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

Original Quill wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I really fail to grasp why so much attantion has been made about their social media accounts?
If they had been planning to murder many people for ages, the last thing you are going to do is draw attention to yourself by stating support for Jihad. I mean come on, the CIA who is just about snooping so many accounts on social media is going to have filter of hits of certain words that will bring people to their attention. So if clearly based off the evidence and the amount of weapons, ammo and bombs they made, you would have to be brainless to draw such attention to yourself, as it would vastly increase the chances of them being found out.

I agree.  There is so much about this day that doesn't fit with good sense.  If they just shot up a Christmas party, what were they still doing in town??  Where are the 'three men'?  What mother kisses her 6-month old daughter and goes out for a morning of murder and mayhem?  A lot of questions.

The last part is very easy to understand when you understand the religious midnset of Martydom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reem_Riyashi

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I saw it, but placed it in the margins of thought, unless and until something more came up about it.  That happens frequently.  You are looking for facts; something comes up, and you wait until in connects up to something more.  

It's not a full-blown RW or LW advertisement, as was this video.  The video is purporting to tell me how to think and feel...which I can do quite well on my own, based on the facts.  That's a waste of my time.

I didn't force you to watch it Quill. I just came across it and thought it was interesting.

I'm not being critical. You suggested it. I watched it.

I was in a mood for more facts, and unfortunately it had no facts. That's all.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't force you to watch it Quill. I just came across it and thought it was interesting.

I'm not being critical.  You suggested it.  I watched it.  

I was in a mood for more facts, and unfortunately it had no facts.  That's all.

But you're not in the mood for facts on the thread about the plumber's van.

OK. I'll just post what I want on this thread, and ignore your posts. I won't ask you about anything else.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree.  There is so much about this day that doesn't fit with good sense.  If they just shot up a Christmas party, what were they still doing in town??  Where are the 'three men'?  What mother kisses her 6-month old daughter and goes out for a morning of murder and mayhem?  A lot of questions.

The last part is very easy to understand when you understand the religious midnset of Martydom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reem_Riyashi

I'm not willing to go down the road of saying anything Muslim is evil. I'm speaking of tactics and strategy.

The efforts of Malik and Syed seem disjointed, and appear not to fit any theory of the case. Other facts surrounding the case also do not reflect any reasonable interpretation as well.

There are two other things I find a bit weird. The first is the photo of Farook and Malik allegedly at the airport. It looks like they've been pasted in to me.

The second thing is the speed in which journalists got access to their house and were allowed to put their hands all over everything. The FBI said they had finished but it was only a couple of days, so I find that odd.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm not being critical.  You suggested it.  I watched it.  

I was in a mood for more facts, and unfortunately it had no facts.  That's all.

But you're not in the mood for facts on the thread about the plumber's van.

OK. I'll just post what I want on this thread, and ignore your posts. I won't ask you about anything else.

I'm dismissive of anything that doesn't lead anywhere. I don't waste my time arguing for the sake of some sub rosa competition with someone else. I am merely ambivalent, until and unless the fact in question becomes relevant.

Look at your position: you are angry with me because I won't join you in castigating someone for posting something that didn't pan out...you're saying, in effect, if you are not with me, you are against me. If it isn't relevant, I am ambivalent, that's all. If that makes you indignant, I am not to blame.

Original Quill wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

The last part is very easy to understand when you understand the religious midnset of Martydom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reem_Riyashi

I'm not willing to go down the road of saying anything Muslim is evil.  I'm speaking of tactics and strategy.

The efforts of Malik and Syed seem disjointed, and appear not to fit any theory of the case.  Other facts surrounding the case also do not reflect any reasonable interpretation as well.

You are a lefty and thus fail to understand a great many things Quill

At no point here did I say anything Muslim is evil, and yet you go off a view that I have.
That is the flawed left wing mindset

I rightly said based what you said on a mother kissing her 6 month old child and then committing murder.
In the mind of the religious extremist in martydom, this is normalized for a mother to carry out such an act.
Thier human life is placed of lesser worth than a belief to an after life, where again you have a belief system that places the highest honor to enter heaven through martydom.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But you're not in the mood for facts on the thread about the plumber's van.

OK. I'll just post what I want on this thread, and ignore your posts. I won't ask you about anything else.

I'm dismissive of anything that doesn't lead anywhere.  I don't waste my time arguing for the sake of some sub rosa competition with someone else.  I am merely ambivalent, until and unless the fact in question becomes relevant.

