San Bernardino Shooting

Why Authorities Are Still Careful About the Motives for the San Bernardino Shootings (UPDATED: With Latest Info)

Farook may be Muslim, but he doesn't seem to match the ISIS profile.

|

Syed Farook
Source: Family

Officials are still sorting out the motives as to why Syed Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, decided to plan and carry out the mass murder of Farook's co-workers from San Bernardino County's health department at a holiday party.

For anybody either confused that authorities are still not immediately jumping to Islamist terrorism, understand that Southern California is host to a significant population of Muslims who began immigrating out here generations ago, and many are as assimilated as anybody else, even while continuing to practice their faith. They're not just in the urban centers, but in outlying suburban enclaves like Redlands, the community where Farook lived, right next door to San Bernardino. Farook may have become radicalized more recently; his new wife, from Saudi Arabia (Per the update below, she's actually a citizen of Pakistan), whom he met online, might have played a role. Fox News is heavily pushing the radicalization theory based on sources.

But there's little understanding at this point how or why Farook became radicalized with what little information we have about him. He was not some disaffected youth with no future ready to embrace the nihilistic attitudes of the Islamic State. Having a job with government in remarkably poor San Bernardino County probably put him in the top five percent of household income in the area. In a dating site profile, he mentioned that he enjoyed reading religious books, but described himself as both "religious" and "modern." Modernity is not exactly what the Islamic State is looking for. He enjoyed working on cars, both vintage and modern (a popular hobby in this Route 66-idolizing area), and also "target practice" with family and friends. The target practice has also been flagged by some as suspicious, but San Bernardino County is a huge, actually very rural place once you get out of the cities. It's a massive desert. There is a big recreational gun culture in San Bernardino County, and his ownership of weapons probably would not have come as a surprise if Farook were white or Christian.

Farook, to anybody who lives in Southern California, appears, based on what we know so far, to have been a perfectly assimilated Muslim American. That helps explain the reluctance to fully publicly embrace the radicalization possibility, though it could yet still prove to be true. It's also possible that Farook, like several other mass shooters in the United States, developed some sort of serious mental illness that he managed to keep hidden from co-workers and friends, and this violence is the ultimate manifestation. It would seem strange that his wife would also be involved, but then keep in mind that the value of the Internet allows people to connect with other like-minded people on the basis of hobbies, politics, and other interests. It also, therefore, creates the possibility that Farook and Malik shared a similar fractured outlook, without either of them having any formal connections to terrorist groups. The radicalization could be a symptom, not a cause.

Even conservative politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), while saying it could be terrorism, are carefully hedging that we don't have enough information yet. The FBI has said Farook was not on their radar screens as a potential terrorist, though according to the New York Times, they're looking into a connection between Farook and somebody else they investigated "a few years ago."

The Twittersphere and some media outlets may rush to judgment, but there's very good reason to be cautious about guessing at Farook's motives here. 

UPDATE: At a morning press conference, San Bernardino Police and FBI provided the latest information on the investigation. Though they are still not willing to discuss a motive, there is additional evidence that the violence was planned in advance:

  • At the Redlands home that Farook and Malike were renting, police found about 12 pipe bombs. The explosive device found at the scene of the shooting conisted of three pipe bombs attached to a remote control vehicle. It apparently did not detonate during the shooting.
  • After the shootout between the suspects and police, they found more than 1,500 rounds of ammunition on the couple or in their vehicle for the four guns they owned.
  • The SUV they were driving had been rented locally several days before the shooting. 
  • The third person they detained turned out to be unconnected to the shootings. There are no other suspects they believe were directly involved with the shooting itself. 
  • The guns involved were all purchased legally. The handguns were purchased directly by Farook. The rifles were not, and the origins of the rifles are still being researched.
  • Farook had no criminal record to the police's knowledge and was not subject to any current investigations.
  • Farook did travel overseas in July 2014 and returned with Malik. Malik is from Pakistan, in the U.S. on a Visa. 
  • Officials plan to start releasing the names of those killed today.
  • Police say the couple was wearing tactical clothing, but not body armor. And despite some media reports, they found no evidence they were wearing video cameras.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

915 responses to “Why Authorities Are Still Careful About the Motives for the San Bernardino Shootings (UPDATED: With Latest Info)

  1. Shorter Shackford:

    Too early to say exactly what the killers’ motives were.

    1. Stick to twitter if all you want is short statements without any explanation or evidence.

      1. I’m not carrying water for the twittersphere, but there’s never a reason to use 200 words if ten will do.

        1. But the article said more than that, including what Fox News’ narrative is, that the male shooter had a high-paying job in a poor city, a description of his dating profile, what conclusions people are jumping to based on his dating profile a short paragraph speculating on possible motives and why people are jumping to conclusion and what Ted Cruz’s response has been.

          My guess is that y’all are just lazy as hell.

          1. My guess is that y’all are just lazy as hell.

            And?

          2. Flanders,

            He and his wife went on a killing spree because the dating site didn’t produce another wife/sex slave?

            1. Hmm… another valid hypothesis…

          3. The simple reality of Islamist terrorism is that it’s definitely NOT limited to poor disaffected Muslim youth with no other options in life.

            There have been way too many cases of middle class, educated, and comfortable Muslims choosing radicalization and jihad to read any significance into the fact that this guy had a job and seemed well-adjusted.

            And that’s the really difficult thing about dealing with Muslims in the west; there’s no real profile to help determine which ones are going to go wrong. If it were simply poverty and lack of education, the problem would be easier to deal with. But plenty of terrorists seemed to have enough going for them that you’d think they wouldn’t be susceptible to radicalization.

        2. Charles Dickens disagrees. When you’re being payed by the word, you definitely have a reason to be verbose.

          1. Something something Mark Twain’s review of Last of the Mohicans

    2. Isn’t that pretty much Shorter Everyone right now?

      1. No.

        Shorter liberal mags:

        If they didn’t have guns, it wouldn’t have happened. Ban guns.

        1. ignore the pipe bombs

    3. The best thing for our country would be if our comander-in-chief keeled over from a massive heart attack. They say prayer works.

      1. I would prefer to see his entire administration convicted of treason, and executed.

        1. …and now we know what sort of country you’d like to live in.

  2. I think the office holiday party is sufficient to explain his motives.

    1. I thought you were supposed to get drunk, photocopy your arse, hit on co-workers and make regretable remarks – not go all murdery.

      1. People react differently to mandatory fun. I usually just fake an illness or hide at my desk.

        1. I would hide under my desk while faking an illness if I had mandatory fun with my current co-workers. Two of them are fun, and I have actually been drinking with them before – the rest… *shivers*

          1. There’s always the option of ruining it for everyone. I’ve been known to do that before.

            1. Not like this guy, though. Sheesh

          2. A little LSD in the punchbowl might liven things up a bit.

        2. I am ducking an office holiday party as I read this.

          1. I just sent my regrets for one via email.

      2. But a holiday party at 11 am? The fuck?

        1. Combination lunch / Holiday Party for the terminally cheap. At least it wasn’t potluck (shudder).

          1. Who eats lunch at 11 AM?

            1. Old people and government employees.

            2. My lunch is at 11:15, but then I work from 6 to 2:30.

            3. My lunch is at 11:30 AM just to avoid the lunch rush.

            4. If they start early enough, then the whole day is spent setting up the party, and on the party. No work gets done. Which equals success for government workers.

            5. I do, but that’s because my junior high made us eat lunch at 9:45, and then the high school always gave me lunch around 11-11:30AM.

            6. maybe that was the only time they could reserve the room

          2. “At least it wasn’t potluck (shudder).”

            It was.
            And somebody brought BACON.

            Natural response Murder Spree!

            1. Spam hotdish? Or multiple spam hotdishes?

              I can see murdering people if that happened. Or if someone used CoolWhip on their jello salad instead of real whipped cream.

        2. It’s what government employees do; having a party while getting paid.
          You think any of them are gonna show up after 5?

          Well, maybe if the party was at Peter Luger…

          1. Suppose the party was at Smith & Wesson?

            1. Do you live in New York and not know what Peter Luger is?

              Are you a fucking vegetarian or something?

              1. I had thought it was a riff on Smith & Wollensky, but what do I know?

                Is Peter Lugar worth the effort and the vast wallet of cash to pay for the meal, since they don’t take credit cards?

                1. No. Keen’s is the best in NYC.

                  1. I’ll try to remember that when we wall off NYC and trap all the progs there

                2. Only if you get the porterhouse for 2.

                  1. I’ll be having the porterhouse for 2…for 1.

          2. Good point. I keep forgetting that it was a govt office.

      3. maybe they had a nativity and served pork, which could have triggered him

    2. most likely someone wished him a Merry Christmas and he took it as a microaggression

    3. Dude may have snapped and moved early but he was planning something prior to that. The bag of pipe bombs wasn’t magiced up in between when he left and when he started wasting people….

      1. There are people earnestly making that argument. The information I heard was that he was gone about 10 to 15 minutes. I don’t know if that is correct, but if so, Mrs. Terrorist would have had to be waiting in the parking lot.

      2. We can’t continue to allow the unregulated sale of black iron pipe! Close the Home Depot loophole!

        1. +1 Common Sense Plumbing Supplies control lwas

        2. Nobody needs a pipe longer than 6 inches!

    4. Why can’t we ban work?

      1. The $15 minimum wage crew is working on it..

    5. Let’s put Christmas back in the “holiday” party.

      #thoughtsandprayers

      1. Exactly. Just say “Christmas party”. It sounds like a lot more fun, and without the douchebaggy sound.

  3. Let’s not be dense, The Religion of Peace? just acquired 14 new victims

    1. Would it kill you to wait a day for some actual, you know, information to surface?

      1. It’s poor impulse control – probably the product of his sublimated rage at the humiliation of not being able to tell Daphne how he feels about her.

        1. Man, you can say that again.

        2. That’s a hell of a sculpture by Bernini

      2. It’s poor impulse control – probably the product of his sublimated rage at the humiliation of not being able to tell Daphne how he feels about her.

      3. It must get heavy carrying water for CAIR, no?

        1. Yo, n00b. RC, tarran and Swiss are all long-time commenters with a lot of stature here. You, well, not so much.

          1. I found his conflation quite telling, Tonio, and will try remain cognizant of it when considering future comments.

          2. I don’t care how long they have been here, I care that people are so scared to appear “intolerant” or “Islamophobic” that they are unwilling to either criticize Islam or recognize that it is likely that a devout Muslim who committed a massacre most likely did so in the name of Islam. No, we don’t know the whole story yet, but based on the facts that have been presented, it is entirely rational to claim this attack was religiously motivated.

            1. In other words, you’re calling them cowardly for refusing to jump on your “blame the Muslims” train before the facts are in. Got it.

        2. MEMRI, CAIR, they’re all the same thing, right?

          1. Nice (I was typing to Tonio while you posted).

        3. Crane, if you had a longer history here, you would know that my loathing for CAIR, identity politics privilege, multi-culti PC crap, etc. knows no bounds.

          I’m one of the ones saying we should take no “refugees” from “Syria”, and indeed I could support severe restrictions on all immigration from MENA until this regional insanity burns out.

          1. Well I don’t so I can only judge you based on what you have said. I was being slightly sarcastic with my CAIR comment, but I still find the whole “we can’t make any assumptions at all” line a load of bullshit.

            1. You can make all the assumptions you like. If they turn out to be wrong (like has happened in countless mass shootings so far), you’re going to look like an ass.

              Then it will be fun to mock you.

              R C Dean apparently doesn’t like risking looking like an ass. I find that to be a perfectly cromulent concern.

              1. When you make assumptions, it makes an “ass” out of “u” and “mptions.”

                1. +1 Cathead

              2. The man was a devout Muslim allegedly in contact with an “international terrorism subject.” It’s not unreasonable to believe this was an act of Islamic terrorism. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. And I guess I will look like an ass too!

                1. What fucking data do you have that he was ‘a devout Muslim allegedly in contact with an “international terrorism subject.” ‘

                  I’ve seen exactly zero evidence of those “facts” you touted.

                  The article above does say somebody else they investigated “a few years ago.”, which is not the same as “international terrorism subject.”

                  Chill out and take a deep breath.

                  1. To be fair, I read it in a Daily Mail article citing CNN so I should take it with a grain of salt.

                  2. And he was a “devout Muslim” according to his colleagues at work.

              3. Dammit, can I get through just one day where I don’t read the word “cromulent” in a comments section?

                1. Speaking of which, haven’t seen Kromulent Kristen in here in a while.

          2. Fellas, fellas, can’t we all just come together and agree that we should euthanize all the progressives? Let’s find some solidarity in that.

            1. To euthanize all progressives you’d need a big government program and disregard for the NAP. Now if we could get them to euthanize themselves…….

              1. They’ll get around to it. They always do.

      4. facts are in. Admiral Ackbar baby!

  4. He enjoyed working on cars, both vintage and modern (a popular hobby in this Route 66-idolizing area), and also “target practice” with family and friends

    He must have missed them.

      1. I just can’t bear to tell you some lies
        And narrow your eyes
        Narrow your eyes

        1. I too like TMBG.

  5. The Twittersphere and some media outlets may rush to judgment, but there’s very good reason to be cautious about guessing at Farook’s motives here.

    But Scott, how can you reinforce your preconceptions and biases if you don’t rush to judgement with the “reason” that works best for your obsessions and fears? Coldly and logically waiting for information doesn’t do that! It’s no good!

    1. My thoughts and prayers are with you.

      1. Oh Gawd, did I just laugh! Thanks for that, Crusty!

    2. But Scott, how can you reinforce your preconceptions and biases if you don’t rush to judgement with the “reason” that works best for your obsessions and fears?

      I think it’s pretty clear that the terrorists were hot chicks in a social setting.

    3. Look, pal, we are a proud pants-wearing people who come from a long line of shitting in them at the slightest suggestion of unfocused danger. This is our heritage you’re talking about!

      Don’t you tell us when we can’t shit our pants! Them is even more pants-shitting words!

      1. So admitting the obvious is now “pants shitting”? Really?

        1. What’s the obvious, John? That 99.9% of people, including mooslims, aren’t psychotic killers? But, nevermind that, we have very nice camps for people who look like them to live in.

          I’ll let you get back to your pants.

      2. If we’re not free to shit our pants at the slightest opportunity, are we really free?

        1. Freedom isn’t free! U$$A!!!

        2. Am I not free to gambol (in shitted drawers)?

          1. Sure, but stay away from my furniture.

          2. Why certainly, Swiss, especially in the Wabe.

          1. “America must not value the liberty to own a gun over the liberty to live free from violence.”
            – Mark Joseph Stern

            “… liberty to live free from violence.” Even a Catatonic State cannot save one from violence, although the resultant mental condition might be a solution for countrypersons like Mr. Stern, since they will be free from their fears.

            I was gong to make a Stern/Heavy Metal reference yet somehow I imagine Mr. Stern would be inclined to interpret the obvious jest as a threat, despite that fact that one cannot possibly be wood chipped and subsequently buried alive.

            1. liberty to live free from violence

              Ooh! Ooh! I want unicorns too!

              1. But what if its my guns that allow me the liberty to live free from (being on the receiving end of) violence?

                1. Awww, isn’t that cute, trying to use your logic like it matters in these conversations.

                2. If I am understanding Mr. Stern correctly, Dean, it is not about your individual liberties (or anyone else’s individual liberties), but rather it is about his and everyone else’s collective “… liberty to live free from violence.”

                  To put this another way: How can you, trying to protect yourself/your family/others who happen to be in your physical proximity (by use of a firearm) protect Mr. Stern and other unarmed citizens from the threat of violence everywhere else in the United States? You and your firearm(s) didn’t save any lives at San Bernardino.

                  In short, Dean, it seems to me that Mr. Stern, along with many of our fellow citizens, would incorrectly consider you a threat to their liberty if they observed you with a holstered firearm, rather than a guarantor of their inalienable rights.

                  1. How can you, trying to protect yourself/your family/others who happen to be in your physical proximity (by use of a firearm) protect Mr. Stern and other unarmed citizens from the threat of violence everywhere else in the United States?
                    I teach beginning shooting, hunter education, and Texas license to carry classes, so Mr. Stern, when he’s ready, can arm himself.
                    It’s the “Protect Mr. Stern and you keep him safe for a day, teach him to shoot and he’s protected for a lifetime” method.

                    You and your firearm(s) didn’t save any lives at San Bernardino.
                    California law effectively prohibits armed self-defense. The whole state is a “gun-free zone.” That’s one reason I, and most others like me, don’t live there.

