California shooting WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTO

First topic message reminder :

On BBC news now

Units responding to a shooting incident may be 20 casualties

Nothing further yet

sassy wrote:The second one is CNN, where ALL the witnesses said there were 3 men who got away in a black SUV

Really?
70 people in the building, of which 14 died and 21 were injured.
How many of the 21 injurded and 35 unijured claim it was white attackers, and not the people identified?
There is nothing worse than idiots who buy into nonsense.
Again your witness was viewing the incident from a window and there is no way you are going to expose yourself for any lengh of time with so much gunfire. She of no doubt heard gunfire, as to whether she saw anything is very suspect indeed. I suggest you take the witness accounts of the people inside the actual building where the attack took place

Sigh, they were in the building, they saw what happened, the police called them eyewitness, but Dick in the UK knows more.

The people in the CNN interview WERE in the building.

Show me the witnesses in the building that claim the masked people were white people and how this woman from a distance can tell if its 3 white people who were dressed in black and wearing masks.
Sigh is the right way to view people who are apologists of islamic terrorism.
I suppose next you will be telling me it was a hit planned by the Pope, Mossad, Bugs Bunny and Donald Duck

Here's an idea Dick, why don't you just listen to the CNN report?

Again how conflicting were the witness accounts of 9/11?
This is what happens when people claim to see something when in fact they have not:

But as people saw the couple dressed in black — their faces covered by masks and their bodies loaded with weaponry, including two .223-caliber assault rifles and two 9-millimeter semiautomatic pistols — panic swept the room. People scattered as colleagues collapsed with anguished screams. Some reached for their phones to call 911; one person who tried to call said he was unable to get through.

No one interviewed recalled the assailants saying anything.

Shouts of “hit the floor” from conference attendees rang out through the room. People sought to hide in corners or find ways to escape, witnesses said. One group ran out of the conference room and, in a panic, into another room. Trapped, they jammed a couch in front of the door to stop someone from coming in — only to realize that the door opened out, witnesses said, leaving them vulnerable to the assailants.

Mr. Nwadike was one of the people who had headed for the bathroom at the break. When the shooting began, he and three other men there dropped to the floor, blocking the door shut to prevent anyone from breaking in. Even so, with bullets hitting the outside wall, debris flew through the air, cutting the face of one of the men. They lay there in terror, listening to shot after shot; in the distance they heard sirens. The shooting stopped, and after a wait, they opened the door and ran out of the building.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/witnesses-recall-day-of-terror-in-San-Bernardino.html?_r=0

3 men?

Really?

Only people who latch onto a false report by again a witness who its very suspect saw any of the attackers, being as she got the number of people wrong who attacked them.

sassy wrote:Rags, you might be interested in this - eyewitness account

https://www.facebook.com/100003156463919/videos/698583043590238/

Gives a very detailed description of three athletically built white men in military style black gear.


http://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/12/02/san-bernardino-shooting-possible-suspects-black-suv-sot-feyerick.cnn
Witnesses said three suspects.

She said that one guy had long sleeves, long trousers, and gloves, and that she couldn't see his face, so how did she know he was white? She also said the three of them were exactly the same.

It's not clear where she was watching from either. She saw them shoot before they entered the building, but then she saw them shoot when they were in the building too?

sassy wrote:Here's an idea Dick, why don't you just listen to the CNN report?

Here is an idea, why not move to Saudi, to join your Islamist friends

What is your problem, these are reports from mainstream TV stations at the time.  You are just making yourself look stupid.  There isn't a person here who supports Daesh, and I have been more vocal than most against Saudi.  Do grow up Dick.

sassy wrote:What is your problem, these are reports from mainstream TV stations at the time.  You are just making yourself look stupid.  There isn't a person here who supports Daesh, and I have been more vocal than most against Saudi.  Do grow up Dick.

So using sexual words as an abuse.
Do you have a fixation with the male phallus, or is it something you have not come across in years?
Again your witness clearly did not witness the event.
Those inside who were attacked, said they were dressed all in black.
Also that there was 2 people.
Also he had left the party.
He had weaponary at his home.
How much more evidence do you need for it to show how stupid you are?
Again people in such times of incidents get many things wrong because the adrenaline is in overdrive.
She no doubt heard gunfire, but in no way did she see or could tell if they were white.
Anyone who makes excuses for islamic terrorism, by their stupidity certainly aids Daesh

Dick is short for Richard, as you very well know, so don't try that, it won't wash and you will just be laughed at.

sassy wrote:Dick is short for Richard, as you very well know, so don't try that, it won't wash and you will just be laughed at.