Look at your position: you are angry with me because I won't join you in castigating someone for posting something that didn't pan out...you're saying, in effect, if you are not with me, you are against me.  If it isn't relevant, I am ambivalent, that's all.  If that makes you indignant, I am not to blame.

I'm not angry about that, I just thought your post was quite rude. I didn't post the video specifically for you to look at and I didn't ask you to look at it. I don't give a toss whether you watched it or not. You were just quite rude, that's all.

Raggamuffin wrote:There are two other things I find a bit weird. The first is the photo of Farook and Malik allegedly at the airport. It looks like they've been pasted in to me.

I agree. In fact, is that even her?

Raggamuffin wrote:The second thing is the speed in which journalists got access to their house and were allowed to put their hands all over everything. The FBI said they had finished but it was only a couple of days, so I find that odd.

The landlord let the press in, as I understand it. He claims he was merely making the place available to insurance adjusters, for his claim as to the damages.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm dismissive of anything that doesn't lead anywhere.  I don't waste my time arguing for the sake of some sub rosa competition with someone else.  I am merely ambivalent, until and unless the fact in question becomes relevant.

Look at your position: you are angry with me because I won't join you in castigating someone for posting something that didn't pan out...you're saying, in effect, if you are not with me, you are against me.  If it isn't relevant, I am ambivalent, that's all.  If that makes you indignant, I am not to blame.

I'm not angry about that, I just thought your post was quite rude. I didn't post the video specifically for you to look at and I didn't ask you to look at it. I don't give a toss whether you watched it or not. You were just quite rude, that's all.

You asked members to look at it. I did look at it. I expressed an opinion. That's all.

If my opinion was rude in your mind, it's because you wanted me to opine otherwise.

Don't forget what the fanatics say,"you love life,we love death". What twisted minds some have.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not angry about that, I just thought your post was quite rude. I didn't post the video specifically for you to look at and I didn't ask you to look at it. I don't give a toss whether you watched it or not. You were just quite rude, that's all.

You asked members to look at it.  I did look at it.  I expressed an opinion.  That's all.

If my opinion was rude in your mind, it's because you wanted me to opine otherwise.

I didn't ask anyone to look at it. Perhaps you should have paid attention though because you have a habit of blaming white people for everything yourself.

Anyway, shove off. If you can be rude, so can I. I won't ask you about police cars any more because they would involve speculation, and I know how you disapprove of that.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You asked members to look at it.  I did look at it.  I expressed an opinion.  That's all.

If my opinion was rude in your mind, it's because you wanted me to opine otherwise.

I didn't ask anyone to look at it. Perhaps you should have paid attention though because you have a habit of blaming white people for everything yourself.

Anyway, shove off. If you can be rude, so can I. I won't ask you about police cars any more because they would involve speculation, and I know how you disapprove of that.

You do recognize that this conversation is going nowhere. You are playing dog in the manger. I'll be back when you get over it.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't ask anyone to look at it. Perhaps you should have paid attention though because you have a habit of blaming white people for everything yourself.

Anyway, shove off. If you can be rude, so can I. I won't ask you about police cars any more because they would involve speculation, and I know how you disapprove of that.

You do recognize that this conversation is going nowhere.  You are playing dog in the manger.  I'll be back when you get over it.

Don't bother - I won't be discussing it with you anyway. You've gone into patronising mode again.

I suppose the bullets could have been fired from behind the SUV and hit the windscreen if the back window was shot out.

But why did they have the wipers on intermittently? It can only have been to wipe away fragments of glass, or perhaps he put them on by mistake whilst making a dash from the car or ducking from the bullets.

The hazard lights were on too as the chase was happening. That's quite odd. People usually put those on when they've slowed down or think they're breaking down. Perhaps he slowed down to allow Malik to climb into the back seat. Then again, why bother putting the hazard lights on? It's not as if they would have cared about road safety at the time.

Raggamuffin wrote:But why did they have the wipers on intermittently? It can only have been to wipe away fragments of glass, or perhaps he put them on by mistake whilst making a dash from the car or ducking from the bullets.

The hazard lights were on too as the chase was happening. That's quite odd. People usually put those on when they've slowed down or think they're breaking down. Perhaps he slowed down to allow Malik to climb into the back seat. Then again, why bother putting the hazard lights on? It's not as if they would have cared about road safety at the time.