          2. I may not agree with your pants, by I will defend to the death your right to shit in them.

    4. I want to get my hate on NOW! Not this afternoon or tonight! Goddamnit, my pants shouldn’t stay unsoiled that long.

      1. There’s no time to wait! In fact, if we wait, it might not turn out to be what we want it to be, and then our pants-shitting is for naught! PANTS-SHIT NOW!

        1. You must get tired crying like a bitch all the time about everything everyone else does.

          1. Post under your regular handle, pussy.

          2. Have you ever tried using a hose to get the sand out of your vagina?

          3. You must get tired passive aggressively switching handles so you can snivel and whine in the most cowardly fashion imaginable.

        2. “There’s no time to wait! In fact, if we wait, it might not turn out to be what we want it to be, and then our pants-shitting is for naught! PANTS-SHIT NOW!”

          This message brought to you by your local Dry Cleaners Association.

          1. “Augh! That cost you extra, mister!”

    5. It is just another case of workplace violence. If you can’t accept that move along. If you can’t do that move a short.

      1. Or a movement in your shorts

    6. Coldly and logically waiting for information doesn’t do that! It’s no good!

      I know, I am practically bursting at the seams to start screaming “Radical Islam!!!” at all my co-workers.

  6. If the stories about the Saudi pilgrimage and wife are true, seems he went the al-Qeada style crazy instead of ISIS style crazy.

    Please define “perfectly assimilated Muslim American”. Do they believe in Sharia Law? Spreading the Faith with violence? Just some of the Koran and none of the Hadith?

    1. How much more assimilated can you get than spree shooting? –HuffPo in two hours, probably

    2. Well, he said he was “modern”, unfortunately, a single word in an online dating profile can mean a lot, and nothing, all at the same time.

      1. People are always perfectly truthful on dating profiles!

        1. Biggest strength: I care too much

          Biggest weakness: I care too much.

          Turn-ons: hugs, hand-holding

          Turn-offs: Mean people, freedom.

          1. More than once I’ve heard executive managers claim that their biggest weakness is they worked too damned hard.

            1. I just care too damned much.

            2. A few minutes in the bathroom will solve that.

            3. My biggest weakness is that I have no strengths.

        2. I had a friend who recently tried online dating. He discovered very quickly that 100% of the profile pictures were old. 100%

          1. Well it is difficult to take a picture of yourself from the future.

            1. But it’s easy to utilize a picture from the current decade.

              1. How long does it take to put on 75 lbs and go bald?

            2. *pinch hitting for Swiss Servitor*

              *narrows reptilian gaze*

            3. “One time, this guy handed me a picture of him, he said “Here’s a picture of me when I was younger.” Every picture is of you when you were younger. “Here’s a picture of me when I’m older.” “You son-of-a-bitch! How’d you pull that off? Lemme see that camera… What’s it look like? ”

              -Mitch Hedberg

    3. Damn – my sarcasm was correct – AQ

      http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..mbs-video/

      1. Don’t AQ’s bombs usually work though? And seemingly none of theirs did?

        I realize Jerryskids was having some fun with us in another thread about the “third shooter” being an FBI plant, but it would be really funny if this was another bomb sting gone horribly wrong.

    4. A perfectly assimilated Muslim American is one who believes Al-Baqara 256 stands true and has not been abrogated: “there is no compulsion in religion”.

      A real Muslim understands that proper naskh (???) exegesis of that verse demonstrates conclusively that is has been abrogated by subsequent scripture.

      In other words, a perfectly assimilated Muslim American is a cafeteria Muslim, an ignorant Muslim, or non-practicing. Or maybe a Sufi.

    5. You know, like that gay Persian guy on the telly that my wife used to watch.

  7. I think Scott is having some fun with the yokels after the Colorado Planned Parenthood nonsense.

  8. Farook may be Muslim, but he doesn’t seem to match the ISIS profile.

    You mean there’s one???? 😮

    1. I think Scott is referring to the ISIS dating profile.

      Turn Ons: Backwards theology, burning people alive, sex with severed heads

      Turns Off: Your Freedoms, Bitches

      1. I rolled out my jump to conclusions mat and landed on “freedom” yesterday, so you are on to something.

      2. Turns Off: Your Freedoms, Bitches

        What you did there, I seen it.

    2. If they’re recruiting young men on dating websites, my odds of finding a match must be getting better.

      1. Sorry, there are no libertarian women.

        1. That’s why I nod enthusiastically at everything she says until the pants come off.

  9. Most government employees main purpose is to shakedown citizens. That makes them terrorists by definition.

    1. You mean shake down taxpayers – which these days is not entirely the same group as citizens.

  10. So I get why the “authorities” may reserve their judgement for motive. It appears that all those directly involved here are dead so there is no good reason to rush the investigation. Fine.

    But for FFS! Did he have a toothache ala Geraldo referring to Nidal Hassan? Whatever was the cause that led him to Islamic extremism, that was obviously a big part.

    And no all Muslims aren’t terrorists. Most obviously aren’t. But the vast majority of these types of attacks are either committed by nutbags with no discernably consistent ideology, or they are doing it in the name of Islam. There is not a single other ideology in the world that contributes anywhere near to the amount of terrorism (state sponsored or otherwise) as Islam.

    1. “Lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.” So, you know, really we’re just as bad.

      1. So, you know, really we’re our ancestors were just as bad.

        FIFY

        You don’t really believe in guilt by association, do you?

        1. You realize he is quoting Teh Lightworker, ne?

          1. Obviously not *unshits pants*

      2. Worse. We bought slaves from African Muslims.

    2. And no all Muslims aren’t terrorists. Most obviously aren’t.

      I put it to you that those committing the acts aren’t Muslims either. But if they wrap it in religion they get support for their particular cause that they wouldn’t get otherwise. It’s politics, not religion.

      1. It’s politics, not religion.

        And in Islam the difference is…?

      2. It’s politics, not religion.

        Some ideologies transcend both.

      3. I’m pretty sure they identify as Muslims, so maybe you should stop microaggressing against them.

      4. Their Caliph has an advanced degree in Islamic Studies. Many of their supporters are Imams or religious scholars. The first I in ISIS stands for “Islamic”. They have released lots of documents and videos explaining exactly what their motivations and theology are. Why not, at least for now, take their word for it?

    3. Whatever was the cause that led him to Islamic extremism, that was obviously a big part.

      What’s obvious about it? So far it seems to be based on his name and his professed faith.

      1. He became more religious in the last two years?

        1. I don’t recall seeing anything like that in the FOX report, which I’m assuming is the most alarmist take on the known facts so far.

          1. I think I saw that in USA Today. You might want to read sites less biased than Fox.

      2. And his tactics. Meaning, had the guy just taken a handgun to work and shot a bunch of people, he could easily just be the Muslim version of typical crazypants white guy, but

        1) this was planned out,
        2) it involved explosives, apparently
        3) he had at least one accomplice
        4) no one has pointed to a work dispute or other reason for disgruntlement.

        All of that points against random work rampage. It could be that the truth was in between, terrorists online found a guy who was clearly going to snap eventually and helped equip him to do more damage when he did. But I’m willing to bet islamism played at least some role here.

        1. That describes Columbine as well.

          I wouldn’t bet against Islamism being involved in some way, of course. But so far I wouldn’t declare it obvious.

        2. Had to listen to Conspiracy Guy at the gym say it was probably a false flag operation. He also says Newtown was a hoax.

          1. Does he use Reynold No-Stick foil too?!

            *tightens foil pakol*

  11. ? Mass shootings in San Bernardino – 14 dead! ?
    “Why, those gun crazies are at it again!”
    ? Two suspects are dead – both were Muslim! ?
    “Let’s not jump to conclusions lest we paint too many with a wide brush!”

    Proggie-logic 101. Gives you 3 credits.

  12. Have to admit some surprise and pleasure that the conclusion-jumping event has so few entrants so far.

    1. Well, I see the field is filling up.

      1. You should check the giant thread from yesterday.

        1. “You should check the giant thread from yesterday.”

          Indeed… that was quite the woolly mammoth.

    2. That’s because the evidence so far points to unpleasant conclusions.

      By the way there was a school shooting in Boston only three miles from a Planned Parenthood Clinic.

      1. I wish Reason were big enough assholes to rub other journos nose in that bullshit for a while by pointing out, with all stories, how far away they occurred from the nearest Planned Parenthood. Like the running gag in Team America where each location was identified by how far away it was from America.

      2. This is going to be the new “-gate.” (Adding the suffix “gate” to every scandal)

        Car crash occurred 7.5 miles from a PP office. Mugging only .9 miles from PP office. Shoplifting 3 miles from PP office.

    3. I had a peak at the post that was up here last night. There was a lot of conclusion jumping going on before anybody even knew who the suspects were while at the same time people were decrying progressives who were jumping to gun-control (sometimes the very same commenters).

      1. Don’t bother pointing out their hypocrisy, they’re impervious to intellectual integrity. Just like the progs they hate for the exact same reason.

        1. I hate for a different reason. And mine is better.

          1. Not as good as mine.

    4. John|12.2.15 @ 5:15PM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

      I am with you. I fucking had it with this bullshit. Nothing personal but if having Muslims in your society means putting up with this shit, every Muslim in America can pack their shit and head back to Bumfuckistan.

      1. Nothing personal.

      2. John doesn’t count, he’s a performance art project by some poli sci student.

        1. He’s been here too long for that.

          1. poli sci student

            Naw, that’s plenty long.

      3. Yeah, fuck the first amendment!

        That seems remarkably parallel to the gun grabbers. “If having guns in your society means putting up with this bullshit, every gun should be confiscated and private ownership banned”.

        1. Unfortunately, your logic would be completely lost on him.

        2. The first amendment doesn’t enjoy the wide popularity it once did either.

        3. Guns are inanimate objects, Islam is an ideology. I don’t understand why people here can’t grasp the difference, especially when articulating it is so fucking critical to the gun control debate.

          1. “Islam” is not a single, unitary ideology, as you might know if you did even thirty seconds of research on it.

        1. Please do Frank. I am just happy you can at least understand it. Reading comprehension is not generally one of your strong suits.

          Meanwhile, if it is the case that these sorts of things become common, what is your solution? Arm everyone? Great plan but being armed won’t help when the other guy fires first. Tell the country that risking your life every time you go to a public event or work is just the way it goes?

          You don’t have a plan because you are a fucking moron who can’t comprehend the problem much less consider a solution. You live in a fantasy world where reality always owes you a nice easy solution. Honestly, you are probably happier being a moron. Sadly, some of the rest of us are not.

          1. Kicking all Muslims out of the country is a solution?

            1. Yeah. It is a hard one. But what else you got? I get do nothing. But what then?

              1. I don’t know. I’ll go with not being a facist shitbag, I guess.

              2. SugarFree|12.3.15 @ 12:22PM|#

                Kicking all Muslims out of the country is a solution?

                John|12.3.15 @ 12:37PM|#

                Yeah. It is a hard one. But what else you got? I get do nothing. But what then?

                Well, you could do that, but since the vast majority of mass shootings have been committed by mentally ill people, wouldn’t it make more sense to kick all them out first?

              3. Dude: only a tiny minority of American Muslims are batshit crazy Wahhabis. Most are chill “no compulsion in religion” or non-practicing types. I have Muslim neighbors and in-laws, and they’re perfectly good Americans.

                Still, I’d have no problem with a no new green cards policy for Muslims until this insanity ceases. Even that’s too harsh for my sentiments, but I sure don’t see any moral obligation to accept new immigrants and could live with it. Ain’t gonna happen, anyway.

              4. We should start off by making them wear an emblem on their clothes or something.

                Maybe a golden crescent arm band?

                1. Fun fact: The star and crescent is not an Islamic symbol, or even Arabic. It was the symbol of Byzantium, and is still widely used in countries that were once part of the eastern Roman Empire!
                  Also, isn’t there a state in the south east US that has it in the state flag?

                  1. The SC flag features a crescent moon over the state tree, a Palmetto.

                    http://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/…..-l1000.jpg

            2. We’ll probably get that and a gun ban, you know, to make everyone unhappy.

            3. Well… it would solve the problem of Muslim terrorism, assuming you actually pulled it off.

              At great cost, of course. Whether people will tolerate that cost depends on how dire the perceived threat becomes, and the harshness of the solution proposed. Restrictions on immigration will be an easier sell than expulsion, and expulsion will always be an easier sell than genocide.

              It’s somewhat irrelevant, because regardless of government policy, once the threat level reaches a point where mainstream people can talk about these things openly, there is probably going to be immense non-government pressure on Muslims to leave.

            4. I need to invent the demuslimifier. It emits demuslimifing Rays that change Muslims back into regular people. Then deploy on satellite platforms. World peace ensues.

            1. Yawning takes too much effort. So I’m posting this.

          2. ” Great plan but being armed won’t help when the other guy fires first.”

            Jesus you’re fucking stupid.

          3. Tell the country that risking your life every time you go to a public event or work

            Let me know when the risk gets higher than 0.00001%

      4. So what? I have had it. What do you plan to do about it? Is your solution just oh well? Hey, what is a few dozen people being murdered every week or month?

        I am sure the idea that we might have not have any choice other than this shocks you. But sometimes life sucks like that. I can’t change reality for you. I can just feel sorry for you being too weak minded to face it.

        1. This exact comment could be posted by someone advocating for gun control without a single word changed.

          1. Except that gun control wouldn’t do anything to stop this shit from happening. No longer having any Muslims in your society would. Does this kind of thing happen in places like Japan or Mongolia where there are no Muslims?

            Gun control is a stupid answer to this because there is no way to keep guns out of the hands of people who want them and a lot of other reasons. The problem is not the gun it is the person. And what is driving the person to do this is Islam.

            Scott is correct in saying this guy seems to be a unremarkable Muslim. That is the problem. Apparently, there is no way to tell which Muslims remain unremarkable and which ones will decide to die for the greater cause. How do you deal with that problem?

            I am not saying that kicking all of them out of the country is some great solution. It is not. What I am saying is that it may be the only solution short of just saying “fuck it we are just going to have to accept this shit happening”. Clearly, if this kind of thing happens once a year, we just have to write it off and move on. But what if it happens once a month? At some point you can no longer have a free society if the threat of random violence gets large enough. What then?

            That is the point of my original statement. A point which went right over your head. Scream about how wonderful and tolerant you are all you like. That doesn’t change the difficulty of the problem facing us.

            1. Apparently, there is no way to tell which Muslims remain unremarkable and which ones will decide to die for the greater cause. How do you deal with that problem?

              Gosh, do you mean to suggest that mooslims are just like everyone else? Next, you’ll be saying that they think they’re people.

              Easy solution. Everyone is now a terrorist. Report for processing.

              1. No you fucking half wit. Is everyone else going on suicidal rampages with regularity?

                1. I don’t know, John. Do you know? You’re sounding like one of the left-fascist pants shitters over guns. “Don’t bother me with facts. I KNOW!!”

                  They shot everyone and fled the scene. That doesn’t sound too suicidal to me.

                  1. You guys realize you are arguing with a crazy person? Engaging with John is like trying to convince a crazy Jesus guy that he is not Jesus.

                2. John, you are being completely irrational.

                  Drug dealers and their minions kill more people than muslims. Mentally ill people are responsible for more mass shootings than any other group.

                  Why aren’t you calling for a round up and deportation of all them?

                  1. They already do that.

                3. Come on, John. Muslims are not the problem. Some deranged Wahhabis are the problem. There’s a huge difference.

                  1. it’s not that simple. A frighteningly large percentage of Muslims are at least sympathetic, if not downright enablers of jihadis, sharia law, oppression of women, etc.. I wouldn’t kick Muslim Maricans out of the country(it’s unconstitutional), but I would not import more of them. I would also take a hard look at which Muslims we grant visas.

                    1. Terrorists are like guerrillas: They cannot exist if there is not a community that supports them, hides them, and let’s them recruit their children.
                      I also admit to being prejudiced against Muslims. I think their religion is evil, and the ones I have personally delt with seemed to have no compunction against lying to my face and trying to cheat me.
                      That said, no we can’t make them wear yellow stars, we cannot round them all up, we cannot deport millions of innocents, etc.
                      But I understand the impulse. John seems to be too emotional to think about it. But part of his point (maybe?) was that if enough Americans start feeling the same way, it could get even worse.
                      Except that, of course, it could never happen here.

