374U]

When Muslims do this again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again the "Islam is not the problem" argument fails to hold water.

 

Yeah, you apparently missed the other thread where we found out that right-wing white Americans are a bigger threat than Muslims. Here:

 

http://www.mintpressnews.com/white-americans-are-the-biggest-terror-threat-in-the-united-states/211608/

 

Of course, "but there are way more whites than Muslims in the US, so that's to be expected", only it really isn't, unless you expect people to randomly turn into mass murderers for no other reason than "X segment of citizens with the terrorist gene is above Y threshold". The causes of why people decide to throw everything away and go out in a blaze are more complicated than "Islam" or "Reactionary Conservatism".

 

Reductionists gon' reduce.

[Malcador]

Wonder why they chose the cutoff to be after 9/11. Suppose US counter terrorism is a lot stronger in how it can act abroad than it can domestically, as the article provides the requisite snark about (ah, Internet) and is a lot more obsessed with stopping Muslim terrorists - and that target is more organized than white cranks, perhaps.

 

Also, why is "gun control" used when people mean "gun ban" ? Seen that around, my understanding of 'control' is one of regulation not forbidding.

[Meshugger]

Ok, we're letting it slide that there are terrorists who operate on an international level in the name of islam and there's also the slippery slope of quite a lot of people symphatizing with them to a certain degree, like a lot are thinking that they are believing the right thing, but unsure on the level of violence. But scrap that, that's not important here.

 

We can also be assured that no religion makes people more violent than the other, but rather some religions works like a magnet to those that like kill people in quite barbaric ways. But scratch that, that's not important here.

 

There is also the consensus that no human is a blanket slate, because then everyone could be made equally smart, tought and practice the same ethical framework, and change behaviour on a whim. We have different biological predispositions which is a product of those before us, but it is still undecided to what degree they affect personal and group behaviour. It has to be, otherwise there wouldn't exist different kinds of cultures. But scratch that, that's not important here.

 

We are social creatures whose brains are constantly optimizing its neural pathways in order to have room to create new ones. Meaning that our brains are making shortcuts to different memories in order for the individual to handle new data based on sensory input as fast as possible. This means for example that when you burn yourself on the stove as a kid, that memory is quickly invoked when getting close to the stove the next time. Now apply this principle to other experiences as a child growing into an adult. Feeling weird the first time ever seeing an asian? It's just your brain not giving any info to work upon and thus basic instincts take over to look after yourself, so you are put on your guard. Now this encounter will be a new memory which will be subconsiously invoked the next time you meet another asian. "First impressions, lasts" as they say. Well, lets extrapolate further: what is the collective consciousness on middle eastern muslims since, well 1973? Not that good really, they really messed up on the PR-department. For some nations, their entire history is filled with war with middle eastern muslims.

 

"So?! what the **** are you even rambling about Meshugger?" might be the first response, but hear me out, you got this far. Lets apply the same principle again, we have grown up, experienced and talked to different people and we have created a 'set', meaning an image of what 'us' is. We have our morlocks that we deal with, but they are our morlocks and we know have to deal with them, kinda. But based on the same principle we have created atleast and image on how to deal with them. Meet the middle eastern muslims. They are not 'us'. They behave differently, look differently and seem to think differently. They are simply 'them' and when a few of their morlocks attack on what we percieve as 'us', our preconcieved images and experiences kick in, thanks to their horrible PR, and here we are now, with reactions such as these. It's simply a very basic human reaction. "`You stupid twerp! What about people who do not see any 'us' or different kinds of 'us' then?" They simply are able think better abstractivly and not letting the shortcuts cloud their judgement, or they simply are slightly braindamaged and have little to no base survival instinct. Point being, those people are in a minority. 

 

"What can be done then?". Simple, it's a slow process. Generation of generation must create good PR in order for new experiences to be shared and new contextes created. Thus, even if the natural instinct of being on your guard when meeting the unknown is still there, there's still the fallback on your peers and adults assuring you that there's nothing to be afraid of since they have only have had good experiences with the other 'set'.

 

"This has to be the most idiotic thing that i have ever read. Why are you writing all this junk? and you're probably are racist too!". It's alright, i forgive you. My mind usually wanders into the weirdest parts of knowledge when i break up with a girl. It's been 3 relationships in 4 months now and it takes very little time for mind to wander off into all kinds of musings.

 

"SHUT UP! SHUT UP ALREADY!" Don't worry, as soon as i fall in love again my mind is focused on.....other things. Cheerio! 

[Tigranes]

Wonder why they chose the cutoff to be after 9/11. Suppose US counter terrorism is a lot stronger in how it can act abroad than it can domestically, as the article provides the requisite snark about (ah, Internet) and is a lot more obsessed with stopping Muslim terrorists - and that target is more organized than white cranks, perhaps.

 

Also, why is "gun control" used when people mean "gun ban" ? Seen that around, my understanding of 'control' is one of regulation not forbidding.

 

If you mean the cutoff for counting shootings, the pattern is the same before 9/11, though the specifics depend on the definitions. E.g. one count of lone wolf attacks 1968-2011 in US shows that about half or more were right-wing whites. The specific numbers aren't that important - nobody wants to say Muslim extremists aren't a problem. 

 

Because not everyone wants a full gun ban. Gun control sometimes literally means a tighter and more rigorously regulated system for gun sales. 

[Hurlshort]

A ban on guns is about as feasible in the US as a ban on religion.  It's not.

[Volourn]

"Didn't some Christian shoot up an abortion clinic less than a week ago?"
 

Yet basically nobody but the insane made excuses for his behaviour. I'm not religious myself and I'm not pro abortion (yeah not a common combo but murder is murder) but what he did was undisputablyw rong. You see in this thread? People feeling the need to come to the defense of murderous Muslims by claiming it wa sanything but their EXTREME religious beliefs that caused this when any sane person knows that was seems to have driven them.

 

When a Christian/Catholic does something evil in the name of their eligion nobody feels the need to make excuses. Because they no there is no excuse. There is no but. PERIOD.

\

 

\What they did was evil. And, they did it ebcause of Islam (from what we know of the situation). Calling it out doesn't mean one is stating all Muslims are crazed psychopathing murders no more than claiming that certain Catholic/Crhistian beliefs can be dangerous when believed by an extremist.

 

\Extremism ove ranything is bad. PERIOD.

 

 

"So arguing for gun control in this case is pointless - it would not have prevented this particular shooting."

 

I dunno why people feel the ened to continue the lie that the US has no gun control. It does. It just isn't as extreme as other forms of gun control.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Volourn