Gd point about the hazard lights.  The windshield wipers are on the steering column on my truck, and it's easy to inadvertently trigger them.  But, you only put hazard lights on when you are concerned about safety.  It's a more deliberate act.  Of what use are they if you are stopping to have a shoot-out with police?

Seems, again, a bit inconsistent.

I'm also trying to establish which way Farook was lying after he was shot. He was lying almost parallel to the kerb. He got out of the SUV and ran across the road. The gun is lying on the ground maybe a couple of feet away from him. That suggests that he was facing the police when he was shot rather than away from them. I wonder if he had turned round to shoot at them.

Don't know if this has been posted already as there are too may pages to look through.

NSA and CIA Contractor Says U.S. Mercenary Group Carried Out San Bernardino Attack

A former NSA and CIA contractor says he has to come clean about the San Bernardino shooting, which he says did not happen the way the media and law enforcement are claiming.

The official narrative is that last Wednesday, Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 29, stormed a holiday party in San Bernardino, California, shooting and killing 14 people and injuring 21 others. This marks the deadliest mass shooting in the US in three years.

We are told that Malik pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Daesh (ISIS) terrorist organization and pseudo-Caliphate. This pledge or “bayat” supposedly came via Facebook – during the attacks in question.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) said on Monday that the couple had been radicalized “for some time,” even though they claimed to have known absolutely nothing about them.

But according to Steven D Kelley, a former NSA and CIA contractor, Mercenaries from the Craft International, a tactical training company for the US military, are the ones who carried out a “false flag operation” in San Bernardino, California.

Kelley said in an interview with Iran’s Press TV on Tuesday that the San Bernardino shooting “is just one in a long string of false flag events that I am afraid to say are not over.”

“We’ll probably be seeing several more before the end of the year, because of the events that are going on in the world, specifically with the NATO being implicated in the buying of oil from Daesh and other events,” he continued.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2015/12/san-bernardino-nsa-contractor/#

Judge for yourself. I love conspiracy theories as the challenge the events and ask searcing questions on what happened.

I would think it is false.

I love idiots who buy into conspiracies based off no evidence but assumptions
Why do they do this?
Well because they do not want to accept the truth a religiously hateful group hates our way of life.
So lets ask Irn, by what end would the CIA achieve by pulling off this event?
What has changed?

So clearly this is a very very dirty false flag. Obviously, the United States is getting very very desperate; the government here is very desperate, they need to do something immediately to disarm the United States prior to a revolution, because the people here are waking up very fast, and they are ready to shut down this evil empire. And this needs to happen very soon,” Kelley concluded.

I don't understand that bit.

So how did these people ensure that Farook left the room when he did?

Is this chap saying that nobody actually got shot at all? If so, how do you keep that many people quiet?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I love idiots who buy into conspiracies based off no evidence but assumptions
Why do they do this?
Well because they do not want to accept the truth a religiously hateful group hates our way of life.
So lets ask Irn, by what end would the CIA achieve by pulling off this event?
What has changed?

I said I think it's false meaning the claim that it was carried out by a mercenary group. Did I really have to spell that out for you?

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I love idiots who buy into conspiracies based off no evidence but assumptions
Why do they do this?
Well because they do not want to accept the truth a religiously hateful group hates our way of life.
So lets ask Irn, by what end would the CIA achieve by pulling off this event?
What has changed?

I said I think it's false meaning the claim that it was carried out by a mercenary group. Did I really have to spell that out for you?

That is not what you said at all actually.

Try again

I took Bru's last comment to mean that he thought the claim was false.

Raggamuffin wrote:I took Bru's last comment to mean that he thought the claim was false.

Why post it, if he feels its false.?

Try thinking out of the box Rags

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I love idiots who buy into conspiracies based off no evidence but assumptions
Why do they do this?
Well because they do not want to accept the truth a religiously hateful group hates our way of life.
So lets ask Irn, by what end would the CIA achieve by pulling off this event?
What has changed?

I said I think it's false meaning the claim that it was carried out by a mercenary group. Did I really have to spell that out for you?

That is not what you said at all actually.

Try again

That's exactly what I meant you were just too thick to read it properly.

I put it up for discussion to see what others thought of it and you have your chance to do that further if you wish.

Carry on..........

Raggamuffin wrote:I took Bru's last comment to mean that he thought the claim was false.

Of course you did Raggs. Didge just arguing for the sake of arguing

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


That is not what you said at all actually.

Try again

That's exactly what I meant you were just too thick to read it properly.