            2. No longer having any Muslims in your society would.

              John, neither would eliminating all guns from society. The problem is the getting there, just like the “getting there” with eliminating Muslimism.

              1. You can eliminate Muslims easier than you can eliminate guns.

                1. You can eliminate Muslims easier than you can eliminate guns.

                  What John is trying to say is that he totally down with the face-stomping police state that we’ll create to get rid of the scary-looking people.

                2. You can eliminate Muslims easier than you can eliminate guns.

                  I disagree with that, like 100%.

                  Is this a gun?

                  Is this a Muslim?

                3. You can eliminate Muslims easier than you can eliminate guns.

                  So, should we also block all Internet sites/videos/etc. that makes reference to the Muslim faith? Perhaps burn all books describing it? Islam is not genetic, you can’t deport it. Xenophobia is not the answer.

                4. Muslims are something like 25% of the world’s population. How far do you want to take your solution?

                  1. More like 15%.

            3. Religions in Mongolia
              (population aged 15 and above)
              Religion Population Share
              %
              Buddhism 1,009,357 53.0%
              Islam 57,702 3.0%

              United States
              Muslim 1,349,000 0.6%.

              1. Also, China is 1?2% Muslim, meaning there are at least as many Muslims as the US, and up to twice as many.

                1. Those damn 1 Percenters are at it again!
                  I’m new to the site, am I doing this right?

              2. But it’s the . I worry about.

              3. I would think the US numbers would be higher, just based on Hamtramck and Orland Park alone.

                1. I would think the US numbers would be higher, just based on Hamtramck and Orland Park alone.

                  And NYC.

            4. About 3% of the population of Mongolia is Muslim, compared to about 0.9% in the U.S.

              1. Just when John was recovering from being broken over the Homocaust, those selfish mooslim fucks have to go and do this.

                Thanks a lot, Semites!

                1. It is only going to get worse JW. The problem isn’t going away. And you have no idea what to do about it except tell people it is their duty to die so that Muslims may live in this country., Good luck with that answer.

                  1. It’s comforting to know that you have all the answers, John.

                    1. And a solution. That’s what’s important is that he has the final solution.

                  2. And hand wringing and snark.

            5. Does this kind of thing happen in places like Japan or Mongolia where there are no Muslims?

              In Japan, their terrorists used Sarin. Much more efficient, as one would expect from the Japanese.

              1. Their Sarin actually didn’t work all that well. 12 dead, fifty or so seriously hurt in five separate attacks. Compare to the death toll from the four separate 7/7 bombings: 52 dead, and a ton of maimings. Much easier to make, more effective, and would have been even more so had they used explosives as sophisticated as home-brewed Sarin.

                Most of the nerve gases aren’t gases so much as aerosols. Sarin has a high enough vapor pressure that it doesn’t absolutely need a bursting charge to aerosolize it, unlike say, VX, but it’s not going to be distributed well without it or another similar means. Good thing for Tokyo.

            6. You can obviously not accept this kind of thing, while at the same time not kick out people because of what they believe.

              The solution is for everyone to accept responsibility for themselves, rather than looking to others for protection, safety, and happiness.

              Committing any kind of terror (regardless of if it’s random acts of crazy, or organized) against a population where the individual does not accept it, and is willing and ready to act against it when it happens, is remarkably difficult.

            7. Except that gun control wouldn’t do anything to stop this shit from happening. No longer having any Muslims in your society would.

              John, get a grip. Neither eliminating all guns nor all Muslims is at all practical. If you could actually get rid of all guns, it would do something to stop this shit from happening, as much as getting rid of Muslims would (as there are other weapons to be used besides guns, so are there other people willing to commit acts of terrorism).

              Neither is a solution to anything because both are impossible without giving up everything that is good about our society and imposing a complete police state on everyone.

              1. I think simply calling Islam what it is, an insidious and despicable ideology, would go a long way. Ideas are not created equal and are not equally deserving of respect. But we’re a long way off from having ideas fight ideas because we’re too busy pretending that ideas are in fact equal and deserving of equal deference and respect, unless it’s some sort of pro-freedom ideology in which case we’re explicitly told that it must be halted if civilization is to progress.

                1. I think simply calling Islam what it is, an insidious and despicable ideology, would go a long way. Ideas are not created equal and are not equally deserving of respect. But we’re a long way off from having ideas fight ideas because we’re too busy pretending that ideas are in fact equal and deserving of equal deference and respect

                  You can’t fight an enemy that you will not even name. You also can’t fight something with nothing. You can’t claim “culture doesn’t exist” and then claim “you should adopt our culture because it is better”. Amazing how many in the West are unwilling to say “women being treated as equals is superior“.

              2. I think this will be a lot easier to deal with once we overthrow all the progressive Marxists. Which will end political correctness and media propaganda. Then we can out enablers like CAIR and their allies.

            8. Mongolia where there are no Muslims?

              3% of Mongolians are Muslims.

            9. “fuck it we are just going to have to accept this shit happening

              Since this shit happens rarely and you are completely over-blowing the threat like a cowardly, hysterical child, I think I’ll go right ahead with “accept this shit happening” if the only alternative you can come up with is “be completely evil”.

              Anyone who wants to support me to live in a “high-risk” area is more than welcome to do so. I can live quite comfortably on $75k a year, properly adjusted for cost of living.

        2. So what? I have had it. What do you plan to do about it? Is your solution just oh well? Hey, what is a few dozen people being murdered every week or month?

          I am sure the idea that we might have not have any choice other than this shocks you. But sometimes life sucks like that. I can’t change reality for you. I can just feel sorry for you being too weak minded to face it.

          /President Obama on gun control

          1. Yeah because guns are just like an ideology You are as dumb as the progs. You apparently can’t see the difference between an object and an ideology. face it, your world view can’t account for people like these. And you have no way to deal with them other than to pretend they don’t exist.

            1. You know jack and shit about my ideology, John. Go try your mind-reading powers on someone else, Kreskin.

              1. “You know jack and shit about my ideology, John.”

                No one does, simply because your posts here are about trying to be the biggest asshole you possibly can, and trying to sound like a sarcastic 13 year old girl in the process.

                You’re the exact fucking definition of a troll.

                1. Says the pussy not posting under his regular handle.

                  Come on, Tulpa-lite… afraid no one will want to talk to you after revealing the asshole within?

                  1. 13 year old girl. Forgot to change his handle to Bo.

                    1. 13 year old girl. Forgot to change his handle to Bo.

                      Oh, right. That was one of his canned insults, wasn’t it?

            2. John, Muslims are people (many of the US citizens), not bits of ideology.

              Seriously, how the fuck do you figure we are going to deport a million people, including citizens, without completely destroying everything about this country that is worth defending? People don’t register their religion in this country. Do you really think that all the Muslims who might commit acts of terrorism are just going to line up to be removed? They wouldn’t, I don’t know, pretend not to be Muslim?

              You are seriously off your rocker here.

              1. Once you start going after people based on their ideology, where does it end? Leftists assholes love to claim “anti-government” people are all dangerous. That tag could be used against pretty much everyone here. We may know that’s total and complete bullshit, but all it would take is one paranoid guy with any literature skeptical about the government to do something violent, and the type of program(s) John is advocating could be turned against all of us, no matter how peaceful they are.

              2. It probably would be easier than deporting 11 million illegals. Not that deporting every American Muslim is a good thing to do.

                I don’t think deporting people is the way to go. But I can see an environment (think Israel during their suicide bombing era) where that’s going to be argued for, and libertarians need a good plausible way to lessen the problem other than shrugging their shoulders about the issue. We aren’t there yet, and probably never will be, unlike possibly Europe. Just not enough Muslims here, and definitely not enough of them that go jihadi on their neighbors.

                It’s similar to the problem of gun violence in this country. But there, you can advocate that people be allowed to carry the means of self-defense—no more gun-free zones; that violent felons be locked up and kept there, as opposed to the catch and release game we play now; that trade in firearms be regulated somewhat. End the War on Some Drugs. These are solutions that would lessen the amount of gun violence without trying something as Utopian as mass confiscation.

                Or without throwing up your hands and saying there’s nothing we can do.

                1. no more gun-free zones

                  That is no more liberal than the alternative.

                2. the catch and release game we play now…

                  Citation needed. My understanding is that many states have draconian sentencing guidelines, especially for repeat offenders.
                  And here, let me fix a sentence for you: End the War on Some All Drugs.

                  1. Citation needed.

                    Sure. Try the Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, Time Served in State Prison section.

                    There, you will find a variety of stats on typical sentence lengths for a variety of crimes. It’s self-reported so, like the FBI’s crime stats, annoyingly incomplete, but we do what we can. I picked 2009 out of a hat and took a look at the average sentence length for some violent crimes. It also doesn’t list percentage of time served, or it does, and I can’t find it. Fed time is infamous for its lack of parole; state time less so.

                    Anyway, this is for first time offenders, all times are months served, so probation/parole comes after this, first number is median, second number mean: Murder: 167, 175. So your run of the mill murderer does an average of less than 15 years for 1st degree murder. It gets worse.

                    Manslaughter 1, 107, 111. Neg Manslaughter, 39, 55. Not sure where vehicular goes, but that’s still pretty low. Unspec homicide: 53, 72. Rape: 75, 94. Other sex assault: 38, 52. Robbery 37, 57. Kidnapping, 35, 65. Arson, 23, 36.

                    Not a lot of time, is it? And this assumes you can nail shithead for something good, instead of having him plead to something with a lot less time.

                    I stand by the catch and release quip. Keep violent motherfuckers locked up, and you’ll have less violent crime.

              3. Muslim is an ideology. A Muslim is a person who professes to believe a set of ideas. Namely, Islam.

              4. You can’t. But if we were rid of our progressives, we could go after the subversives much harder within the limits of the constitution. And actually deal with them. Without cries of ‘racism’ or ‘Christians are just as bad’ at every turn.

        3. How is what you are saying not parallel to what anti-gun people say after something like this? They have had it too and are ready to start taking people’s rights away for it. Just like you with Muslims.

          And before you say “gun control doesn’t work” (which of course it doesn’t), consider that Muslim control won’t work either, even putting aside the enormous constitutional and moral problems. Do you think that terrorists can’t run, hide or lie about their beliefs?

          1. Hysterical police-state collectivism is never having to say that you’re sorry.

          2. We could just not give tourist or student visas or take immigrants from majority Muslim countries.

            I know that won’t fly with the Open Border Crowd, but for the 98% of the rest of us who believe in some sort of limits on immigration, there are only so many people we can take in. So let’s make some smart choices.

            More hot, young Eastern European model-types and fewer mid-east Muslims.

            1. I know that won’t fly with the Open Border Crowd, but for the 98% of the rest of us who believe in some sort of limits on immigration, there are only so many people we can take in. So let’s make some smart choices.

              Damn son, you must have some terrible ground game if you can only muster 1% turnout. Because that’s about the only fucking way you can go from having 98% support to not getting what you want.

              1. I quibble with Milo’s numbers. Really it’s hyperbole.

                But not with the main gist: there are a lot more people in this country that believe in some limits on immigration, than believe in the Open Borders ideology prevalent here. Or is there some other reason why Trump is beating the tar out of the Rand Paul’s and Establishment GOP candidates?

                1. Then win some elections. I don’t understand what exactly is the point of calling out the numbers. Either you’re in the majority as you say and you’ll get to enact your policy (judiciary permitting) or you actually aren’t and thus the numbers are wrong.

                  Trying to throw around “everybody agrees with me” as some kind of argument for your position is nonsensical.

              2. But we currently do have limits on immigration. Not very foreigner who wants to enter the US can do so without permission.

                Heck Libertarians are 1% of the population and not even all of them want to have Open Borders.

                1. Ok, so what is your point? Either you have what you want or you don’t, but regardless no Open Borders libertarian cabal is standing in your way.

                  1. My point is that if we are going to limit immigration (and that’s the gov’t current policy) that we should be limiting Muslim Immigration in favor of non-Muslim immigration. And while that won’t be 100% effective it can be done constitutionally by limiting or eliminating immigration from Muslim Majority countries.

                    Does that suck for you if you are a Christian, Jew, Atheist or whatever in Syria or Yemen? You bet.

                    But I am more concerned with the rights (and the loss of rights) of Americans than I am for some random third worlder who can’t get into the US.

                    1. Fascinating. Maybe in the future you can avoid whining about (“I know that won’t fly with the Open Border Crowd”) and just state your position.

                2. Perhaps not every foreigner, but 11-20M have already come here without permission.

                  1. And 660+ million haven’t

                    1. Sorry 6.6 billion haven’t

              3. Well, we do have some sort of limits on immigration. Quite a lot actually. I think it is probably accurate to say that something around 98% favor something short of actually open borders. But of course that covers the range from letting anyone in who isn’t obviously sick to building a wall around the whole country and not letting anyone in ever.

            2. I am a proponent of your hot young Eastern European chick immigration plan.

              1. He just said hot eastern European. He never specified female.

        4. John, don’t be so defensive. I’m sure they’ll be well taken care of in the camps.

          Now, report to the ICE booth for your daily citizenship test. Don’t get the question on the World Series wrong.

          1. HINT: It is NOT “The Cubs”.

            1. HINT: It is NOT “The Cubs”.

              Now you tell me.

              1. *CLANK*

                /Cell door slams shut

        5. Your solution is to send American-born Syed Farook “back” to Bumfuckistan. As well as Muslims with no Middle Eastern heritage. Thanks for your entertainment, Dave Chappelle and Ice Cube, but you need to get the hell out. Shaq, Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali have deceived America and seduced people to Islam for too long. And how can Fareed Zakaria still be allowed to speak on television??

          What a complex, nuanced, oh-so-American solution.

          1. Don’t forget that Roger Murdoch guy. He looks shifty, and he’s a pilot!

            1. Does he like gladiator movies?

          2. So your shining examples of great American-born Muslim converts are… a comedian, a rapper, a basketball player who doesn’t identify as Muslim, a rapist, and a boxer who thought white people were the devil?

            Well, then.

        6. we might have not have any choice

          One wonders just how many enemies of liberty have uttered those exact words?

          John, go clean the poopy from your pants.

          1. No Frank, you wonder that because you are stupid and have latched onto an ideology as a substitute for thinking. Everyone else ponders how we are going to keep a free society while also dealing with this thread.

            1. It’s clear your intention is not to keep a free society.

              1. Yeah because nothing says free society like living in fear of mass murder. That is what you idiots can’t understand, there is more to a free society than the government leaving you alone. You are in your own way as obsessed with government as the Progs. The progs think government is the source of all good and you idiots think it is the source of all evil. Sadly there is a whole lot of evil out there that has nothing to do with government. And having a small government is no guarantee of having a free society.

                1. there is more to a free society than the government leaving you alone

                  Yes, but government leaving you alone is an essential part of a free society.

                2. John, do you think getting rid of Muslims would eliminate mass murder? Most deaths due to mass incidents of murder (not to mention overall homicides) are not motivated by Islamic extremism.

                3. And nothing says free society like betraying a major reason people colonized America in the first place, and the liberty protected by the very first clause in the Bill of Rights.

                  You want to ban an entire religion. The second-largest religion in the world.

                  How is that a free society?

                  1. Given that the religion in question demands the death or servitude of all, we are probably a lot freer if we at least avoid importing more of those people.

                4. Yeah because nothing says free society like living in fear of mass murder.

                  I don’t live in fear of mass murder because I know the chances or so small as to not be worth worrying about.

            2. John, you are indeed, an unprincipled, needy, cowardly gasbag.

              There is no problem to solve. Incidents, like these, are the cost of living in a free society. You can’t prevent nutjobs from being nutjobs. You can only punish them for doing so after the fact. That’s exactly what happened. These two committed a crime, and were punished for it. The system worked. Game over.

              You, on the other hand, are advocating for the elimination of a free society to solve an imagined problem. That makes you the very worst kind of coward. Not only do you shit your own pants, but you need to make others suffer to alleviate your fear.

              Fuck off, slaver!

              1. Francisco, you are a credit to World Jewry.

              2. +1 – Great response, I’m going to remember this (I hope).

        7. So we would deport Muhammad Ali back to Kentucky?

          1. Damn straight!

        8. John, literally advocating fascism and shredding the Constitution. What do you propose to do to Muslims born in the United States? Where are you going to deport them to? What about people who convert to Islam?

          And where is this line drawn? Can we deport other demographics that commit murder and/or terrorism at a higher rate? Conservatives might not commit terrorism at the same rate Muslims do, but they do commit it at a higher rate than many other groups, so is it ok to deport all of them?