Did I say you could call me Dick?
Never heard anyone refer to Richard the Lionheart as Dick the Lionheart.
So we all can see past your immaturity.
Now as you have comepletely embarressed yourself on this thread, you would be best to eat some humble pie and retreate before you further make yourself look even more idiotic

Is this what it's going to be like from now on - Sassy and Didge arguing all over the place?

Raggamuffin wrote:Is this what it's going to be like from now on - Sassy and Didge arguing all over the place?

You mean like when you argue with Korben.
Or is that okay when you do?

Raggamuffin wrote:Is this what it's going to be like from now on - Sassy and Didge arguing all over the place?

I put the information on for you, as you had been questioning what had actually happened, as normal Didge/Dick decided he was going to jump in and cause yet another row, and as normal starts on about men's members and whether I got enough of them or not.

It's possible that there were three of them, and it's possible that Malik was not there at the time. She was certainly in the vehicle later though, and it seems very clear that Farook was one of the shooters. I don't think the eyewitness could tell what colour they were from her own account of what they were wearing.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is this what it's going to be like from now on - Sassy and Didge arguing all over the place?

I put the information on for you, as you had been questioning what had actually happened, as normal Didge/Dick decided he was going to jump in and cause yet another row, and as normal starts on about men's members and whether I got enough of them or not.

Thank you for the video. I do have an open mind about this, but I don't think it's possible that Farook was innocent, and clearly his wife was involved somehow.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's possible that there were three of them, and it's possible that Malik was not there at the time. She was certainly in the vehicle later though, and it seems very clear that Farook was one of the shooters. I don't think the eyewitness could tell what colour they were from her own account of what they were wearing.

Thank you Rags, how nice to get back to a proper discussion.  They might not have been able to tell the colour, they could however tell the build and the clothing.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is this what it's going to be like from now on - Sassy and Didge arguing all over the place?

I put the information on for you, as you had been questioning what had actually happened, as normal Didge/Dick decided he was going to jump in and cause yet another row, and as normal starts on about men's members and whether I got enough of them or not.

So throughout the day you have been abusive towards me.
It also takes two to argue but as usual you make excuses.
Again if you end up posting what can only be described as the worst attempt as you already did claim before wher you made out this was a Far right attacker until you ended up with egg on your face, shows the lenghs you will go to be an apologist of islamic terrorism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

I put the information on for you, as you had been questioning what had actually happened, as normal Didge/Dick decided he was going to jump in and cause yet another row, and as normal starts on about men's members and whether I got enough of them or not.

Thank you for the video. I do have an open mind about this, but I don't think it's possible that Farook was innocent, and clearly his wife was involved somehow.

I'm just puzzled as to why, if all the witnesses said there were three, the police seem happy to just have two.

Why puzzled?
In so many cases of such events you always have conflicting stories.
Here again its evident this witness who claims to have seen something, clearly heard shots but considering the attackers were masked and dressed in black and there was only two draws only two conclusions.

One she was lying, two she saw never saw anything.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's possible that there were three of them, and it's possible that Malik was not there at the time. She was certainly in the vehicle later though, and it seems very clear that Farook was one of the shooters. I don't think the eyewitness could tell what colour they were from her own account of what they were wearing.

Thank you Rags, how nice to get back to a proper discussion.  They might not have been able to tell the colour, they could however tell the build and the clothing.

Were they not wearing bullet proof vests or something? That would make someone look bigger than they were.

Raggamuffin wrote:

sassy wrote:

Thank you Rags, how nice to get back to a proper discussion.  They might not have been able to tell the colour, they could however tell the build and the clothing.

Were they not wearing bullet proof vests or something? That would make someone look bigger than they were.

Don't know, probably, but I still don't understand why they were happy with 2 when all the witnesses said 3.

How many witnesses said 3?
How many of those in the building said 3?

If the witnesses stick to that story, there will be an investigation. It's not impossible that there were three of them. The two who are dead can't tell anyone how many there were.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

They live only a couple of miles away.  I know the area, in the southeast part of SB, along the I-10 corridor.  You drive east on San Bernadino Ave. and their home is on the right (south) in Redlands, a nearby city.  I would say it was a 10-minute drive from the kill site.

The authorities say they went home afterward.  They were located by the authorities driving the SUV out of their home.  That's what confuses me.  If you look at the Paris hit, the bad guys didn't hang around...they got their hat.  But these guys went home as if nothing had happened.  Plus, their munitions factory was their garage; you would never put it so close to where you live, one would think.