I put it up for discussion to see what others thought of it and you have your chance to do that further if you wish.

Carry on..........

Insults, quelle surprise, off nothing more than asking why you love conspiracy and yet do not believe in them.
What is there to discuss, if you do not believe in them.
Do you then thrive on arguments?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I took Bru's last comment to mean that he thought the claim was false.

Why post it, if he feels its false.?

Try thinking out of the box Rags

Why not? I've probably posted some stuff which I don't necessarily agree with. It's good to have alternative theories to discuss. One doesn't have to accept they're true.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


That is not what you said at all actually.

Try again

That's exactly what I meant you were just too thick to read it properly.

I put it up for discussion to see what others thought of it and you have your chance to do that further if you wish.

Carry on..........

Insults, quelle surprise, off nothing more than asking why you love conspiracy and yet do not believe in them.
What is there to discuss, if you do not believe in them.
Do you then thrive on arguments?

Insults! Your questiongi my reason for putting up this for discussion by making out I thought it was true and now you are left hanging on to anything to divert from the fact that you got that wrong

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Insults, quelle surprise, off nothing more than asking why you love conspiracy and yet do not believe in them.
What is there to discuss, if you do not believe in them.
Do you then thrive on arguments?

Insults! Your questiongi my reason for putting up this for discussion by making out I thought it was true and now you are left hanging on to anything to divert from the fact that you got that wrong

Is it against the rules to question what  a poster who loves conspriacies, would post one?
Is it wrong to question your reasoning?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Insults, quelle surprise, off nothing more than asking why you love conspiracy and yet do not believe in them.
What is there to discuss, if you do not believe in them.
Do you then thrive on arguments?

Insults! Your questiongi my reason for putting up this for discussion by making out I thought it was true and now you are left hanging on to anything to divert from the fact that you got that wrong

Is it against the rules to question what  a poster who loves conspriacies, would post one?
Is it wrong to question your reasoning?

Well if you are questioning my reasoning are you calling my explanation why I put that link up and my opinion on it a complete lie?

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Is it against the rules to question what  a poster who loves conspriacies, would post one?
Is it wrong to question your reasoning?

Well if you are questioning my reasoning are you calling my explanation why I put that link up and my opinion on it a complete lie?

What did I ask and say?

Why love conspracies? If you think them stupid? Or daft?
Are you then trying to be antagonistic?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Is it against the rules to question what  a poster who loves conspriacies, would post one?
Is it wrong to question your reasoning?

Well if you are questioning my reasoning are you calling my explanation why I put that link up and my opinion on it a complete lie?

What did I ask and say?

Why love conspracies? If you think them stupid? Or daft?
Are you then trying to be antagonistic?

Coming from you on that is hilarious. You've created a mountain out of a molehil just because yiu got it wrong.

Now I'm off up the club for a couple of pints laughing my socks off at that last comment.

Catch you later

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


What did I ask and say?

Why love conspracies? If you think them stupid? Or daft?
Are you then trying to be antagonistic?

Coming from you on that is hilarious. You've created a mountain out of a molehil just because yiu got it wrong.

Now I'm off up the club for a couple of pints laughing my socks off at that last comment.

Catch you later

Got what wrong?

I asked why someone who thinks conspraices are wrong would post one?
I asked are they doing this to be antagonistic?
tell me why that is wrong to ask?

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


What did I ask and say?

Why love conspracies? If you think them stupid? Or daft?
Are you then trying to be antagonistic?

Coming from you on that is hilarious. You've created a mountain out of a molehil just because yiu got it wrong.

Now I'm off up the club for a couple of pints laughing my socks off at that last comment.

Catch you later

Got what wrong?

I asked why someone who thinks conspraices are wrong would post one?
I asked are they doing this to be antagonistic?
tell me why that is wrong to ask?

Your words...

I love idiots who buy into conspiracies based off no evidence but assumptions
Why do they do this?
Well because they do not want to accept the truth a religiously hateful group hates our way of life.
So lets ask Irn, by what end would the CIA achieve by pulling off this event?
What has changed?

You called it wrong and now you're running around all over the place trying to wriggle out of it.


Not the sharpest tool in the box are you and now you're just being a silly billy?

I never got anything wroing Irn, I clearly showed up youir contradiction and I always know I have you wound up is you resort to smiles lol

Happy days

so again

I asked why someone who thinks conspraices are wrong would post one?
I asked are they doing this to be antagonistic?
tell me why that is wrong to ask?