          As a side note, is there evidence indicating that the overall homicide rate among Muslims is significantly higher than the general population? I know it is for terrorism, but that’s a small portion of homicides.

          1. I doubt it’s tracked here, Cali, I’m only familiar with the FBI breakouts based on race and age, and I don’t believe they look at the religion of either the perpetrator or victim. Assuming most US Muslims would be classed as White, non-Hispanic, I would therefore guess that their homicide rate would be lower than the average American’s, assuming US Muslims were otherwise comparable to the US population in age and sex distribution.

          2. And where is this line drawn? Can we deport other demographics that commit murder and/or terrorism at a higher rate?

            I suspect immigrants from south of Texas would be placed on the wrong side of that line.

            1. Really it would call for race-based deportation right out of the KKK’s most feverish dreams. Remove black males 15-40 from the United States and you cut violent crime by not quite 1/2, if the FBI arrest figures are believable.

              Cutting violent crime by 1/2 is a decent goal; deporting people according to their race or religion is absolutely not a decent method by which to do so.

            2. Really it would call for race-based deportation right out of the KKK’s most feverish dreams. Remove black males 15-40 from the United States and you cut violent crime by not quite 1/2, if the FBI arrest figures are believable.

              Cutting violent crime by 1/2 is a decent goal; deporting people according to their race or religion is absolutely not a decent method by which to do so.

              1. Is it better to acknowledge the squirrels, ignore them, bring gifts of corn, something else entirely?

          3. No, if they are born here, they can stay.

            People living here can still convert.

            But as along as there are limits on immigration (and that is the current policy of the US) then why not take in more Swiss ski instructors, Australian actresses, Dominican shortstops, German engineers, Brazilian models and Chinese Ttger moms and fewer folks from the 51 majority muslim counties.

            And yes there will be some Muslims in the groups I listed, but far fewer than if we keep the door open to the Saudis, Yemenis and the like.

            When you are in a hole and want to get out, the first step is to stop digging.

          4. “Conservatives might not commit terrorism at the same rate Muslims do, but they do commit it at a higher rate than many other groups,”

            Do you have any proof of that statement ?

        9. Oh my god. It makes so much sense now.

          John is the Bruce WIllis character in that Denzel Washington movie where the Muslims blow up a bus in New York and the government goes fucking retarded. What was the name of that?

  13. Pay no attention to all the bomb making materials in the house…

    1. Like that Islamist Muslim jihadi terrorist James Holmes?

      1. That goes under the mentally ill category. Just as bad, but rarely comes with a partner.

      2. Like that batshit insane terrorist James Holmes

        FTFY.

        You don’t need to be a Muslim to commit terrorism–and Holmes was, very much, trying to instill terror.

        The bomb making–and the bombs, let you know that yes, this is terrorism.

        This Islamic couple were definitely terrorists–they successfully instilled terror.

  14. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. I doubt even Bruce Heffernan could figure it out.

  15. He was not some disaffected youth with no future ready to embrace the nihilistic attitudes of the Islamic State. Having a job with government in remarkably poor San Bernardino County probably put him in the top five percent of household income in the area.

    Let’s look at two of the latest ‘radical’ Muslim shooters’ bios, and see if they correspond to being ‘disaffected youths with no future’. First, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, the shooter of the recruiting offices in Chattanooga. Abdulazeez was an engineering grad from UT-Chattanooga and was set to go work at a nuclear power plant until he pissed hot for some recreational drug or another. He still made it as a supervisor for a wire and cable manufacturer. True, he had mental issues, including depression, and self-medicated. He still was doing quite a bit better than most people.

    Second, Major Nidal Hassan. Psychologist and Army officer. Unfireable, despite his pissing and moaning about going on deployments. Again, doing quite a bit better than most of the people in Temple, Texas.

    Go look at the leadership of ISIS or Al Qaeda. You’ll find a lot of engineers, doctors, highly educated people who have been caught up in radical Islamic-inspired terrorism. The suicide bombers may be a bunch of misfits, but the guys steering them often aren’t.

    OTOH, the shooters at the Garland, Texas Draw Mo Day festivities do resemble Mr. Shackford’s profile of someone suitable for radicalization.

    1. There is nothing wrong with self-medicating emotional issues.

      1. *nods in agreement, looks over at bottle of glogg*

      2. You and I agree. The TVA and the Department of Energy don’t.

        Considering how absurdly highly paid nuke operators are (82 grand, according to the link), he must have really liked his sleeping pills and weed. Or not have bothered to know how to beat a piss test. Not uncommon for the depressed, unfortunately.

        I’d feel bad for him and his obviously daunting mental issues, had he not killed those people.

    2. don’t forget the boston bombers.

      1. not really gun related, but same kind of thing.

    3. Unfortunately there’s nothing stopping a couple of individuals from acting on their own on behalf of a global Islamic cause. I think it’s entirely possible the world will see these types of events where the attackers have no connection, no contact with or no logistical support from any organized Islamic terror group.

      1. In which case the real instigators are conservatives who bully minorities into committing heinous acts.

      2. A “global Islamic cause” sounds about as insane as any other crusade, like “war on drugs”, “global warming”, etc. But to a crusader, their crusade is always moral and just.

        If you want to vaporize all Muslims, I’d argue that you should throw all government employees and environmentalists into the ovens with them since they’re all moral crusaders.

        1. Building ovens is expensive. Couldn’t we just lob a few bombs we already have in inventory?

    4. ^^THIS^^

      The disaffected loser is exactly the “ISIS profile” if there is such a thing. What it takes to be drawn to a group like ISIS is some abiding grievance against society. There is no particular “profile” for such a person beyond a completely oversized ego and sense of being a victim. The fact that this guy had a degree and a job says nothing about his sense of self importance or grievance against society.

      1. the “ISIS profile”

        More like the GS-11 profile.

      2. Sooo….

        Did your ISIS membership card come in yet?

        1. No. I am still trying to get Frank to sponsor me. He holds a tremendous amount of sway in the disaffected retard community. If he sponsors me, I am in.

      3. The disaffected loser is exactly the “ISIS profile”

        The disaffected loser is also the government employee profile, the SJW profile, the makes-too-many-posts-on-Reason profile, etc.

    5. If I had to make a bet, I’d say Islamic terrorism was the motivation. But there is no harm in waiting for actual information and nothing gained by racing to conclusions.

      1. No Zeb there is not. The only problem is that the government is likely to lie about the motivation and the longer this goes without there being a conclusion regarding that the more able they are going to lie or just say “we will never know for sure”.

        1. That may be. But a bunch of anonymous people on Reason trying to out-realist each other isn’t going to help with that.

      2. I hear Islamic terrorism was the explanation for the Waco Biker Gang shooting (Heh, pulling that one up from the memory hole!)!

    6. Head of ISIS: PhD
      Head of Al-Qaeda: Surgeon

      I had the usual knee jerk progressive on Facebook show me the Malala “education stops terrorism” meme. So I mentioned these facts and told her that its simplistic to imagine these people are just uneducated…

      Two days later she links to Prager University video on who gets radicalized.

      I was stunned…a facebook comment actually caused someone to think.

    7. Head of ISIS: PhD
      Head of Al-Qaeda: Surgeon

      I had the usual knee jerk progressive on Facebook show me the Malala “education stops terrorism” meme. So I mentioned these facts and told her that its simplistic to imagine these people are just uneducated…

      Two days later she links to Prager University video on who gets radicalized.

      I was stunned…a facebook comment actually caused someone to think.

    8. Bin Laden was a well educated multi millionaire. He owned a mansion and a yacht.

  16. “Farook, to anybody who lives in Southern California, appears, based on what we know so far, to have been a perfectly assimilated Muslim American.”

    Just like the Tsarnaev brothers.

    He shopped at Ralph Lauren outlets just like us Americans and Canadians who border shop!

    1. I’ve seen you Canadians… in my town, on my street.

      1. They’re in yur storz, buyin yur goodz.

    2. “us Americans and Canadians who border shop”

      How much does a piece of the US-Canada border cost?

      *ducks*

      1. A gaggle of Canadian Geese?

        1. It’s this kind of language that leads us to terrorism.

          1. “I think that is a maple syrup and poutine based IED!!!!”

        2. He said ducks. Geese are not ducks.

          1. Are you crying foul?

              1. Perhaps it was the immigration meme, Simon.

                Water off my back, as it were.

                Nice catch, though.

      2. How much does a piece of the US-Canada border cost?

        Well, there are those of us who think it’s essentially worthless, so…

      3. +72 poutine entrees

      4. “How much does a piece of the US-Canada border cost?”

        One bag of milk, please, Sir.

    3. Weren’t we warned about the Tsarnaev brothers by the Russians, too? And did nothing about them?

  17. So. Have they been described as White Muslims yet?

    1. Did they shoot any black thuggish teenagers?

  18. It’s also possible that Farook, like several other mass shooters in the United States, developed some sort of serious mental illness that he managed to keep hidden from co-workers and friends, and this violence is the ultimate manifestation. It would seem strange that his wife would also be involved, but then keep in mind that the value of the Internet allows people to connect with other like-minded people on the basis of hobbies, politics, and other interests.

    That’s always been my question– and it’s been that way long before the internet. How, for instance, do two people with the exact same kind of crazy marry each other?

    We know that in this case he met her online. Score one for the internet. But there are lots of cases where a crazy couple didn’t meet online.

    1. “We met in the foil aisle of the local store, while stocking up…”

      1. “We met in the local library researching the melting point of steel…” /Truther

      2. “We met in the foil aisle of the local haberdashery, while stocking up…”

        FTFY

        1. “I only wear handcrafted, artisnal foil headwear”

          1. They may TELL you it’s handcrafted … so you don’t look for the robots.

    2. Cupid’s arrow has been dipped in radical Islam?

    3. Couples can affect each other in both good and bad ways. Bonnie and Clyde probably reinforced and redirected one another’s alienation and disdain. Even Epi has taken up weight lifting.

      1. It’s the only explanation that makes sense, but I still scratch my head about how far that influence can go unless there’s real core crazy involved. Case in point, those occasional couples that decide their child is possessed and must be killed. Someone raised the idea up the flagpole, the other saluted.

      2. Uh, if I don’t lift, Hugh, Warty will megarape me. You don’t want to be megaraped, Hugh. You really don’t.

        1. Is Warty the “inducer” in this scenario?

        2. But *you* do. You slut.

          1. This isn’t about me! Well, maybe it is.

        3. Yeah…I am afraid to stop lifting, too.

          1. Unbind the chains Warty Hugeman has on you! /Uncle Joe

      3. I have taken up “Wait. Lifting.”

    4. Folie ? deux

      Folie ? deux (/f??li ? ?du?/; French pronunciation: ?[f?li a d?]; French for “a madness shared by two”), or shared psychosis, is a psychiatric syndrome in which symptoms of a delusional belief and hallucinations [1][2] are transmitted from one individual to another.[3] The same syndrome shared by more than two people may be called folie ? trois, folie ? quatre, folie en famille or even folie ? plusieurs (“madness of many”). Recent psychiatric classifications refer to the syndrome as shared psychotic disorder (DSM-IV) (297.3) and induced delusional disorder (F.24) in the ICD-10, although the research literature largely uses the original name. The disorder was first conceptualized in 19th-century French psychiatry by Charles Las?gue and Jean-Pierre Falret and so also known as Las?gue-Falret Syndrome.[4][5]

      Folie impos?e is where a dominant person (known as the ‘primary’, ‘inducer’ or ‘principal’) initially forms a delusional belief during a psychotic episode and imposes it on another person or persons (known as the ‘secondary’, ‘acceptor’ or ‘associate’) with the assumption that the secondary person might not have become deluded if left to his or her own devices. If the parties are admitted to hospital separately, then the delusions in the person with the induced beliefs usually resolve without the need of medication.

      1. Alacrity, thy name is SugarFree.

      2. Folie a deux et menage a trois egale fous a cinq!

      3. The folly of two… I like that.

        Folie impos?e is where a dominant person (known as the ‘primary’, ‘inducer’ or ‘principal’) initially forms a delusional belief during a psychotic episode and imposes it on another person or persons (known as the ‘secondary’, ‘acceptor’ or ‘associate’

        Jesus…

        “Hey honey, I think Jr. is possessed, what say we decapitate him?”

        “K… I’ll get the axe.”

        1. Sounds legit.

        2. It’s sort of a small scale cult of personality. Imagine a domestic Jim Jones.

      4. French makes everything sexy.

      5. It’s the wampeter of your karass.

        Unless your karass is really a granfalloon.

      6. Right. So, pitchers and catchers. Got it.

        It’s amazing how often that kind of explanation is used…

    5. How, for instance, do two people with the exact same kind of crazy marry each other?

      They go to a person authorized to perform the ceremony with the correct paperwork.

  19. Syed is a popular Pakistani name. They don’t name all their kids Muhammad. I am wandering a bit here, but I feel unsafe with my name. There is only one person in world with my name. It is not Ming Wu or Patrick O’Reilly.

    I need a juice box.

    1. I need a juice box

      All I have is a gallon of coffee, a pack of smokes, and an eightball. But I’m right there with you.

    2. Johnny Salami?
      Fuk Dat Bich?
      Charlie Murphy?

    3. Syed, or Sayyid, basically means “lord” or “liege” or “master”. It was originally a title given to Husain, younger son of Ali and Fatima, daughter of Muhammed and his descendants.

      It’s now used as a given name, after Husain.

      (Hasan, the older son, was titled Sharif and his descendants used that title.)

  20. What the fuck is the ISIS Profile”? This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. It’s even dumber than saying that the purpose of the “Arab Spring” is to bring about Jeffersonian democracy.

    1. I don’t think the inventor of “Block Yomomma” has a lot of leeway when it comes to calling other peoples’ phrases stupid.

      1. He shall never liveth that downeth. -Reason Deity

        1. *Diety
          I before E except after C.
          FMWAWC

          1. Diety – adjective; describes a person focused on their diet. ex. – She wants to shrink her ass so she has become very diety.

    2. What the fuck is a “perfectly assimilated Muslim American”? What exactly does such a person believe? Nobody seems to be answering.

      1. a green card and a job in miami?

      2. That Mohammad was a prophet, cheeseburgers are tasty, and rock’n’roll is righteous?

        1. Stick to being an idiot, funny isn’t your game.

          1. Aww, I’m on your whine-radar. I feel like a legitimate part of this community now.

        2. That Mohammad was a prophet, halal cheeseburgers are tasty, and rock’n’roll is righteous?

          FTFY

          Cheeseburgers are treyf but they’re not haraam if the animal was slaughtered in a halal fashion.

      3. What the fuck is a “perfectly assimilated Muslim American”?

        Votes Democrat and regularly cashes checks from government.

      4. What does it even mean? Dylan Roof was a perfectly assimilated White Trash American. He also followed an ideology that sanctioned killing people for bullshit reasons, so what exactly is that worth?

      5. Kasey Kasem

    3. That more or less was the purpose of the Arab Spring. What it actually achieved…

  21. Farook, to anybody who lives in Southern California, appears, based on what we know so far, to have been a perfectly assimilated Muslim American.

    Yeah…that’s kind of the problem.

    1. Exactly. That is the problem. You can’t tell who is a decent person and who is going to blow a gasket and start killing people.

      1. And that applies for everyone. Right?

    2. Gen 2 Muslims do not assimilate in the West. I do not know if that nugget of information is relevant here, but it’s true as the sky is blue.

      1. Hooray, let’s make huge generalizations about large groups of people!

        Actually, wait. The sky is gray today. So carry on.

      2. That is weapons grade stupid. “The West” is a particularly stupid catch-all. Where are the banlieus around Chicago or New York?

        1. I have become hardened to that sort of criticism. Those Muslim occupied no-go zones in Sweden and France should give a clue of what’s in store in for us. Maybe we just read different stuff on this Internet thingy.

          1. Or maybe, just maybe WE AREN’T FRANCE OR SWEDEN. Ever consider that?

            Jesus fucking christ on a pogo stick, the Yokel Quotient may be exceeding unity today.

            1. Or maybe, just maybe WE AREN’T FRANCE OR SWEDEN. Ever consider that?

              I can’t tell the welfare states apart.

          2. I prefer the expletive “Jesus Fucking Christ on a Cracker”. If I read correctly we’ll be in the same foxhole should push come to shove.

