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:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't say there was evidence of that nature, I said it might have been a form of Islamic terrorism. So far, no motive has been established, and as others have said, revenge for some alleged problem in the chap's employment seems a bit extreme, particularly as his wife got involved and they planned it beforehand.

When you don't have an answer, you don't guess.  You keep looking.  Only when you have any evidence do you go from neutrality to guessing--we call that hypothesizing.

There appears to have been a tiff in his work that emerged during the office party...he left and came back with the guns.  But that's the only evidence suggesting a motive that exists at all.  There is no evidence suggesting a jihadist angle.

If I was investigating this shooting I would certainly look into the possibility of a motive based on Islamic extremism.

I doubt that he only thought about shooting those people whilst he was at the party. Didn't it involve a degree of advance planning, not to mention the involvement of his wife?

Sure I heard on the evening news that the cops found a stash of pipe-bombs three of which failed to go off but not sure where that is supposed to have happened.

Lot more to this than just a spontanious shooting I would think.

I'm not sure it's a terrorist attack tbh
I would think it's a work-related grudge

eddie wrote:I'm not sure it's a terrorist attack tbh
I would think it's a work-related grudge

It's a bit extreme though. I don't get why his wife would go along with it, especially as they had a baby to think of. Surely she didn't think they could go and shoot a load of people and get away with it.

BBC this morning,it was a " terrorist attack!"

The FBI is withholding making any determination as to motive right now.  

nicko wrote:BBC this morning,it was a " terrorist attack!"

To clarify, no question it was a terrorist attack.  Shooting 14-people and injuring 17-more would strike terror in anyone’s mind.  But they are being cautious about saying it was related to any Islamic issue.

Raggamuffin wrote:I doubt that he only thought about shooting those people whilst he was at the party.

Irn Bru wrote:Lot more to this than just a spontanious shooting I would think

That much is a given.  I believe the San Bernadino police chief said it was obvious that this was a well-planned and executed attack.

The police witnesses say that as they were pursuing the SUV, the male was driving while the female was turned around with an AR-15 rifle, shooting at the cops.  All of the windows were shot out of the vehicle.

Tashfeen Malik, who helped her husband carry out Wednesday's gun massacre in San Bernardino, had sworn allegiance to the Islamic State group, US investigators say.

According to law enforcement officials, the Pakistan-born 27-year-old had pledged loyalty to the extremist organisation's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

She made the declaration on Facebook using an alias, then deleted the messages before the attacks, say investigators.

With her spouse, 28-year-old Syed Farook, she massacred 14 of his colleagues and injured another 21 during a holiday party at a social services centre.

Few details have emerged so far about Malik, who was in the US under a K1 fiancee visa, sponsored by her American citizen husband.
1/10

   
 

"At this point we believe they were more self-radicalised and inspired by the group than actually told to do the shooting," a federal law enforcement official told the New York Times.

A family member tells Reuters news agency they have been contacted by Pakistani intelligence as part of the San Bernardino investigation.

US intelligence officials also say that Farook, an Illinois-born restaurant inspector, had been in touch with Islamic extremists on social media.

from http://news.sky.com/story/1600097/california-gunwoman-swore-allegiance-to-is

wont be long before theres one here

and it WONT be due to the bombing either

they will bomb us regardless, simply because they can, and simply because they dont like our "culture"

like those that attacked the bataclan in paris describing the victims as "apostates indulging in vice and prostitution"



but hey dont let stop us , you are welcome here..

our jeremy will ask you nicely to stop  

I doubt very much that this pair were ordinary citizens who happened to be pissed off about something work related. If the woman was shooting out of the car window, that suggests that she was not a novice, or that she was not merely sticking up for her husband over some issue at work.

Raggamuffin wrote:I doubt very much that this pair were ordinary citizens who happened to be pissed off about something work related. If the woman was shooting out of the car window, that suggests that she was not a novice, or that she was not merely sticking up for her husband over some issue at work.

No question. She was obviously pissed about something. What? We don't know the motive.

I have sworn allegiance to the US millions of times when I took the pledge in school, and at any baseball or football game. Does that mean I am an agent of the FBI or the CIA? Doubtful.

The issue isn't as much 'why they did it', as what evidence do we have? Anyone man speculate and make up things based on sketchy details. The effort is to find something conclusive.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I doubt very much that this pair were ordinary citizens who happened to be pissed off about something work related. If the woman was shooting out of the car window, that suggests that she was not a novice, or that she was not merely sticking up for her husband over some issue at work.

No question.  She was obviously pissed about something.  What?  We don't know the motive.

I have sworn allegiance to the US millions of times when I took the pledge in school, and at any baseball or football game.  Does that mean I am an agent of the FBI or the CIA?  Doubtful.