Enrique Marquez has been arrested and charged.

Enrique Marquez, 24, is charged with conspiring with Farook to provide material support to terrorism, making a false statement in connection with the acquisition of firearms, and immigration fraud, according to a statement from the Department of Justice.

I'm pleased they're not overlooking the allegation that he entered into a sham marriage.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

Raggamuffin wrote:Enrique Marquez has been arrested and charged.

Enrique Marquez, 24, is charged with conspiring with Farook to provide material support to terrorism, making a false statement in connection with the acquisition of firearms, and immigration fraud, according to a statement from the Department of Justice.

I'm pleased they're not overlooking the allegation that he entered into a sham marriage.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/17/us/san-bernardino-shooting/

As always, the devil is in the details.  I would be interested in seeing transcripts of the interviews as well as the other evidence, documentary and otherwise.

Framing is everything in these kinds of cases.  As to the alleged acts themselves: were these one-way conversations from Syad to Marques, thereafter characterized by the authorities as 'mutual planning'?  I've seen a lot of those kinds of cases, one side telling another about his wild visions and delusions...the other nodding, and thinking 'what a nut-case'!  Now, just because he is the friend of the nut-case--guilt by association--he is accused and charged.  Later, they either drop the charges and whimper (Gary Giordano), or go to court and make fools of themselves (OJ Simpson).

What is really going on here is, the authorities need some public validation.  What better way to rally support (not to mention tax dollars) than to appear the Lone Ranger, riding into town with the culprit hog-tied and in tow.  After all, in the present case all the known culprits are gone...they died in the shoot-out.  The public is left with no one to hate.

We've seen this before.  19-men hijack four aircraft and crash them into tall buildings.  All dead.  What to do?  Why, of course, go to war against a nation (iraq) that had nothing to do with it.  The authorities need validation...they need to be seen doing something, anything, in order to justify themselves.

It's only my hunch--call it an abundance of caution--but I've served in law enforcement and seen it all too often.

Why have they not arrested the woman who married Marquez as well? If it was a sham marriage, I presume she'll be prosecuted too and/or deported.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why have they not arrested the woman who married Marquez as well? If it was a sham marriage, I presume she'll be prosecuted too and/or deported.

I don't know if the remedy for that is arrest. Mostly, they just deport people who have done that.

Original Quill wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I really fail to grasp why so much attantion has been made about their social media accounts?
If they had been planning to murder many people for ages, the last thing you are going to do is draw attention to yourself by stating support for Jihad. I mean come on, the CIA who is just about snooping so many accounts on social media is going to have filter of hits of certain words that will bring people to their attention. So if clearly based off the evidence and the amount of weapons, ammo and bombs they made, you would have to be brainless to draw such attention to yourself, as it would vastly increase the chances of them being found out.

I agree.  There is so much about this day that doesn't fit with good sense.  If they just shot up a Christmas party, what were they still doing in town??  Where are the 'three men'?  What mother kisses her 6-month old daughter and goes out for a morning of murder and mayhem?  A lot of questions.

I'm not sure didge is agreeing with your theories quill?

And this shooting has caused confusion.
Of course it has! Lies always cause confusion.

eddie wrote:And this shooting has caused confusion.
Of course it has! Lies always cause confusion.

What lies eddie? Do you think that Marquez is in on it too?

Rags, WHY is there so much confusion based around this shooting? Why so many unanswered questions, differing stories, different witness accounts, things that make you go "Huh?"

Now, I don't know what the truth is, I just know that the truth is pretty straightforward and believable and doesn't leave me scratching my head.

That's what I know.

eddie wrote:Rags, WHY is there so much confusion based around this shooting? Why so many unanswered questions, differing stories, different witness accounts, things that make you go "Huh?"

Now, I don't know what the truth is, I just know that the truth is pretty straightforward and believable and doesn't leave me scratching my head.

That's what I know.

The only real confusion is those two people saying that they saw three men (white men). I'd like to hear more about that, but there's been no more info.

And the holes in the front of the car windshield.

eddie wrote:And the holes in the front of the car windshield.

Yes, I brought that up myself. However, we are missing footage which might show what happened. It's possible that they cleared the area of police cars. I find the hazard lights strange.

Lol who was it that said the last part of your sig?

eddie wrote:Lol who was it that said the last part of your sig?

Someone who's on this forum, but she didn't say it on this forum. It made me titter so much that I nicked it - hope she doesn't mind.