            1. The same foxhole? I have no intrinsic objection but could we do it sequentially? I not that into teh gay.

          3. Those Muslim occupied no-go zones in Sweden and France are completely fictional.

            FTFY

            1. Just as fictional as the no-go zones in New Orleans.

              1. Educate yourself

                http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..-zone-myth

                1. Not that I don’t believe you, but citing Bloomberg isn’t very credible.

        2. Where are the banlieus around Chicago or New York?

          As a Canuck, I thought New Jersey was always considered the banlieue of New York. Hell, I thought New Yorkers considered the entire planet as a banlieue of New York.

      3. That’s a lie. They assimilate just fine.

        1. It is their kids we have to worry about.

          1. I live in the “Little Syria” of NYC. Most of the kids here look just like every other kid here: like little gangstas.

            1. +1 Stanced Acura blaring Haida Wehbe out of an overdriven 12 incher.

              Dat fresh-baked pita doe…

  22. This reeks of workplace related violence rather than religious fanaticism / radicalization. Like most of these events, if the facts don’t support the agenda, then the facts will be obfuscated into irrelevance.

    1. I’d say yes, right up to the point of the equipment and planning.

      1. Your wife ready to go on a spree with you instantly? That was one devoted woman.

        1. He gave her a choice between anal and this…

  23. Sounds more like vanilla workplace violence than any sort of ISIS- or Queda-associated vendetta, especially given that there was apparently some sort of verbal disagreement prior to him leaving and coming back to kill.

    Could it be, stick with me here, that this guy was having some sort of conflict with another employee, lost his cool, and decided to come back and smoke the whole crowd?

    1. That would explain why the pipe bombs didn’t go off. You just aren’t going to get adequate craftsmanship assembling them as your wife drives you to your impulsive mission.

      1. To me the wife’s participation makes it extremely unlikely this is some petty grudge or anything but Islamic terrorism. Wives and girlfriends go along on crime sprees or as part of terrorist groups. They don’t go along with their husband to go postal on their boss.

        1. Maybe it dovetailed from one to the other?

        2. “You *said* you want to feel included!”

      2. “What have we got?”

        “Mothballs… corn syrup… ammonia.”

        “What’s for dinner?”

        “Plastique.”

        “That sounds good. What is it?”

        “It’s a nitroglycerin base. It’s a bit more stable. I learned to make it when I was a kid. Make sure there’s none on the threads. Like this. Screw the end cap on. Very gently.”

        “You must’ve had a fun childhood.”

    2. Name me a single other instance where someone went postal on their boss where their wife willingly went to their death to help? Also, name me another instance where the person brought pipe bombs and took off after the attack.

      It doesn’t sound like workplace violence at all.

      1. Name me another instance where a terrorist went into the event to have words with the person they returned to attack.

        1. Do we count yelling “Allahu Akbar” has ‘having words’?

          1. The going away and coming back part is what’s leading me in the direction of workplace violence. These folks he killed were coworkers, is that correct?

            1. Yes, I’m being a dick. Can I not be a dick? Why can’t I be a dick?

            2. And the wife wasn’t. So the disgruntled employee motivation can’t apply to at least one of the perpetrators

              1. Maybe it applied to him but she had a different motive

            3. If workplace violence, why the masks? Why the bombs? Why the unfinished bombs back at the house?

              Let’s try this: they wanted to blow up or attack something else. But first, the holiday party. He goes to the party, drops off a backpack or two of love, and leaves. Tries to remote detonate it and nothing happens. Figures he’s going to be fingered if he leaves things as is, and comes back guns ablazin’ to remove what evidence he can, so he can do whatever later attack he originally intended.

              He doesn’t count on his phone betraying him, or that witnesses would have recognized him shooting up the place. He also doesn’t plan on massacres being more difficult to completely carry out than just showing up with a rifle and some mags.

              Whatever the eventual motive turns out to be, it just seems like a lot of excess preparation and activity if all he wanted to do was kill off some of his coworkers. And how do you get the wife to buy into doing all that?

              1. It probably started out innocently enough.

                “Want to get some food?”

                “Sure.”

                “What do you feel like?”

                “I don’t know…”

                Fifteen minutes later they settled on massacre.

                1. Dude i have had so many conversations like that with my wife.

                  1. Ok, then let’s eat Jimboy’s tacos.

                    “No, I don’t want that.”

                2. So like the opening/closing to Pulp Fiction, but without Samuel L. Jackson there to talk them off the ledge?

              2. If workplace violence, why the masks? Why the bombs? Why the unfinished bombs back at the house?

                With the evidence we have, I’m still not calling this workplace violence. I’m calling it an “unsupported terrorist attack”. Am I jumping to conclusions? Of course, because I haven’t sat down across from Farook and Company and asked him what his motivations were.

                And I am differentiating an Adam Lanza style attack from ‘terrorism’. Yes, shooting up a crowd of people is “terrorizing” to the people getting shot up.

                But people like Lanza commit suicide and are probably completely out of their gourds– they are probably dead in the center of a psychotic break. The attacks are uncalculated and not designed for an escape.

                Farook and co. looked like this was carefully planned (days ahead of time) and there seemed to be a route of escape- albeit not very realistic.

                Timothy McVeigh, for instance, was terrorism.

                1. They were both wearing GoPro Cameras during the shooting. Why?

                  If those images were uploaded they will terrify and appall people – the purpose of terrorism.

                  http://www.thegatewaypundit.co…..-massacre/

            4. If he wasn’t there when the event started, he may not have know where they were meeting, who was there, etc…

              Scouting before attacking isn’t that uncommon.

            5. I keep hearing he “used” to work there. Not sure what he was doing at the party if that’s the case.

              1. I keep hearing he “used” to work there. Not sure what he was doing at the party if that’s the case.

                Huh, I missed this line.

              2. Well, he doesn’t work there anymore…

            6. My understanding is that he was an environmental inspector and the party was one for mental health professionals, so no, not co-workers.

              Was he being treated by one of the party goers?

            7. The argument was a ruse to basically case the joint. Gave him a reason to leave the party.

        2. I get your point. But, think about it. The guy had what sounds like a remote controlled bomb. That isn’t the sort of thing you have lying around the house and pick up on a fit of pique.

          1. Yeah but why would they go into the party, get into a verbal altercation, attracting attention to themselves, then leave and come back to kill when the could have just rolled up to the joint, popped out the SUV and done their business.

            1. Maybe I’m going to sound weird here, but isn’t it possible that the altercation was the reason for the choice of target? Guy might have been planning to do something for a while. Gets in a fight and decides the party is as good a place as any…

              1. Yeah that could be it.

              2. Guy might have been planning to do something for a while. Gets in a fight and decides the party is as good a place as any…

                That is plausible. If I was a terrorist, I’d pick a more appropriate target. One that fit my political objective. Shooting up your workplace doesn’t fit.

                1. If I was a terrorist…

                  Well, yeah. But, I’ve yet to see any evidence you’re the sort of batshit crazy fruit loop who’d be a terrorist. Somehow, I’m guessing finely honed impulse control isn’t the profile’s strong suit.

                2. It wasn’t his workplace.

                3. Easy target. You know they’re not the type to fight back. Dead infidels and terror are all that count.

              3. But, then again, he may just be a stupid terrorist.

          1. You fucking copycat! I already referenced this above in response to you!

            1. Nuh uh! You copied me!

              1. Nuh uh! You stink!

        3. What Bill said above. The fact that he showed up and got into an argument doesn’t mean he wasn’t planning on killing them anyway. Clearly he was, as evidenced by the pipe bombs and such.

          1. Right, but it lends credence to the theory that this was an interpersonal dispute, and that the killing was connected somehow to a specific individual or individuals.

            AKA not terrorism.

            1. I disagree. I believe that the interpersonal dispute was “destined to be” because he was in “angry killing mode”. He didn’t get INTO angry killing mode because of a dispute, it was exactly the opposite. IMHO.

            2. We don’t know someone else started the argument. We are all assuming that the poor innocent Muslim guy was being unfairly treated by some mean, white Christian male.

              For all we know he had a female coworker who was an apostate or moderate Islamic who refused the niqab or whatever.

      2. I’d say the choice of his workplace is likely a tactical decision

        1. He knew the layout…entrances, exits, corridors, driving routes to effect escape.
        2. He knew the kind of security it would have, how long it might take for cops to get there in force.

        Taking out a few specific people he may have had a grudge against is just extra.

      3. I’d say the choice of his workplace is likely a tactical decision

        1. He knew the layout…entrances, exits, corridors, driving routes to effect escape.
        2. He knew the kind of security it would have, how long it might take for cops to get there in force.

        Taking out a few specific people he may have had a grudge against is just extra.

      4. I’d say the choice of his workplace is likely a tactical decision

        1. He knew the layout…entrances, exits, corridors, driving routes to effect escape.
        2. He knew the kind of security it would have, how long it might take for cops to get there in force.

        Taking out a few specific people he may have had a grudge against is just extra.

        1. Triple squirrel combo!!!!!

          What do I win?

          1. John deports you.

          2. *Takes off hat, throws it at Dave Ss*

          3. Nothing, because it wasn’t his workplace. Just a rented room.

        2. The squirrels agree.

        3. My worst fear is that he was bulled at work about his religion.

          1. Which is ridiculous. Who would even do that these days – and in California?!

  24. Muslim couple (whatever happened to the third guy they were so certain existed before) during a period where Muslim extremists are threatening terrorism. Obviously well planned and well equipped. Bomb making materials in their home.

    I know, it’s absolutely GOT to be Tea Partiers.

    Damn those Kochs!

  25. “Farook, to anybody who lives in Southern California, appears, based on what we know so far, to have been a perfectly assimilated Muslim American.”

    Wouldn’t this just be even more points for Muslim restrictionists?

    “Even the perfectly assimilated ones commit atrocities!”

    1. Also, it means gun control wouldn’t work.

      He’s a model citizen.

      He’s not crazy. He’s not a felon.

      1. Indeed. An “enhanced background check” would’ve found precisely Jack and Squat on this guy.

        Your President’s a dick. Unfortunately, we just elected his younger, whiter doppelg?nger up here in Canuckistan.

        Sigh.

      2. “Also, it means gun control wouldn’t work.”

        Proof that guns simply need to be banned.

  26. Mossad false flag. I know it, you know it, the whole world knows it. Let’s not pretend.

    1. DNC false flag. This had to be done to finally turn the tide against the 2nd amendment.

      1. They would have used a confederate flag neo-nazi dude and targeted non-government workers. The DNC doesn’t gore their own sacred cows.

        1. Exactly – it would have been the whitest, fattest Bubba ever. And the getaway car would have been the General Lee.

        2. Sometimes you have to crack a few eggs.

    2. Seriously?

      1. No. It’s called humor.

        1. If you call a man pretending to be an anti-Semitic child molester “humor”, then my thoughts and prayers are with you.

          1. How do you know I’m a man? Huh? HUH????

          2. Anti-Semitic?!?

            1. I happen to know that your real name is Epstein.

              1. “Signed, Epstein’s mother.”

                I’m a Puerto Rican Jew?!?

                1. You could totally roll with that.

          3. I ALREADY LAUGHED AT THAT JOKE, DON’T RUIN IT FOR ME!

            1. I plan on running it into the ground by 4.

        2. dude, what kind of sick person would talk about ice cream in a time like this?

    3. It’s Joos all the way the down. Where am I, Taki Magazine?

    4. I saw thousands of Jews celebrating in Los Angeles.

      1. I saw thousands of Jews celebrating in Los Angeles.

        That was the Oscars.

  27. Well, Muslims do believe that abortion is impermissible after four months of gestation, and there was a Planned parenthood clinic 1.3 miles away. I think the motive is pretty clear.

  28. Is it known why LAPD ran this guy’s name last week?

    1. Isn’t the LAPD running everyone’s name these days?

  29. . Farook may have become radicalized more recently; his new wife, from Saudi Arabia, whom he met online, might have played a role.

    Again, why has no one put the blame at Oliver Stone’s conspiratorial feet for making Natural Born Killers twenty-one years ago?

    1. That movie did drive me crazy it was so terrible.

      1. Only move I’ve ever nearly walked out of.

        1. It was one of my favorite movies for a while.

        2. One of the few movies I did actually walk out of.

          What a masturbatory piece of shit that was.

        3. Or “Picnic at Hanging Rock.” That one was a giant “WTF?” for me.

    2. I always knew eHarmony was no good.

      1. Christian Mingle
        Muslim Mangle

  30. Can it be a mix of religious fanaticism and workplace violence? I mean, he seemed pretty prepared for some sort of violence, like he was planning something.

    Unless, maybe he’s just a Prepper.

    1. That’s what I’m thinking. He had already decided and prepared for some type of attack, and just picked a target that had pissed him off personally.

  31. He was not some disaffected youth with no future ready to embrace the nihilistic attitudes of the Islamic State.

    Few of them are. Why do people keep peddling that myth? Bin Laden was a millionaire. The leaders of ISIS are highly-educated at Western universities. Middle class or better.

    The “disaffected youth” explanation is full of more holes than a holiday partier in San Bernardino.

    1. 40 years ago they would have joined the Red Army Faction.

      1. This is America. They would have joined the Weather Underground and met the guy who would later mentor a future President.

    2. If they’re educated at Western universities, then they’ve been exposed to the notion that words aren’t just vibrations in the air or marks on paper or pixels on a computer screen, but objects capable of doing physical damage to people. A snarl from a dog is morally equivalent to a byte. That means that if someone calls you a towelhead, you’re entitled to shoot him.

  32. I’m fine with being cautious to determine motive, but this “doesn’t fit the profile” thing is silly. Ziad Jarrah grew up in a rich, secular family and had a German girlfriend who he actually lived with for a time. Didn’t stop him from being one of the 9/11 pilots.

  33. “”But there’s little understanding at this point how or why Farook became radicalized””

    I missed the part where anyone bothered to decode the life-story of “Crazy Baby-Parts”-guy before declaring his motives patently-obvious

    1. Or the guy who killed all of those people in South Carolina. We will never know what made him a racist who wanted to kill black people so lets not say racism motivated him.

      1. As per my comment below =

        Roof’s racism was implicit from his scowling photos with confederate flag

        For some reason, there seems to be a reticence for any news media to share so much as a flattering-snapshot of the couple accused of mass-murder.

        1. They’ve run a pic of the husband all day. Nothing on the wife.

          1. Today showed the pic on this article about 20 times.

            1. “Today”?

              … is that a news org, or a TV show?

              1. No, no. You caught me. I must obviously be lying because I dared to contradict you.

                1. You didn’t contradict anything, unless the Times, Post, AP, Reuters, etc. have been running pictures of the suspects that somehow i cant find anywhere.

                2. Hey look, your inner 13 year old girl is showing again.

          2. There are 3 stories linked on the WaPo front page about the shooting.

            There are 4 stories linked on the NYT front page about the shooting.

            Not one has a photo of the husband.

            Neither is there any photo on the constantly-updated front-page stories @ Reuters

            Do you have a link to an example?

            1. No, just what I was watching on the news this morning. I guess I’m just carrying water for CAIR.

              1. “” I guess I’m just carrying water for CAIR””

                Is pretending anyone is accusing *you* of something a way of trying to pretend that my point isn’t actually true?

                1. Yes, he thinks if he belittles you for something it will deter you. It’s how he argues his points, since he has the intellect of a 13 year old girl. Just read some of the stupid shit he “writes”.

                  1. Aw, someone isn’t getting enough attention…

  34. Here’s a question =

    is there a single major media outlet running photos of the perps on the front page?

    1. lets lower the bar =

      is there anyone running photos of the perps *in any context*?

      NYT attempt at a bio story on “the shooters” references his Facebook profile, but nary a pic to be had of the guy or his newlywed (*no wedding photos?)

      1. Same story @ WaPo – also not a single pic of either

        1. I thought we were supposed to say they shouldn’t show photos, because that was an incentive to commit mass murder.

          1. until they don’t and than we bitch about terrible reporting. It’s a vicious cycle.

          2. “I thought we were supposed to say they shouldn’t show photos, because that was an incentive to commit mass murder.”

            I’m pointing out that when someone commits mass-murder, they ALWAYS run a photo. There hasn’t been an example of a shooter in the past few years where we were left wondering about ‘what they looked like’ for more than a few minutes.

      2. Daily Fail had some photos, but a few were weirdly out of focus. I wasn’t sure why they bothered using those ones.

      3. is there anyone running photos of the perps *in any context*?

        So…does this post somehow…not count? Is that because it only has a picture of the man? People don’t seem to know much about the woman yet.