The issue isn't as much 'why they did it', as what evidence do we have?  Anyone man speculate and make up things based on sketchy details.  The effort is to find something conclusive.

Well look, even if you were weird enough to be talked into going to a party with a gun, you'd have to be pretty ruthless to actually shoot anyone, and you'd have to have nerves of steel to then make a getaway and shoot at the police out of the car window. Furthermore, you'd have to be either very stupid or very ruthless to leave your baby knowing that you might be killed or caught and shoved in prison for many years. I don't think this was an ordinary woman who was pissed off about something.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No question.  She was obviously pissed about something.  What?  We don't know the motive.

I have sworn allegiance to the US millions of times when I took the pledge in school, and at any baseball or football game.  Does that mean I am an agent of the FBI or the CIA?  Doubtful.

The issue isn't as much 'why they did it', as what evidence do we have?  Anyone man speculate and make up things based on sketchy details.  The effort is to find something conclusive.

Well look, even if you were weird enough to be talked into going to a party with a gun, you'd have to be pretty ruthless to actually shoot anyone, and you'd have to have nerves of steel to then make a getaway and shoot at the police out of the car window. Furthermore, you'd have to be either very stupid or very ruthless to leave your baby knowing that you might be killed or caught and shoved in prison for many years. I don't think this was an ordinary woman who was pissed off about something.

And so...you just don't know what was her motive. It wasn't ordinary...but we don't know why she did it.  That's why its so important to obtain evidence.

There enough conspiracy theories around.  The important thing is to tie things down to evidence.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well look, even if you were weird enough to be talked into going to a party with a gun, you'd have to be pretty ruthless to actually shoot anyone, and you'd have to have nerves of steel to then make a getaway and shoot at the police out of the car window. Furthermore, you'd have to be either very stupid or very ruthless to leave your baby knowing that you might be killed or caught and shoved in prison for many years. I don't think this was an ordinary woman who was pissed off about something.

And so...you just don't know what was her motive.  It wasn't ordinary...but we don't know why she did it.  That's why its so important to obtain evidence.

There enough conspiracy theories around.  The important thing is to tie things down to evidence.

If you're waiting for evidence, perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

And so...you just don't know what was her motive.  It wasn't ordinary...but we don't know why she did it.  That's why its so important to obtain evidence.

There enough conspiracy theories around.  The important thing is to tie things down to evidence.

If you're waiting for evidence, perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread ...

That doesn't make sense.  

First, I'm not awaiting the evidence; the world is awaiting the evidence.  

Second, why does curiosity about evidence preclude posting on social media?

Raggamuffin wrote:If you're waiting for evidence, perhaps you shouldn't be posting in this thread ...

Are you suggesting this is the wacko thread, where anything goes? Maybe it was gamma rays from heaven???

So....? Do we know yet?
They had pipe bombs in their house

I'd guess they were planing something and this obviously wasn't spur of the moment
That's all we know

eddie wrote:So....? Do we know yet?
They had pipe bombs in their house

I'd guess they were planing something and this obviously wasn't spur of the moment
That's all we know

We don't know. The evidence is contradictory. They were obviously prepared for some pretty horrendous stuff. But they were living the average life, home, well-paid jobs, had a child, things suggesting a future and a settled lifestyle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/tashfeen-malik-islamic-state.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0

A planned terrorist attack by terrorists, simpul..

Not that simple. The FBI is perplexed too:

James B. Comey wrote:But [the Director of the FBI] said that investigators had not found evidence that the killers were part of a larger group or terrorist cell. The couple died in a shootout with the police on Wednesday.

I think we surmised within two minutes of the shooting that it was a terrorist attack.  The question is, who is behind it?  The FBI takes the position that...

James B. Comey wrote:“There’s no indication that they are part of a network,” he said.

There are a lot of crazy people out there.  They are motivated by a lot of dizzy thoughts.  This pair doesn't manifest any kind of sanity or planning.  They knew or should have known that they were recognized at the shooting.  Yet, they carried on as if they thought they would go back to their ordinary lives the next day.  They didn't abandon their home.  They didn't make any effort to separate their explosives factory from their home.  They didn't do any of the furtive efforts that we saw the Paris terrorists go through.

So clearly they lacked training.  They lacked orientation.  They left no message.  ISIL has praised them, but has made no effort to claim responsibility.  Nor has any other group.  And, they left a 6-month old little girl with no one to care for her.  It's still a mystery.

The family of the couple are getting together with a lawyer. They're saying that they don't think the couple were actually the killers.
They've claimed that the female had only given birth six months previously and weighed ninety pounds and was in no fit state to hold a gun - or not fit enough to hold such a heavy weapon.

Also, there are reports that the couple were killed in the car and yet were handcuffed?

Now I find this odd; you can't drive with handcuffs on (and they wasn't handcuffed prior to driving anyway) and I don't see the point in handcuffing a dead person....?