They acted like they would carry on as if nothing had happened.

They lived on Pine Avenue, yes? That's about five miles from the shooting. The shootout with the police happened on San Bernardino Avenue, but I'm not sure which direction they were heading - back towards the conference place or the other way - east.

I also find it odd that they went home. The police were watching the place when they drove off, so I don't know if they were leaving anyway, or if they spotted the police and then left.

I know, right?  First, I can confirm that they lived only about 5-miles away from the conference center.  Second, they were actually heading west on San Bernadino Avenue when they were stopped, which is back toward the center.  What's up with them?

They are making no effort to escape.  They are acting as if they just went home for lunch.  As I say, this is so atypical of any terrorist attack I have ever heard of, that I wonder what's going on.  Nothing fits in this story.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They lived on Pine Avenue, yes? That's about five miles from the shooting. The shootout with the police happened on San Bernardino Avenue, but I'm not sure which direction they were heading - back towards the conference place or the other way - east.

I also find it odd that they went home. The police were watching the place when they drove off, so I don't know if they were leaving anyway, or if they spotted the police and then left.

I know, right?  First, I can confirm that they lived only about 5-miles away from the conference center.  Second, they were actually heading west on San Bernadino Avenue when they were stopped, which is back toward the center.  What's up with them?

They are making no effort to escape.  They are acting as if they just went home for lunch.  As I say, this is so atypical of any terrorist attack I have ever heard of, that I wonder what's going on.  Nothing fits in this story.

I agree, there is something 'off' about the whole thing.

There is nothing off about any of this, what it shows is some posters fail to understand the mindset of religious fanatics, who have little regard for their own lives. Again as stated already why take the risk of locating an arsenal from your own property, when you can from the safety of that property makes bombs and store weapons. Trying to move such arms would increase the risk of being caught. So its a no brainer. People trying to claim their pattern is odd to them is ridiculous, as again it fails to grasp the mind of a people who knowingly look forward to death.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:There is nothing off about any of this, what it shows is some posters fail to understand the mindset of religious fanatics, who have little regard for their own lives. Again as stated already why take the risk of locating an arsenal from your own property, when you can from the safety of that property makes bombs and store weapons. Trying to move such arms would increase the risk of being caught. So its a no brainer. People trying to claim their pattern is odd to them is ridiculous, as again it fails to grasp the mind of a people who knowingly look forward to death.

If they are looking to die, why didn't they wear suicide bombs as the Paris attackers did? And if they are making bombs, why were no bombs planted or used at all at the center? The whole idea of the garage arsenal is pointless if you are planning to die in an automatic weapons firefight. Why did they bother?

It doesn't make sense.

Original Quill wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:There is nothing off about any of this, what it shows is some posters fail to understand the mindset of religious fanatics, who have little regard for their own lives. Again as stated already why take the risk of locating an arsenal from your own property, when you can from the safety of that property makes bombs and store weapons. Trying to move such arms would increase the risk of being caught. So its a no brainer. People trying to claim their pattern is odd to them is ridiculous, as again it fails to grasp the mind of a people who knowingly look forward to death.

If they are looking to die, why didn't they wear suicide bombs as the Paris attackers did?  And if they are making bombs, why were no bombs planted or used at all at the center?  The whole idea of the garage arsenal is pointless if you are planning to die in an automatic weapons firefight.  Why did they bother?

It doesn't make sense.

Who says they wanted to blow themselves up?
Every terrorist has their reasons of how they wish to go out in a blaze of glory, theirs was a shootout.
Not every terrorist is a suicide bomber, that should be telling in itself.
They clearly wanted to make a name for themselves and to go out in a shootout.
The bombs were not pointless, being as they brought bombs to the centre, what happened is they failed to go off.
So your views is utterly wrong, as they did have a purpose for the bombs.
It does not make sense to you, because again you do not understand the mindset of people who are indoctrinated with hate and martydom.

Says it all:

I will give you another example of two bombers in the US who also used bombs.
The Boston bombers, of which they also went out in a shootout did they not Quill. They also headed back after their terrorist attack and then went on a shooting spree afterwards. Of which one was very willing to die, the other not so. They were not suicide bombers either Quill. They also had an arsenal of guns.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If they are looking to die, why didn't they wear suicide bombs as the Paris attackers did?  And if they are making bombs, why were no bombs planted or used at all at the center?  The whole idea of the garage arsenal is pointless if you are planning to die in an automatic weapons firefight.  Why did they bother?