        1. She was wearing a burqa, so it’s kinda tough to tell.

        2. “”So…does this post somehow…not count? ‘””

          The question was specifically regarding the “news organizations” mentioned.

          1. I thought “lowering the bar” meant it wasn’t. Sorry.

            1. i.e. “somewhere other than the front page”

              e.g. the “miscellaneous bin”-reporting. they seem to be making room for things like ‘photos of the victims’, and “Daily News Headlines” making fun of GOP Prayers, etc.

      4. I have, like, 3 photos of me on my Facebook account.

        They got married in Saudi Arabia. It’s easy to believe they have no photos or didn’t upload them to a public account.

        Perhaps so far there really is no good-looking photo to share. Only blurry pics provided by the family, who probably aren’t rushing to get the face of their dead mass murdering son/brother plastered all over TV.

        1. Unlike their Palestinian brethren who put up big celebratory posters and billboards of their mass murdering family members.

          1. Pakistani-Americans are the “brethren” of Palestinians?

            1. Juden sind Juden.

            2. If you lump every Muslim in the world into a monolithic block, you can make all sorts of connections.

              1. If you lump every Muslim in the world into a monolithic block, you can make all sorts of connections.

                I didn’t. I specifically said Palestinians, so as to exclude vast numbers and nationalities of other Muslims.

            3. Right there’s no connection between the religion and culture of Palestinians in Palestine and Palestinian diaspora. Because they integrate so well everywhere they live.

              1. Dude’s Pakistani-American.

                1. Dude’s Pakistani-American.

                  Didn’t say the dude wasn’t.

                  MJ said the family are likely in no hurry to have their mass murdering family member’s face plastered around in public. I said that’s unlike their co-religionists in Palestine that are specifically known for the exact opposite inclination for their mass murderers.

                  Nitpick away though. I’m sure you’ll slay that strawman real good and stuff.

                  1. Yeah. And you called them their “brethren.” MJ Green then asked you why they were “brethren,” and you responded with two comments that made you think they were…all Palestinians.

                    1. Yeah. And you called them their “brethren.”

                      Yes, like the term religious people use to describe the members of their same faith.

                      I was responding to three people’s posts. Continue on being your insufferable self.

              2. Because they integrate so well everywhere they live.

                Ever visit Orland Park? Largest Palestinian population outside of Jordan and Israel. Looks pretty much like every other western suburb of Chicago, apart from the concentration of excellent falafel joints.

                1. If NYC is closer, visit Paterson.

                  1. http://www.wbez.org/news/cultu…..ago-105416

                    Back to Bigot School, you can do better.

                  2. visit Paterson.

                    This is the worst advice in human history.

  35. We are in a war where our enemy is motivated by an ideology, not loyalty to any single faction.

    That these people were not motivated by or members of ISIS means nothing.

    *I am not asserting that his motivations were religious. I would be a bit surprised if they are not in some way connected to distaste for our culture but I haven’t got enough info at this point to say anything definitive.

    1. You can’t destroy an ideology, Just look at 6000 years of Judaism, 2000 years of christianity. Interventionism, the arrogance of believe that all other countries want what we have, freedom. Freedom to be as vial and corrupt in mind, body and spirit as one can. Not every body wants our freedom.

      1. Freedom to be as [vile] and corrupt in mind, body and spirit as one can. Not every body wants our freedom.

        Yes, those poor noble savages, with their purity of essence and spirit. They were blissfully communing with nature and living angelic lives before the dirty white man came along and spread freedom to them.

      2. You can’t destroy an ideology, Just look at 6000 years of Judaism, 2000 years of christianity.

        And yet modern Jews don’t promote or accept living under the totalitarian bullshit that Jews did 6000 years ago, nor do Christians today accept the religiously imposed social order of Christians from 1000+ years ago. Muslims, conversely, seem to yearn to replicate the barbarity from which their religion sprang.

        You can destroy ideology, even if it means watering down the barbarity.

  36. We know for a fact this cannot be islamic terrorism since el presidente said they are being rebuked by everyone getting together to fight global climate change. According to some lefties, this may have been a trigger because it was a christmas party, so we need to outlaw any assemblance of christianity (screw the first amendment if it offends a group) whether they be crosses, pictures, anyone saying merry christmas, rewrite some of our founding fathers letters (please, don’t copy paste quotes that “prove” our founding fathers didn’t refer to religion making me copy paste quotes they did. I don’t believe all of them were christian), etc. If it was a trigger, he was so angry at the future Christmas party he went to Saudi Arabia to get his wife to help him. Even if it was an act of Islamic terrorism, this administration won’t admit it, he said the events in Paris was a set back. Kerry slipped up and said there as legitimacy to the charlie hebdo attacks. The left news will say it’s because of a lack of strict gun control, the right news will be quick to say it’s because they’re muslims and because we have porous borders.

    1. Did you take a breath while typing that?

      1. That was a great piece of word saladry.

  37. That “killing Jews” stuff is just political theater.

    Just a few fanatics.

    He is right. It is ALL the Jews fault.

    ==================

    Apologists for a certain famous German.

    1. Uwe Boll?

    2. Count von Zinzendorf?

    3. I will not apologize for Katarina Witt.

      1. Word.

      2. What about Claudia Schiffer?

        1. Interesting. I had no idea she was German.

          I um… I had never heard her speak for some reason.

    4. You mean Sing mit Heino?

  38. Maybe he was some sort of Manchurian civil servant. His brand new wife shipped in from Saudi Arabia, said the command code, then off they went.

    Maybe every person of Middle Eastern descent is just born with a command cold even if they don’t know it. Kinda like the Storm Troopers from that movie.

    1. Uh, Sparks, that would include the Jews. Also, all of those Maronite (indigenous Lebanese) and Chaldean (ingigenous Iraqi) Christians.

      1. Say “gelt” as the trigger word and you’ll get a Hebrewcaust.

        1. As long as they don’t serve the desserts that taste like cardboard.

          1. All Jewfood tastes like cardboard. It is truly one of the most wretched cuisines in existence.

      2. Yeah, and?

        Listen Tonio, when you’re onto something big, like really big, you don’t mince around.

    2. Execute Command Cold 66/ Emperor Ahchoo

  39. El Presidente wants to protect from mass shootings by making it more difficult for americans to defend themselves. Eliminating guns from a society sure worked for Paris. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it would have been stopped here either, no one I know goes to a concert packing, or how does one stop a suicide bomber with a gun?

  40. “he mentioned that he enjoyed reading religious books, but described himself as both “religious” and “modern.” Modernity is not exactly what the Islamic State is looking for.”

    This is simply not true. ISIS is very modern and uses modern tools to achieve its goals.

    In fact, I’ve watched a video of a ride-along with IS religious police where the guy says “people think that we don’t want computers and technology, but its not true.”

    Modern to us means modern social mores. Modern to other people means modern tools and whatever social mores they like.

  41. I don’t think the argument was the catalyst for any of this. They dropped their kid off at the grandparents’ place and said they were going to the doctor. I’m making an assumption, but would there be enough time to get into argument, storm out, go home, get kid ready, get guns ready, get bombs ready, drive to grandparents, drive back to party, start shooting?

    1. I think its either a fig-leaf to claim work-place violence or unrelated.

      Might even be 3rd shooter who gets cold feet.

  42. This article infuriates me. At the beginning of the 2nd paragraph, it says how authorities are not immediately jumping to Islamist terrorism. Why would they? Are we now to assume from here on out any mass shooting is pulled off by an ISIS affiliate? Disgusting. Better check if Jeffrey Dahmer was an ISIS patriot as well.

    This paragraph also says that “Farook may have become radically more recently.” MAY HAVE!
    Yet in the 3rd paragraph, he’s suddenly become radicalized even though there is little understanding at this point how or why with what little information they have about him.

    But let’s just go ahead and assume he was a radical ISIS national.

    If he was… he was. But what if he wasn’t? Yet again, the assumption that any Muslim can turn to ISIS blows me away.

    1. “the assumption that any Muslim can turn to ISIS blows me away.”

      Was that an intentional joke?

      Also…yes, any Sunni muslim can join ISIS. ISIS tells them they should.

      Just like any white person can join the KKK if they really want to.

    2. Are you trying to make some sort of coherent point?

    3. …This is like Underzog complaining last night that Reason wouldn’t publish Farook’s name, hours after Doherty updated the post with Farook’s name.

  43. MSM has played this beautifully.

    The narrative is now gun control. They’ve linked Islam to workplace violence and planned parenthood attacks. They are making them all the same.

    Now, maybe this guy did have workplace cultural issues…if you’re going to kill 20 people why not take down that bitch Brenda in HR, amirite?

    My money is he’d planned a more serious attack, but the token conservative white guy at the party ribbed him too hard about being a s Muslim at a Christmas party and Farook initiated the attack that was supposed to be for somewhere else.

    1. I went through my notes. Currently, I am writing a year-end report. One of the report tasks was to call county health departments and survey their interpretation of various laws and their acceptance of new technology. I spoke to at least three people in this office, but not the suspect. I know it’s tangential but I sincerely hope they aren’t among the dead. That does not sit well with me. I guess I am human, after all.

  44. Officials: San Bernardino shooter apparently radicalized, in touch with terror subjects

    Warning: Autoplay

    Also, they show a picture of the husband… or am I just lying? Does anyone else see it?

    1. “” they show a picture of the husband'”

      I just scrolled through that and unless you’re counting the video links in the sidebar… no.

      1. The autoplay video does. But it’s not digital print news, so it doesn’t count.

        1. You seem to be going out of my way to confirm the point while pretending you’ve scored some magnificent coup.

          1. No, no… I’m sure your vast media conspiracy is right on the money. Jihadi MSM!

            1. Is there some mental defect that requires you to always respond like a sarcastic 13 year old girl?

              I’d like to know if I’m accidentally tard shaming you before I continue.

              1. Did you come by your abject cowardice naturally?

                Come on, be brave. Post under your regular handle. Or are you that afraid of what will happen?

            2. Observing that there are no actual pictures of the people they’re running “Bio-Stories” on isn’t quite a “conspiracy”.

            3. You really are a 13 year old girl pretending to be clever and ‘edgy’. Epi redux basically.

              1. You really are a 13 year old girl pretending to be clever and ‘edgy’.

                That really stings coming from a bloodthirsty autistic.

                1. Perfect. Exactly perfect. It’s like you’re doing this on purpose.

                  1. Not taking you seriously because you have all the intellectual heft of a feather? Yes. I am doing that on purpose.

                    1. AND projection! Perfect 10/10

                      BTW even a feather would be more intellectually hefty than you. Circle-jerking with Epi and other 2Kool4Skool kids does not make you actually intelligent.

    2. They also have an embedded slideshow with 29 pics, none of which is the shooter.

      And they have an embedded graphic… of “Highest Guns Per Capita by Country”.

      This was your counter-example?

      1. No, it wasn’t. I was linking to that fact that he was in communication with at least on terrorist, which bolsters the idea this wasn’t workplace violence.

        The fact that the video shows a pic was just a thumb in your eye. But keep hawking your conspiracy theory.

        1. ” keep hawking your conspiracy theory.’

          What “theory”?

          You’re just being a petulant douche by trying to pretend that there’s no merit to an observation that is fucking obvious.

          If someone commits mass-murder, and you can’t find a single photo of the perpetrator anywhere in the pages of nation’s largest news organizations…. that is noteworthy. Pretending its not is just being fucking obtuse.

          1. I’m not going to go digging again on your behalf, but I’ve seen multiple photos of the guy.

          2. Whoa… come on, you two. Can’t we all get along on this? Don’t make me choose sides here!

          3. And why is it noteworthy?

            You know, I caught your insinuation just fine. Why are you getting so bent out of shape about it?

            1. ‘Why are you getting so bent out of shape about it?”

              I’m not bent out of shape by the fact at all.

              Your pretending that THERE IS NO FACT is irritating.

              1. OK, fine. I admit it. A shadowy cabal of Media Creatures are Protecting Murderous Islam by not showing a blurry picture. There’s no way they are just waiting for a better photo to surface. You caught them. If only the sheeple would wake up!

                1. “OK, fine. I admit it. A shadowy cabal of Media Creatures are Protecting Murderous Islam by not showing a blurry picture. ‘

                  You really don’t need me, do you? You have so much fun arguing with your own sockpuppets. You need to do some Yokel voices to go with it, like, WHATFOR AINT THEY SHOWING NO BROWNS PEEPLES?

                  its that sort of thing that makes everyone feel humbled to be in the presence of your shining intellect.

                  1. For some reason, there seems to be a reticence for any news media to share so much as a flattering-snapshot of the couple accused of mass-murder.

                    Let’s see… I found a CNN report, Old Man found a CBS report, and Reason is running one on this very article.

                    But let’s ignore all that…

                    1. yes, your sidebar thumbnail was very convincing next to the giant graph about Gun Ownership.

                    2. Once again, it was in the video. Which I’m pretty sure falls under “any media.”

                      But keep moving those goalposts. I’m sure that airplane fuel can’t possibly melt steel.

                    3. Your point was deftly made, and was crushing in its decisive rebuttal of my baseless assertion. I found the 9/11 juxtaposition particularly apropos, and indicative of your high-level wit.

                      It would clearly be foolish, naive to expect a single photo of the perpetrator in the ongoing, live-updated, comprehensive coverage by the most pre-eminent news organization in America.

                    4. Wow, you’ve moved that goalpost so far. I’ll never make that kick now.

                      OK, The New York Times doesn’t have his picture. So fucking what? They have a blog and an ombudsman. Maybe take it up with them.

                    5. “OK, The New York Times doesn’t have his picture.”‘

                      Well, that took some time for you to digest. Maybe you should rest, or take a constitutional.

                      Also… as noted in the first comment – neither does WaPo in any of their front-page linked stories (or any story, after crawling around there for a half-hour)… or among the photos in the front-page slide-show……

                      …and neither does Reuters anywhere in its live feeds, or its one-off-stories

                      So What? NYT, WaPo, Reuters and AP are the best-funded, largest sources of raw news-reporting in the US. What they choose to cover (and not cover) has disproportionate impact on how people perceive news. Downplaying the identity of the shooter and instead talk about “guns and gun violence” as an abstract issue seems to be a conscious effort.

                      The fact that the CNN example you tried to highlight featured “Gun Control” statistics rather than focus on the actual “Killer”-person… well, if that went over your head, i can understand.

                    6. Downplaying the identity of the shooter and instead talk about “guns and gun violence” as an abstract issue seems to be a conscious effort.

                      So it is a conspiracy. Was that so fucking hard for you to admit? Or did you think you were being clever only insinuating it?

                    7. “So it is a conspiracy. Was that so fucking hard for you to admit?’

                      If that’s what i wanted to claim, i’d use those words.

                      instead, i’ve pointed out that they seem to be downplaying the shooter to instead highlight “guns & gun-violence”.

                      You can whine like an idiot that this sounds “conspiratorial” to you all you want. Its entirely possible lots of different people do the same thing for different reasons. It doesn’t require “conspiracy” at all.

                      what you haven’t remotely done is prove my observation is incorrect. its just a fucking fact. Being obtuse and name calling doesn’t make you seem ‘smarter’ by contrast.

                    8. OK. Your observation is correct. And you weren’t implying anything whatsoever. Nothing. Nothing whatsoever.

                    9. hopefully you’ll get your tampax-shortage sorted out soon

                    10. It is sort of hilarious that you think anyone needs to “Imply” a “conspiracy” when the fucking spin is so shamelessly, blatantly obvious that it requires a frontal lobotomy to *ignore*

                      equally hilarious = CNN has now pulled that “Gun Ownership” graphic from the above linked-story now that the story seems to be about “terrorism”

                    11. KNOCK IT OFF YOU TWO, I WILL TURN THIS CAR AROUND AND WE WILL GO BACK HOME!

                    12. SF – I can see some of Gilmore’s point – every other shootist has their photos splattered all over…if I saw that creepy dude from the last school shooting one more time, I was going to puke. It is just a bit noteworthy – no conspiracy or WHYCOME THEY AINT SHOW MUZLIMZ PIKTURES.

                      I happen to think it is because there is darned little available, and the family isn’t going to say – “oh, here, have some pictures you can plaster up to show my killer kid to the world”.

                      I wish you two would just glare at each other, shake hands and get back to pulling the Koch barge…er, forget that last part, I said nothing!

                    13. Swiss,

                      I also think it’s just because there’s just the one shitty picture. My problem is that in a few days, when they are plastering their better pictures all over the place, the conspiracy hounds will take credit for shaming them into it.