I watched this whole thing "live" and the news very quickly, stopped any live reports or footage.

This, is another false flag event and happened to coincide with the U.K. voting on bombing Syria.

It stinks, like most of these mass shootings in the US lately.

The following article poo-poos the idea of the lady not being able to carry heavy guns etc

But doesn't seem to mention or poo-poo the handcuffs

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428033/family-lawyer-they-were-handcuffed-lying-face-down-truck-shot-jim-geraghty

They were probably handcuffed after they were shot and pulled from the vehicle. The police don't wait to see if someone's dead before they handcuff them.

Should there be a warning for that pic by the way?

Raggamuffin wrote:They were probably handcuffed after they were shot and pulled from the vehicle. The police don't wait to see if someone's dead before they handcuff them.

Should there be a warning for that pic by the way?

Meh...we can handle it. It was all over live TV as it was happening. Both ABC and CNN had helicopters in the air videoing it.

Do you have any authority for the claim that they handcuff dead people? I'd like to see that protocol...and discuss why they would do that?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They were probably handcuffed after they were shot and pulled from the vehicle. The police don't wait to see if someone's dead before they handcuff them.

Should there be a warning for that pic by the way?

Meh...we can handle it.  It was all over live TV as it was happening.  Both ABC and CNN had helicopters in the air videoing it.

Do you have any authority for the claim that they handcuff dead people?  I'd like to see that protocol...and discuss why they would do that?

Some people might be sensitive to the sight of so much blood. It doesn't bother me, but it might bother some people.

I've seen videos of the police in the US handcuff people they've just shot. Obviously, they're not sure if they're dead or not - hence my comment that they don't check first. I guess they don't want to take any chances.

Also, the fact that the guy is on his front would indicate that he was cuffed after he was shot. That's what they do - put them on their front and then cuff their hands behind their back.

I think they carried out the attacks and there's no conspiracy going on. My theory is that they had planned to attack either this facility or a place like it for a long time, but something happened to Farook at that party that pissed him off and led him to decide to carry out the attack then.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think they carried out the attacks and there's no conspiracy going on. My theory is that they had planned to attack either this facility or a place like it for a long time, but something happened to Farook at that party that pissed him off and led him to decide to carry out the attack then.

yeah, somebody probably mentioned christmas

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think they carried out the attacks and there's no conspiracy going on. My theory is that they had planned to attack either this facility or a place like it for a long time, but something happened to Farook at that party that pissed him off and led him to decide to carry out the attack then.

So, you think it was a mixed motive situation? That makes it a workplace shooting, in part. But why were they planning any attack? What was the other motive?

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think they carried out the attacks and there's no conspiracy going on. My theory is that they had planned to attack either this facility or a place like it for a long time, but something happened to Farook at that party that pissed him off and led him to decide to carry out the attack then.

You mean you think they didn't have a clear plan as to who to target, and then he suddenly decided that they should target the people at the party after something annoyed him, and he went home and got the guns and his wife?

He had asked his mother to take the baby though and said his wife had a doctor's appointment. He then went to the conference centre. If his wife did actually have an appointment, there would be info about that, and she wouldn't have been at home for him to go and collect on the spur of the moment.

Just to clarify for OQ and Raggs -- I think the couple was planning to carry out this attack or one like it, for jihadist motives, and had been for some time -- otherwise the coordination and supplies they had doesn't make sense.

However, I think the fact that Farook left the party and showed up minutes later, wife in tow, to go on a killing spree suggests that something that happened at the party triggered him to deem that it was time to carry out the attack.

Raggamuffin wrote:He had asked his mother to take the baby though and said his wife had a doctor's appointment. He then went to the conference centre. If his wife did actually have an appointment, there would be info about that, and she wouldn't have been at home for him to go and collect on the spur of the moment.

Gd. lead. Did anyone ask about the appointment, and what was the answer?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to clarify for OQ and Raggs -- I think the couple was planning to carry out this attack or one like it, for jihadist motives, and had been for some time -- otherwise the coordination and supplies they had doesn't make sense.

However, I think the fact that Farook left the party and showed up minutes later, wife in tow, to go on a killing spree suggests that something that happened at the party triggered him to deem that it was time to carry out the attack.

So, when do you think they planned to carry it out, absent the triggering event at the party? I mean, everything else was fairly well planned.

What do you mean by jihadist motives? There's no evidence that they were card-carrying members of ISIL or al Qaeda.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to clarify for OQ and Raggs -- I think the couple was planning to carry out this attack or one like it, for jihadist motives, and had been for some time -- otherwise the coordination and supplies they had doesn't make sense.

However, I think the fact that Farook left the party and showed up minutes later, wife in tow, to go on a killing spree suggests that something that happened at the party triggered him to deem that it was time to carry out the attack.