It doesn't make sense.

Who says they wanted to blow themselves up?
Every terrorist has their reasons of how they wish to go out in a blaze of glory, theirs was a shootout.

So why make bombs you are never going to use?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:Not every terrorist is a suicide bomber, that should be telling in itself.
They clearly wanted to make a name for themselves and to go out in a shootout.
The bombs were not pointless, being as they brought bombs to the centre, what happened is they failed to go off.
So your views is utterly wrong, as they did have a purpose for the bombs.
It does not make sense to you, because again you do not understand the mindset of people who are indoctrinated with hate and martydom.

I've not heard of any bombs brought to the Center. The report said:

ABC News wrote:The suspects were dressed in "assault-style" clothing and armed with assault rifles and handguns, Burguan said. One officer suffered non-life-threatening injuries in the shootout. San Bernardino police spokeswoman Sgt. Vicki Cervantes said earlier that the suspects may have been wearing body armor.

No mention of bombs. Why were they making bombs?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I will give you another example of two bombers in the US who also used bombs.
The Boston bombers, of which they also went out in a shootout did they not Quill. They also headed back after their terrorist attack and then went on a shooting spree afterwards. Of which one was very willing to die, the other not so. They were not suicide bombers either Quill. They also had an arsenal of guns.

In Boston, two brothers built pressure cooker bombs and exploded them. No bombs were used in San Bernadino. Why were they making bombs, and committed suicide before making any use of them. Why the bombs?

They did attempt to use bombs, they did not go off, again for the second time. As to extra bombs, who knows what they had planned they are now dead and of which your point has utterly no relevance.

http://www.leoaffairs.com/featured/breaking-explosives-found-at-mass-shooting-scene/

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/dec/03/san-bernardino-shooting-pipe-bombs-police-video

Has anybody seen the explosive device left at the scene? Usually they show pictures.

I wonder if any of your views would have been the same if this had of been a far right attack?
That is what really is the question here based on your continued denial of the facts.

Its to be expected that in a shooting like this, with screaming and bullets flying and people taking cover and terrified that witnesses may be confused as to what they saw.

I'm not overly worried about the supposed 3rd person but rather the mother who lived with them and claimed not to have known anything or see anything and the childhood friend who actually bought some of the weapons and then as soon as it happened (news broke)checked himself into a mental facility. I'm sure he is berg disturbed by this butvWHY did he buy them the guns in the first place?

I think they did it but as to why? No idea.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I wonder if any of your views would have been the same if this had of been a far right attack?
That is what really is the question here based on your continued denial of the facts.

Donno didge...I'm not adverse to questioning actions against the right. I was quite outspoken on FF about what went down in Waco.

Cass wrote:Its to be expected that in a shooting like this, with screaming and bullets flying and people taking cover and terrified that witnesses may be confused as to what they saw.

I'm not overly worried about the supposed 3rd person but rather the mother who lived with them and claimed not to have known anything or see anything and the childhood friend who actually bought some of the weapons and then as soon as it happened (news broke)checked himself into a mental facility. I'm sure he is berg disturbed by this butvWHY did he buy them the guns in the first place?

I think they did it but as to why? No idea.

The guns were bought around 2009--2011 by the friend, Marquez. That's pretty remote in time. But I am concerned about why he bought two of them. Apparently they had been modified as well.

Cass wrote:Its to be expected that in a shooting like this, with screaming and bullets flying and people taking cover and terrified that witnesses may be confused as to what they saw.

I'm not overly worried about the supposed 3rd person but rather the mother who lived with them and claimed not to have known anything or see anything and the childhood friend who actually bought some of the weapons and then as soon as it happened (news broke)checked himself into a mental facility. I'm sure he is berg disturbed by this butvWHY did he buy them the guns in the first place?

I think they did it but as to why? No idea.

I also read that his mother lived with them, but I'm not sure if that's true. If she did and she was there looking after the kid, didn't she notice that they went out and came home with guns and literally dressed to kill? She would have seen all the stuff at the house as well. I think that she can't possibly have lived with them really.

I also read about the childhood friend.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:There is nothing off about any of this, what it shows is some posters fail to understand the mindset of religious fanatics, who have little regard for their own lives. Again as stated already why take the risk of locating an arsenal from your own property, when you can from the safety of that property makes bombs and store weapons. Trying to move such arms would increase the risk of being caught. So its a no brainer. People trying to claim their pattern is odd to them is ridiculous, as again it fails to grasp the mind of a people who knowingly look forward to death.