                    14. That’s not your only problem

                    15. Part of their problem SS, might be they don’t want to run pictures of his near-identically named brother, and trigger a libel suit. There are plenty of pictures of his brother and his Slavic-origin wife floating around.

                      But it is really funny to watch, and given Journolist was/is a thing, and importing refugees is evidently one of the few principles Obama stands for, I’m inclined to believe malevolence over incompetence in not showing pictures of the killers.

          4. I happened to run into this one.

            1. I’m sure they’ll run a full montage of his teenage years as a soccer-star soon.

    3. President Barack Obama hinted as much Thursday when he said that the attackers may have had “mixed motives.”

      That’s nice. I suspect Obama knows about as much about the motives as we do here: Not much.

    4. Can we now all agree that just because not every single Muslim on Earth is a terrorist it doesn’t mean that there aren’t Muslims who are terrorists? Christ on a crutch, I can believe that some Muslims are terrorists without having to believe all Muslims are terrorists.

      Mean while, the scumbag-in-chief actually had the balls to say that we as a society need to step up to the plate and get rid of our guns–from within his secure, guarded compound staffed with personal bodyguards. Because, you know, when Islamic radicals go on a shooting spree it’s because I want to own a Glock. Really, we’re the ones to blame.

  45. Notice how there is no information on the “verbal altercation?”

    If I were a reporter, I’d see if there were any other muslims at the party.

    Could be someone got cold feet, could be an apostate, could be a female muslim co-worker with uncovered hair.

    Religious quiet guy probably gets angry about religious issue.

  46. I’ll say this:

    There are some suggestive details – the body armor, the multiple loaded magazines, and especially the pipe bombs and the Go-Pro cameras they wore (assuming these are all actually real, because let’s not forget how often early reports are wrong).

    But, c’mon. Let’s wait a day or two, shall we?

    1. Why do that when you can shit your pants now?

  47. So John is a fascist fucktard what a surprise. Not. If John the Fascist Fucktard is representative of the conservative movement at large then Hillary is looking like not such a bad choice for president.

    1. Pot, don’t be so hard on Kettle.

      1. Actually, since he included Hillary it’s like pot meet kettle meet frying pan.

      2. Actually, since he included Hillary it’s like pot meet kettle meet frying pan.

      3. You seem not to have much beyond sophistry and faux-cleverism. Like a dumber Ken Schultz.

        1. I’m just calling you a hypocrite. Where’s the sophistry in that? As opposed to your little views on the issue whereby the goal should be to bomb them in their countries, then force people in this country to provide tax support and acceptance, of those same populations moving to this country, without exception. You’re just piling on the irony now that you’re calling someone else a sophist.

          1. If we could only lure the two of them into the sarlacc… they could spend the next 2000 yelling at each other.

            1. I had to google “sarlacc” because you just couldn’t say “sandy vagina with teeth”.

              1. Here, have a photo.

          2. ” then force people in this country to provide tax support and acceptance”

            I’d ask you to stop lying but I’m pretty sure you don’t know how.

            I’d also ask you to understand that wanting to bomb organizations that are trying to kill Americans while favoring open immigration is not in anyway hypocritical but then again you are the kind of person who styles himself an ‘anarchist’, uses ‘free society’ for a handle, and then bitches and moans at every opportunity about people immigrating into his country and taking r welfare. That you’d actually bring up ‘hypocrisy’ raises the possibility of negative levels of self-awareness.

            1. I’d ask you to stop lying but I’m pretty sure you don’t know how.

              You love, as a multicultist, subsidized 3rd world immigration. You love, as an armchair general and coward, advising other people wage wars that you have no stake in yourself. No lies there. You are sophistry made flesh.

              1. “You love, as a multicultist, subsidized 3rd world immigration.”

                Again, with the lies.

                “You love, as an armchair general and coward, advising other people wage wars that you have no stake in yourself.”

                More lies. I have plenty of stake in the war on ISIS and AQ. They hate me for my freedoms too.

                “You are sophistry made flesh.”

                Stop. Just stop. I am a lot smarter than you. Smarter than you could ever be in all likelihood.

                1. Again, with the lies.

                  You’re the guy who said all immigration is good all of the time for everyone.

                  I have plenty of stake in the war on ISIS and AQ. They hate me for my freedoms too.

                  George Bush wants his child-like understanding of this conflict back.

                  Stop. Just stop. I am a lot smarter than you. Smarter than you could ever be in all likelihood.

                  I understand that you can’t help but suck your own dick, but you should at least try not show off your talent too much.

                2. “They hate me for my freedoms too”

                  ” I am a lot smarter than you.”

                  You may or may not be smarter than FS. I don’t know FS.

                  But you’re not smarter than a fifth grader if you think your freedom is why they hate you.

                  They hate you because you are a non Muslim and don’t submit to Allah.

  48. “Farook” kind of looks like an Islamicized version of “Facebook”.

    Think about it…

    *nods slowly while eating sunflower seeds*

  49. I’ve updated with the latest news from the 10 a.m. press conference.

    1. Thanks Scott.

  50. NYT is now saying = San Bernardino Shooting Investigators See Terrorism Links

    “The F.B.I. is treating its inquiry into the massacre here as a counter-terrorism investigation, two law enforcement officials said Thursday, based on materials the suspects stockpiled ? including explosives ? their Middle East travels and evidence that one of them had been in touch with people with Islamist extremist views, both in the United States and abroad.’

    1. Well it’s nice to see some sanity.

      1. Nevermind, dear god the comments on that article are just painful.

        1. It’s the NYT – what were you expecting?

  51. Yet again – video exonerates officer against false claim

    W/o video you can’t PROVE you didn’t point your gun

    We know this- that’s why polling shows 70% of line cops want bodycams

    And yes, it’s a bargaining issue so even in cases where officers want them they will still use it as a union bargaining issue

    Quid pro quo n stuff

    1. Um, what?

      1. The guilty flee when no man pursueth.

      2. It’s dunphy, the liar and notorious apologist for murderers.

        Once people got his measure, they stopped interacting with him, and so he’s pretty desperate for attention.

        Treat him s you would a fat panhandler wandering down between the cars stopped at a red light with the cardboard sign declaring him to be a homeless vet.

    1. Color me surprised that you’d try to disguise a policeone link with tinyurl.

      1. Yet you clicked on it, and told him you clicked on it. Tossing a dollar at a panhandler just means he’ll come back tomorrow asking for another one. 😉

        1. For the greater good. Now, nobody else is going to click on it.

          You’re welcome. I like my apologies in the form of beer, please.

      2. Yet you clicked on it, and told him you clicked on it. Tossing a dollar at a panhandler just means he’ll come back tomorrow asking for another one. 😉

        1. “WILL POLICE BRUTALITY FOR PENSION”

  52. his new wife, from Saudi Arabia

    Malik is from Pakistan

    ??

    1. Updated info. I think they may have met in Saudi Arabia but she’s from Pakistan. Because the information is all so sketchy right now, we end up with this contradictory info.

      1. According to the WaPo article the current thinking is they met on hajj a couple years ago and got married.

        1. Some enchanted Hajj you may see a stranger
          You may see a stranger across a crowded Kabaa
          And somehow you know, you know even then
          That somewhere you’ll see her again and again

          Some enchanted Hajj, someone may be circumambulating
          You may hear her ululaqting across a crowded Kabaa
          And night after night, as strange as it seems
          The sound of her ululating will sing in your dreams

          Who can explain it, who can tell you why
          Fools give you reasons, Reason will never try

        2. Ah, there’s the problem. I think at some point Sauron corrupted the black stone like he did with the Palantir, so now it infects people with evil instead of taking it away. Would explain a lot.

  53. the origins of the rifles are still being researched.

    Probably iron and coal.

    1. You’re married to this piece. This weapon of iron and wood. And you will be faithful.

  54. I think the most curious thing is that they’ve had the –still alive– Planned parenthood shooter in custody for a while now and all we’ve gotten about his motives is the purported mumbled line ‘no more baby parts’. He hasn’t said anything else?

    And I don’t understand how the Islamic couple that committed a terrorist act can be absolved of that act simply because they’re not ISIS or Al Qaeda. Why do they have to be either? One can fight for Islam without joining a group.

    1. ” all we’ve gotten about his motives is the purported mumbled line ‘no more baby parts’. He hasn’t said anything else?”

      I BET YOU THINK 9/11 WAS CAUSED BY SPACE ALIENS TOO

    2. He hasn’t said anything else?

      Video from whatever hearing he went to earlier this week made it seem like he was on a lot of drugs, so…possibly not?

      1. It’d be really funny if it turned out he was on some sort of bad trip and trying to stop the cats from eating our souls or something like that. Funny as in motivationally funny, not funny as in people died.

        1. To be clear, the state is medicating him.

          1. THEY ARE SUPPRESSING THE TRVTH!!11!11!!!oneoneone!!11!!eleventy

      2. He is Agile Cyborg’s evil uncle?!

  55. I’m sure we’ll have enough information about the time the head anchor at Fox News is Buck Abshalla Mohammed Ahmed Al-Salaam and their field reporters are Jerry Mulhallah Al-sharid and Susie Tashfeen Mohammed Muammad. Then it’s be old news nobody is interested in.

  56. Oh god. I made the mistake of looking at the forums on the WaPo article. The Progs are absolutely jubilant. Some idiot is ranting about the NRA. It’s genuinely depressing.

    1. New York Times commenters are the same way. It really doesn’t make sense to me. The attack in Paris is too recent for them to be able to claim that better gun control laws would have stopped a terrorist attack, and having the son of an immigrant and a immigrant commit a terror attack also screws them on the whole refugee thing. Moderates aren’t going to view this as a reason to control guns. Especially with it happening in California.

  57. I’m wondering whether this is a honor killing. They are from societies controlled by honor/shame, unlike our western guilt/merit way of keeping society working. If so, then I can understand him getting his wife to join him in regaining his honor if he felt that someone (someones) had dishonored him.

    1. Maybe. But against 14 people? Honor killings usually happen to one person. The guy who dissed me, or deflowered my daughter and so forth.

      In a way the usual guy going postal killings are honor killings. The person doing it feels disrespected and views killing the other person as the only way to save their dignity. So if this was an honor killing it really is just workplace violence, which seems unlikely given the facts discussed above.

      1. I don’t disagree that this is unusual for what we in the west associate with honor killing. However, my point is not to discredit the terrorism theory, but to suggest that terrorism is about honor/shame, too. Furthermore, if faruk killed his co workers because they shamed him, then this clash of civilizations has ratcheted up a notch.

    2. “They are from societies”

      He’s from California.

      1. Yes. So California has no civilization?

  58. The problem is Libertarianism can’t account for radical religious ideologies like this. A libertarian society can only exist if everyone in it leaves everyone else alone or can be deterred into doing so by the threat of self defense or government sanction. Libertarians have a bad habit of forgetting that and thinking government is the only threat to our freedom. Government is usually the threat to our freedom but it is not the only one. If I can’t express myself or wear the wrong clothing in someone’s eyes or hold an opinion without risking my life, I am not free. And if the person wanting to kill me views dying in the process as a feature, my ability to defend myself is likely to no good. The point of self defense is to deter and not use it.

    Libertarianism cannot account for a group of people who won’t leave anyone alone and is happy to die making their point. They can’t be deterred and you can’t act on them consistent with Libertarian principles until they do something. Acting after they have done something is too late. The point is to deter everyone else and sow terror and killing the terrorist after the act does nothing to solve that.

    1. Really the only solution to such a group is either ignore them and let them do their worst or not allow them in your society in the first place. Well, you can’t kick them out consistent with Libertarian principles. Ignoring can work but only if there are a few of them. If there are enough of them, ignoring them allows them to destroy your free society via terror.

      Libertarians have no answer to that dilemma. it is where their ideology runs into its limits. This entire thread is nothing but ideological libertarians who are used to not having to think and letting their ideology do their thinking for them struggle with that issue. The struggle isn’t going well.

      1. Blah blah blah

        John you should just save yourself the effort and us the walls of text and write down “We have to destroy freedom to save freedom.” Because it’s painful to watch you pretend to know how to think.

        1. Show me how free you are, bro. Go draw a picture of Muhammed and put in online under your real name. Nothing offensive (unless you want), just an exercise in freedom of speech. Granted, as a Canadian, you should probably be more worried about your blasphemy being punished by Trudeau than ISIS.

          1. Cool story bro. Very relevant and on point.

            1. You know his point. And you have no answer to it. So you do like every other ideologue on here and pretend snark is a substitute for thought.

              1. No I don’t know his point John or how it’s relevant to what I said in the first place.

      2. c’mon just because people have answers you don’t like doesn’t mean they have no answer.

        1. They have an answer. The problem is that the answer doesn’t work. The only answer they have is to do nothing and deal with the person after the act. That works as long as the acts are rare and the group of people I describe very small. Let the acts become more common and the group larger and that fails utterly as the group uses terror to destroy your free society.

          We already live in a less free society thanks to Islamic terrorism. People are afraid to do things like draw Muhammad or make frank or cutting criticism of Islam the way they do other religion out of fear of death. It makes no difference if people don’t do or say something because the government threatens them with jail or some lunatic threatens to behead them. You are just as unfree in either case.

          Libertarians have a hard time comprehending that. And stupid Libertarians like Frank and Cytoxic can’t even begin to do so.

          1. “We already live in a less free society thanks to Islamic terrorism.”

            Still vastly freer than the one you propose.

            1. Sure Cytoxic, they won’t demand more. Just do nothing and go along. I am sure that will work out real well. And the one I propose is less free only in the sense that you can no longer be one particular religion. How is that any less free than the one we have now where you are not free to criticize that religion?

              1. “How is that any less free than the one we have now where you are not free to criticize that religion?”

                It isn’t but since that world is a fever-dream fantasy of yours it’s not worth discussing.

                “I am sure that will work out real well.’

                It has everywhere else.

              2. Deporting all muslims is impractical, John. Perhaps the rabble rousers and the radical imams could be deported, but only if they are not yet citizens. If they are citizens then the first amendment gets in your way. I don’t see your plan working, ultimately.

                1. There’s also the whole ‘it’s evil’ problem.

                2. Hyperbolical,

                  The first amendment can be changed. The bigger issue is getting rid of the Muslims you have doesn’t prevent people here from converting.

                  It is one hell of a problem. There will always be losers with an elevated sense of importance looking for a cause and a way to avenge themselves on society. It used to be those sorts of people became ordinary criminals. Radical Islam gives them a way to become terrorists. And that is a difficult problem.

                  1. The first amendment can be changed.

                    Yeah, that’s gonna go well.

                  2. Well, as I suggested earlier, one big issue is that most non-westernized societies are based on honor/shame. They’d rather die in honor than live in shame. There is no logical argument against that. This is the big thing we need to deal with. Even if they convert to Christianity, they’d still be honor bound like medieval Christians. In fact, we need only look to the hollers of Appalachia to find nominal Christians battling for their honor. It’s their worldview that’s the problem. It doesn’t fit in our society. But I’m still against mass deportations.

      3. Your problem is that you cannot separate government from society.

        Nick Gillespie, Shika Dalmia, and Sheldon Richman aren’t smart enough or else are too committed to the narrative to realize the consequences of the bullshit they say. But they are not the only voices.

        Saying that libertarianism can’t account for these sorts of things is patently absurd. The 2A has the stated solution built into its wording. That “militia” bit that the left disingenuously claim means guns can only be held by the government actually means that, in times of threats to the liberty of all, the people can and should organize to defend themselves.

        But the problem here is that nothing, no ideology and no system of government, is capable of dealing with every single threat. You are like the socialists complaining to Milton Friedman that capitalism “cannot account for” the rise and fall of the business cycle. Well what economic system has ever practically delivered upon a promise to ensure stability?

        Accepting that there will be ups and downs and dealing with them accordingly is exactly what libertarianism is all about. Because there is no system that can override human nature.

        1. Saying that libertarianism can’t account for these sorts of things is patently absurd. The 2A has the stated solution built into its wording. That “militia” bit that the left disingenuously claim means guns can only be held by the government actually means that, in times of threats to the liberty of all, the people can and should organize to defend themselves.

          I agree with that. The problem is that the only way to defend yourself against someone who is willing to die trying to harm you and doesn’t reveal himself until he does, is to kill him first. If you kill him after he attacks you, it is too late. Be it a militia or you personally, I don’t see how you can do that consistent with Libertarian principles.