That would mean that the guns and gear they wore were nearby and accessible. If it was nearby, that would suggest that it wasn't a sudden change of plan. Where do you think the stuff was, and where do you think his wife was when he suddenly decided to shoot people at the party?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:He had asked his mother to take the baby though and said his wife had a doctor's appointment. He then went to the conference centre. If his wife did actually have an appointment, there would be info about that, and she wouldn't have been at home for him to go and collect on the spur of the moment.

Gd. lead.  Did anyone ask about the appointment, and what was the answer?

I can't find any info as to whether she did actually have an appointment, or whether she went to the appointment.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to clarify for OQ and Raggs -- I think the couple was planning to carry out this attack or one like it, for jihadist motives, and had been for some time -- otherwise the coordination and supplies they had doesn't make sense.

However, I think the fact that Farook left the party and showed up minutes later, wife in tow, to go on a killing spree suggests that something that happened at the party triggered him to deem that it was time to carry out the attack.

So, when do you think they planned to carry it out, absent the triggering event at the party?  I mean, everything else was fairly well planned.

What do you mean by jihadist motives?  There's no evidence that they were card-carrying members of ISIL or al Qaeda.

No idea on the original "when." Hopefully the FBI can recover data that answers that question from their hard drives ...

I used "jihadist motives" as shorthand for "Muslims who think they should carry out terrorist attacks against Western targets." It might not have been confirmed yet, but there's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction.

I don't know what time this event started, and what time Farook actually left. That would help to establish the timeline. The reports say that the shooting started just before 11 am.

I'd also like to know what this pair did after they left the scene of the shooting. They were killed only a few miles away but that was several hours later. Had they been hiding at a house? To whom did that house belong?

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to clarify for OQ and Raggs -- I think the couple was planning to carry out this attack or one like it, for jihadist motives, and had been for some time -- otherwise the coordination and supplies they had doesn't make sense.

However, I think the fact that Farook left the party and showed up minutes later, wife in tow, to go on a killing spree suggests that something that happened at the party triggered him to deem that it was time to carry out the attack.

This does make sense, I think they had something much bigger planned bearing in mind the resources they had available

Could it be that they really thought they would get away with it and be able to carry out another attack later?

Raggamuffin wrote:Could it be that they really thought they would get away with it and be able to carry out another attack later?

I can't see how they would have thought they could get away with it

feelthelove wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Could it be that they really thought they would get away with it and be able to carry out another attack later?

I can't see how they would have thought they could get away with it

No, but the shootout happened several hours later, so they might have got away I guess - if someone at the party hadn't realised who they were. I'm not entirely sure where they went afterwards - home I think, and then they left again and headed back in the direction of the centre where they'd done the shooting. Apparently, the guy had hired the car a few days beforehand, but it's odd that they didn't ditch it sooner really. The details of what happened before the shootout are a bit vague.

Around the same time as the attack, Malik pledges allegiance to an Islamic State leader in a Facebook posting under a different name, two federal law enforcement officials said. A person familiar with the post but not authorized to publicly comment said the statement was posted about the same time that the holiday party shooting began.

Huh? She must have been good at multitasking then.

http://www.latimes.com/visuals/graphics/la-g-san-bernardino-shooting-timeline-20151204-htmlstory.html

Raggamuffin wrote:I'd also like to know what this pair did after they left the scene of the shooting. They were killed only a few miles away but that was several hours later. Had they been hiding at a house? To whom did that house belong?

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.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I'd also like to know what this pair did after they left the scene of the shooting. They were killed only a few miles away but that was several hours later. Had they been hiding at a house? To whom did that house belong?

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.

Why would it be odd if they headed off home?
Who is to say what goes through the minds of terrorists or why they would store their Arsenal at their home. That makes more sense to be able to hide close to home than it would anywhere else. If you are building bombs and moving such weaponary, you would want to be able to move it as short a distance from your house as possible if you were assembling such bombs.
To take them out into the open and your car would raise the risk of being found out. So it makes perfect sense they would horde their Arsenal at home more than anywhere else.
Its ridiculous to even attempt to understand the mind of killers, but it is a tad easier to understand why a couple who would not fear death through their religious belief, as to why they would return to where they could further equip themselves with more ammunition so as to take as many people with them as possible.
Remember in the minds of a jihadi, it is the most glorious way possible to die through a claim of Martydom.
And the number of Muslim clerics that have denounced them as apostates or blasphemers for their criminal acts of murder?

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.

Oh dear.

So the witness, how can she tell 3 people in military gear are all men?
She is looking out the window from distance, so how can be sure what she saw? Again this is typical where people make claims about an incident which I would question the validity.
Would you seriously look out of your window to where automatic weapons are firing incase you end up getting shot?
Many people make claims that they could have no possible way of identifying or how this in fact conflicts with other eyewitness accounts.

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