I have no reason to want this story to be untrue, and I don't think it's untrue. I think that this is probably the first time we've heard about a woman being involved in such detail - a woman with a small baby to look after - and it's difficult to get your head round that. The fact that they went home and only left several hours later and then headed back in the direction of the conference centre is a bit odd.

I think this alarms people a bit because who would normally suspect a person who seemingly had an ordinary job, and a woman who had a little baby only six months previously? We hear a lot about "disaffected" people going around doing this kind of thing who are often described as "loners", but this was a couple who apparently seemed normal.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:There is nothing off about any of this, what it shows is some posters fail to understand the mindset of religious fanatics, who have little regard for their own lives. Again as stated already why take the risk of locating an arsenal from your own property, when you can from the safety of that property makes bombs and store weapons. Trying to move such arms would increase the risk of being caught. So its a no brainer. People trying to claim their pattern is odd to them is ridiculous, as again it fails to grasp the mind of a people who knowingly look forward to death.

I have no reason to want this story to be untrue, and I don't think it's untrue. I think that this is probably the first time we've heard about a woman being involved in such detail - a woman with a small baby to look after - and it's difficult to get your head round that. The fact that they went home and only left several hours later and then headed back in the direction of the conference centre is a bit odd.

I think this alarms people a bit because who would normally suspect a person who seemingly had an ordinary job, and a woman who had a little baby only six months previously? We hear a lot about "disaffected" people going around doing this kind of thing who are often described as "loners", but this was a couple who apparently seemed normal.

It does not surprise me at all Rags. If you look at suicide bombings and the recent attacks in Israel this is the norm where women and men, willingly give their lives, because they stupidly believe they will be glorified in death through Martydom. Seemed normal was just as the 9/11 bombers were, who blended in with society, going out drinking etc. Just because people act as people perceive and want them to be seen acting does not mean behind close doors they are not completely different. People seem shocked a mother would abandomn her child with placing her death of a greater importance. I am not as I have read many accounts of young mothers killing themslves whilst murdering others. They should be viewed with far greater distain more than others, as they not only fail in their responsibilities as parents, but take the lives of others, where the human life is deemed of lesser importance. Its time started waking up to this major problem within the religion and it is very much a religious problem. All this nonsense about western foreign policy, oil and imperialism are apologist argumnents. This is a very much religious problem, where change is feared.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I have no reason to want this story to be untrue, and I don't think it's untrue. I think that this is probably the first time we've heard about a woman being involved in such detail - a woman with a small baby to look after - and it's difficult to get your head round that. The fact that they went home and only left several hours later and then headed back in the direction of the conference centre is a bit odd.

I think this alarms people a bit because who would normally suspect a person who seemingly had an ordinary job, and a woman who had a little baby only six months previously? We hear a lot about "disaffected" people going around doing this kind of thing who are often described as "loners", but this was a couple who apparently seemed normal.

It does not surprise me at all Rags. If you look at suicide bombings and the recent attacks in Israel this is the norm where women and men, willingly give their lives, because they stupidly believe they will be glorified in death through Martydom. Seemed normal was just as the 9/11 bombers were, who blended in with society, going out drinking etc. Just because people act as people perceive and want them to be seen acting does not mean behind close doors they are not completely different. People seem shocked a mother would abandomn her child with placing her death of a greater importance. I am not as I have read many accounts of young mothers killing themslves whilst murdering others. They should be far greater distain more than others, as they not only fail in their responsibilities as parents, but take the lives of others, where the human life is deemed of lesser importance. Its time started waking up to this major problem within the religion and it is very much a religious problem.

Yes, we often hear about male suicide bombers leaving behind children. It happened here on 7/7. We've also heard about female suicide bombers, but not usually in so much detail. I agree that they do try to blend in with society to avert suspicion. I guess we have to get used to the idea that a woman with a little baby is not necessarily a paragon of virtue like we've been led to believe.

I'm just curious as to what they did after they left the centre and why they chose that particular place to shoot people. Do you not find it odd that the guy went to the event at all? Ben thinks that he went there for normal reasons, and then decided that these people were to be his targets after some kind of argument or something. Do you agree with that?

Will this incident make some countries even more reluctant to admit Muslim refugees, particularly women with babies? Who would have suspected them of being terrorists before this happened?

How well was Farook known amongst his colleagues? The reports differ on that point. If he was reasonably well known, how could he hope to leave the centre and come back in to shoot people without being recognised? He must have known that someone at least would know it was him, and that the police could get his address within minutes. Why then go home and hang around for several hours?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

It does not surprise me at all Rags. If you look at suicide bombings and the recent attacks in Israel this is the norm where women and men, willingly give their lives, because they stupidly believe they will be glorified in death through Martydom. Seemed normal was just as the 9/11 bombers were, who blended in with society, going out drinking etc. Just because people act as people perceive and want them to be seen acting does not mean behind close doors they are not completely different. People seem shocked a mother would abandomn her child with placing her death of a greater importance. I am not as I have read many accounts of young mothers killing themslves whilst murdering others. They should be far greater distain more than others, as they not only fail in their responsibilities as parents, but take the lives of others, where the human life is deemed of lesser importance. Its time started waking up to this major problem within the religion and it is very much a religious problem.

Yes, we often hear about male suicide bombers leaving behind children. It happened here on 7/7. We've also heard about female suicide bombers, but not usually in so much detail. I agree that they do try to blend in with society to avert suspicion. I guess we have to get used to the idea that a woman with a little baby is not necessarily a paragon of virtue like we've been led to believe.

I'm just curious as to what they did after they left the centre and why they chose that particular place to shoot people. Do you not find it odd that the guy went to the event at all? Ben thinks that he went there for normal reasons, and then decided that these people were to be his targets after some kind of argument or something. Do you agree with that?

I do not agree it was over any disagreement.
In the minds of the terrorist, all are a legitimate target and people you would work with if their way of life is at odds with yours, would have them come daily to resent the very people he worked for. It makes sense to me, if this way of life is represented by the people he works with daily. Then to plan to take them out would be easier to commit to. I think Ben is very wrong, because he fails to grasp how these extremists view the west and its people. There may well have been some argument but the premeditated Arsenal clearly dispells any spur of the moment murder spree.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, we often hear about male suicide bombers leaving behind children. It happened here on 7/7. We've also heard about female suicide bombers, but not usually in so much detail. I agree that they do try to blend in with society to avert suspicion. I guess we have to get used to the idea that a woman with a little baby is not necessarily a paragon of virtue like we've been led to believe.

I'm just curious as to what they did after they left the centre and why they chose that particular place to shoot people. Do you not find it odd that the guy went to the event at all? Ben thinks that he went there for normal reasons, and then decided that these people were to be his targets after some kind of argument or something. Do you agree with that?

I do not agree it was over any disagreement.
In the minds of the terrorist, all are a legitimate target and people you would work with if their way of life is at odds with yours, would have them come daily to resent the very people he worked for. It makes sense to me, if this way of life is represented by the people he works with daily. Then to plan to take them out would be easier to commit to. I think Ben is very wrong, because he fails to grasp how these extremists view the west and its people. There may well have been some argument but the premeditated Arsenal clearly dispells any spur of the moment murder spree.

So do you think that he planned to shoot the people at the centre all along? Why then did he go to the event in the first place? Was he hoping that nobody would suspect him because he'd been there? Why not just stay away and turn up later to shoot them?

Reports say that he returned after about half an hour at the most. That's not long to go home, get his gear on, get the guns together, collect his wife, finalise the plan, and then return. Was she waiting somewhere nearby all ready to go with his gear and the guns?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

I do not agree it was over any disagreement.
In the minds of the terrorist, all are a legitimate target and people you would work with if their way of life is at odds with yours, would have them come daily to resent the very people he worked for. It makes sense to me, if this way of life is represented by the people he works with daily. Then to plan to take them out would be easier to commit to. I think Ben is very wrong, because he fails to grasp how these extremists view the west and its people. There may well have been some argument but the premeditated Arsenal clearly dispells any spur of the moment murder spree.

So do you think that he planned to shoot the people at the centre all along? Why then did he go to the event in the first place? Was he hoping that nobody would suspect him because he'd been there? Why not just stay away and turn up later to shoot them?

For two reasons.

1) That people were jolly, off guard from drinking, thus slower to react and less likely to be able to disarm them. He would wait till they were in more intoxicated state.

2) To ensure many if all were there to try to cause as many casulaties as possible.

Its clear to me here attended to keep up apperances again, then left when he felt they were at their most vunerable and giving him the best chance to kill as many as possible. If the bombs had gone off there would have been far greater deaths and casulaties.

Farook's mother, who shared a home with the couple and their 6-month-old baby, lived in an isolated part of the house, Chesley said.

How big is this house FFS? I hope they're looking very carefully at this whole family, including who should be allowed to adopt that baby.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/07/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html