          And yes, no ideology is perfect. That is my point. It is not to say that Libertarianism is bad or not the best ideology overall. I am saying there are times when it doesn’t work and you have to step away from your principles and face reality and make hard choices. Doing that is hard and is too hard for most ideologues since it requires doing more than just letting your ideology think for you.

          1. I don’t expect Nick Gillespie to be leading the Charles Martel Brigade but I don’t see anywhere you have identified a failing of the ideology. If you think you have to go around killing the Muslims before they kill you, then you need to get enough people on your side to do that effectively. But don’t be surprised if there is some resistance.

            All of this boils down to, you want the government to get rid of Muslims to avoid it having to come to violence. Well let’s set aside the fact that that is illiberal as fuck. How are you going to identify all of the Muslims, how are you going to get the courts to sign off on this (even Korematsu has its limits), and where are you going to send them all? What happens if this plan ends up resulting in violence anyway?

            1. If you can’t deal with a problem and ensure a free society without acting against the principles of the ideology, the ideology has failed you. I don’t see how you can say I haven’t identified a failure of the ideology. Let me restate it.

              Libertarianism cannot deal with the existence of a significant number of religiously motivated fanatics within a society because it can only deal with such people after they have committed a bad act. Since the people can’t be deterred and the purpose of the bad act is to terrorize the rest of society into submission, dealing with the wrong doer after the bad act is useless and only doing so allows the group to destroy a free society.

              1. We have to destroy the free society in order to have a free society. Cool story, bro.

                1. Or maybe we are fucked Sugar Free. But you tell me how you would deal with it? Do you really think a society where anyone who doesn’t toe the line of a small group of religious fanatics risks being killed is free? And if not, then what the hell good does having a wonderful government do anyone is such a society?

                  The more flippant you are the more obvious it is that you have no answer to that dilemma which is of course my entire point.

                  1. The more flippant you are the more obvious it is that you have no answer to that dilemma which is of course my entire point.

                    Or there are more choices in between “Invite every terrorist here to killed us” and “deport all Muslims!” Because one is a strawman you have lovingly constructed and the other is full on fascist police state.

                    Oh, and this shows your much touted concern for religious freedom in the case of The Little Sisters and Hobby Lobby and the Christian bakers to be exact what I’ve always thought it was… complete bullshit. Culture War Bullshit.

                    You don’t give a fuck about religious freedom.

                    1. Or there are more choices in between “Invite every terrorist here to killed us” and “deport all Muslims!” Because one is a strawman you have lovingly constructed and the other is full on fascist police state.

                      Okay, what are they? I am all years waiting for your answer. And how exactly do you plan not to invite every terrorist here to kill us and also maintain open borders?

                    2. One of the great failings of modern Western civilization has been to treat Islam strictly as a religion because it calls itself one.

                      Heavens Gate called itself a religion but they were treated as a cult by the legal system.

                      Koesh acted under the guise of religion but Bill Clinton and Janet Reno treated it as a cult.

                      Islam is more than a religion. It is a legal system, it is a social system. In Muslim dominated countries it functions as a government.

                      As long as the West continues to act as though Islam is simply a religion and treats it with the protections afforded religions by Western Civilizations we are fucked.

                      We didn’t treat Communism. Facism, nor Nazism as a religion why should we insist on treating Islam as one. It will continue to spread and insist on submission to Allah until we treat it the same way we treated those ideologies. We can’t wait until it has national borders to accurately define it.

                      Our current leader won’t even admit to it’s existance. .

              2. Since the people can’t be deterred and the purpose of the bad act is to terrorize the rest of society into submission, dealing with the wrong doer after the bad act is useless and only doing so allows the group to destroy a free society.

                If you knew who the wrongdoer was before the fact, then you don’t have to sit around waiting for him to commit the crime. Apparently the problem with libertarianism is that every other ideology has the benefit of telepathy.

                What it ultimately boils down to is your inane belief that a government of easily cowed morons is somehow going to usher in the new, terrorism-free utopia.

                1. Somehow, in Johnworld, if something bad happens ever then libertarianism has failed. That’s basically what his ‘notion’ boils down to.

                2. Of course you don’t know who it is. That is the problem. All you are doing is pointing out the problem. No shit, we don’t know which they are but we do know what religion they are.

                  1. Which does not inform us as to the motivation of this attack or much else, as much as you like it to notwithstanding.

                  2. No shit, we don’t know which they are but we do know what religion they are.

                    They also breathed air, had black hair, came from countries between Egypt and India, and were between the ages of 25 and 30.

                    If you want to say that we have to get rid of all the Muslims, then you need to stop dodging my questions.

                  3. You guys need to distinguish between Muslims and Wahhabis. They aren’t the same thing. It’s like comparing Southern Baptist Convention Baptists to the Westboro Baptists. It’s an enormous difference.

                    1. You guys need to distinguish between Muslims and Wahhabis.

                      I am well aware of the distinction. However, that is not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

                    2. You guys need to distinguish between Muslims and Wahhabis

                      This is a very good point. The Wahhabis and the Salafis are violent haters more dangerous to other Muslims than to westerners, in general. The Wahhabis have been evangelizing the world with Saudi billions for several decades. They had early connection with the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan. Seems like the Washington DC sniper was an American born Black Muslim from Farrakhan’s institution.

              3. Libertarianism cannot deal with the existence of a significant number of _______________ within a society because it can only deal with such people after they have committed a bad act.

                Yet we accept this for any number of other values you can use to fill in the blank. Drunk drivers, for example.

                1. Sure Rywun. You can. The problem is when people start killing for those values with the idea of terrorizing the rest of us into submission. That is what Libertarianism can’t account for. Islam is just the current example but there could be others.

                  The problem is that freedom is only good if everyone else is willing to respect your freedom at some level. If they are not, then you are not free and no amount of small government is going to change that.

                2. Isn’t that sort of a description of due process? Punishing people for bad actions that they have committed rather than ones they might commit in the future?

                  Due process is such a quaint idea, i know.

      4. Really the only solution to such a group is either ignore them and let them do their worst or not allow them in your society in the first place.

        I guess we should start by deporting you then.

        1. Or you could think a little bit and offer a third solution. How about that? Or is that just too hard?

          1. A… Final Solution?

            1. Yowch.

            2. You know who else…

          2. We’ll start with liquidating you then? Help me out here John, in the spirit of compromise and understanding I’m willing to step away from my libertarian principles and make some hard choices to deal with the issue of having you in our society.

            1. It sucks doesn’t it? I am not saying this is an easy problem or that the choices are anything but horrible. Clearly, we haven’t gotten to the worst yet and hopefully won’t.

              That said, maybe we need to think about not letting any more Muslims into the country. And we do that not because we hate Muslims but because we don’t want to get to some horrible point in the future. And maybe we should also make it clear that we are no longer going to cowtow to the delicate feelings of Muslims or treat them as some victim group and make it very clear that terrorism is going to get t hem nowhere.

              1. No, no, John. The issue is having you, John, in this country with your principles that are an anathema to a free society. What should we do about you in particular?

    2. John, it is worth pointing out that at the moment, the US population of Muslims is insubstantial and not particularly prone to terrorist attack. The best and easiest solution to avoid the problems of Europe is not to attack our native Muslim population, but to avoid importing the problems of Europe and the Middle East. This is a solution which should appeal to all but the most radical libertarians, and is much less likely to eliminate our freedoms than any other, while also solving the problem of containing Islamic radicalism in our country.

      1. It is. And no question that this event does not justify drastic measures. It is not however unthinkable that we could get to a point where circumstances leave us no choice. Right now “ignore it and get the bastard who did it” is largely working, though as I point out above we are less free now thanks to the presence of Muslims in our society. There is however no guarantee that state of affairs will continue. In fact, there is at least a decent chance they won’t. And it does no good to pretend that could never happen. It absolutely could.

        1. I think it will get worse before it gets better. The administration lives in an alternate universe where climate change and teabaggers are the biggest threats to society.

      2. “avoid importing the problems of Europe and the Middle East”

        What does this mean? Cut off immigration? Because that’s an unacceptable infringement of freedom of association.

        1. Immigrants traveling here on their own dime and integrating is one thing. Immigrants being “imported” at tax payer expense is something else entirely.

            1. The vast majority of 3rd world immigration is subsidized at tax payer expense. Okay?

              1. Your link to YouTube NutJob is so very trenchant.

                1. So you’re saying he has no valid sources?

              2. tl;dw

                Can I get the executive version ?

    3. The problem is Libertarianism can’t account for radical religious ideologies like this. A libertarian society can only exist if everyone in it leaves everyone else alone or can be deterred into doing so by the threat of self defense or government sanction.

      So a libertarian society can only exist if every citizen is libertarian? Sounds like a utopian vision to me. Socialists say the same. That’s why they kill off all the non-socialists.

      Libertarian have to live with non-libertarians.

      1. No. Every citizen doesn’t have to be libertarian. They don’t even have to respect other people’s rights. What they have to be, however, is capable of being deterred from trying to take other people’s rights. It doesn’t matter if the guy next door would happily steal my shit and rape my wife if his desire to do so can be deterred by the threat of my shooting him or the government throwing him in prison.

        If, however, he views going to jail or dying as a good thing, then my gun or ability to call the cops does me no good. Even if I shoot him, I have to live in fear of when he will do something or worse he shoots me before I can shoot him.

        There will always of course be people with poor impulse control who can’t be deterred. But those people don’t destroy your freedom since they act randomly. Ted Bundy couldn’t be deterred but there is nothing anyone could do differently to keep him from victimizing them. Religious fanatics are different since they choose only to attack ideas or behavior they hate for the purpose of terrorizing the rest of us into not doing them. They are a threat to are freedom in a way the lone nut never will be.

    4. You’ve got a good point, John. Innocent until proven guilty is a quaint notion, as is punishing individuals for their individual crimes. We should go after these Muslims proactively. Kill them before they kill us. How do we separate criminal Muslims from peaceful ones? Who cares? It’s not like they’re human beings. Just round them up and put them on rail cars. Send them to Alaska or some place like that. If you want I can put in a good word for you. Maybe get you a job at one of the camps. The uniforms are pretty snappy, with those lightning bolts on the lapel. You would have a great time following orders. Or a better time giving them.

      1. You are right sarcasmic. You can’t deal with people before they commit an act consistent with Libertarian principles. That is why people who can’t be deterred and commit acts for the purpose of terrorizing society into submission are such a threat to a free society.

        1. You can’t deal with people before they commit an act consistent with Libertarian principles.

          Yeah. You can’t do it and remain consistent with principles like liberty and justice. But those are just quaint notions put onto paper by rich white guys who dressed funny. Liberty shmiberty. Justice shumitice. Who needs it.

          1. Okay, but you can’t have a free society where people have to conform to the expectations of a small group of fanatics without risking death either. So, can you see the dilemma I am pointing out?

            1. You can’t have a free society when you have a government that tries to prevent crime before it happens. Sorry, but that’s the antithesis of freedom.

              The greatest threat to a free society is not terrorists, it’s the government’s attempts to prevent it. Oh, and of course people like you who cheer it on.

              1. The greatest threat to a free society is not terrorists, it’s the government’s attempts to prevent it.

                Thank you for giving a perfect example of a libertarian failing to grasp that government is not always the greatest threat to your freedom. Can your statement be true? Sure. But it doesn’t have to be true. Get a decent number of religious fanatics in your society and it is not true at all. You only think it always must be true because you can’t comprehend that society might not always be the way it is today.

                1. “Can your statement be true? Sure. But it doesn’t have to be true. ”

                  John conflates ‘what could be’ with ‘what is’.

                  1. No I don’t. I admit we are not to that point yet. It is however completely possible that we will come to that point. You are totally unable to comprehend or admit that such a point could even exist much less be distinctly possible.

                    1. Actually I totally comprehend that could theoretically happen. It’s just exceedingly unlikely and we are no nowhere near that point. Why I am arguing with a fascist cunt like is a mystery.

                2. Don’t tell me what I can or cannot comprehend, you arrogant ass. Sure I can imagine a lot of things. I can imagine you actually being reasonable, but I know it will never happen. I can imagine a bunch of religious fanatics reshaping American society, but I know it will not happen either.

                  You are ready and willing to give up liberty and justice in order to prevent an imagined enemy from doing imaginary things, so you can satiate your feverish desire to see cops and soldiers kill dirty towel-heads.

                  You’re one sick puppy, John. I’ll give you that.

                  1. And please stop making me agree with the toxic Canadian. I’d rather piss in my mouth than agree with that prick.

                    1. Sarc why do you hate being right so much?

                    2. I already took a shit today. No need for your opinion.

      2. “Send them to Alaska”

        Why do you hate Alaska ?

    5. I feel slightly frustrated finding very few solutions offered here to John’s central question. Other than a vague reference to the Second Amendment, I didn’t find anyone here present a thorough response to him. (Admittedly, I may have missed it.)

      Instead, most of the posts above (1) state why his solution violates the principles of libertarianism?a point he concedes (2) hurl snark at him, or (3) imply that doing nothing would suffice (which, without more, begs the question as his supposition presumes this answer unviable).

      That is not to say I agree with him. I don’t. I know how I would approach this scenario without violating libertarian tenets, but I do not find my answer entirely satisfying. This made me genuinely interested in reading thoughtful replies. Does anyone have a nonsnarky, semiserious solution, or at least a reasonably rigorous explanation of why “do nothing” (or its ilk) is the best course?

  59. Clearly there was a plan in place. The number of bombs made and staged, the clothing, weapons, and ammo purchased…

    Hazarding a wild guess, the plan was for a later date and time and for a much bigger effect (why leave 12 pipe bombs at home?). But by reports, something happened at the party that set him off–his honor was offended–and he rushed things forward.

    I’m sure this will be chalked up to workplace violence, just like Fort Hood.

    1. I read earlier someone theorizing that the reason for the shooting was that the pipebombs failed to go off. This was probably meant to be an escalating series of attacks that drove the whole town into a panic, but the bombs not going off meant witnesses were going to discover them and point out the couple to police. Everybody there had to die in order to keep their cover (thus the masks). They didn’t take into account how quickly they’d get caught after a shooting though.

  60. In a dating site profile, he mentioned that he enjoyed reading religious books, but described himself as both “religious” and “modern.” Modernity is not exactly what the Islamic State is looking for.

    You’d be wrong about that, Scott. Islamists are very prone to adopting plenty of what could be termed technological modernity; their abhorrent moral code doesn’t mean that they are likely to self-describe as pre-modern anymore than anyone else. The two main evil ideologies of the 20th century self-described as modern or even futuristic; if you look at ISIS’ propaganda, they clearly see their beliefs and attitudes at the future of Islam if not of the world at large.

    Secularism, unfortunately, is such a received faith in the US ruling caste that it is almost impossible for a person in that stream of thought to even attempt an understanding of the mentality of those with a different worldview. Ironic, considering how often one is condescendingly told that it is the religious who live in an intellectual ghetto.

    1. Pretty much this. Everyone under thirty thinks they are modern. They just define it differently.

    2. Secularism, unfortunately, is such a received faith in the US ruling caste that it is almost impossible for a person in that stream of thought to even attempt an understanding of the mentality of those with a different worldview. Ironic, considering how often one is condescendingly told that it is the religious who live in an intellectual ghetto

      Exactly. Those who’re convinced that they have no religion are the most ignorant about religion. In a free society it is important to understand comparative religion.

      1. Exactly. People can’t seem to understand that some people are not motivated by money. I think part of the problem is that our political class is so cynical they can’t believe that there could be a person who doesn’t have a price and doesn’t care if they die in support of the cause.

        1. It’s pretty bizarre that libertarians, of all people — some of the least ideologically flexible and most principles-oriented people on the planet — act as though exposure to markets is going to make any devout Muslim whore out their principles wholesale. As if porn and the forbidden is something completely unknown and unexperienced by Muslims in the Middle East.

          Hell, as a Christian, I’m almost insulted that libertarians would think that everyone but them has principles that are infinitely pliable — particularly when the list of Islamic martyrs is almost certainly lengthier than that of the people who have died for libertarian ideals.

          1. That you think being a martyr makes one ‘principled’ says a lot about you and nothing about libertarianism.

            1. Yeah it does. Being principled is a value neutral statement. You can be principled and also be evil. In fact, most of the really evil people in history have been very principled.

          2. I don’t think anybody has claimed that “exposure to markets is going to make any devout Muslim whore out their principles wholesale”, only that it’s more likely to help than hurt. In places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or ISIL-controlled areas, they have “morality police” who go around doing stuff like confiscating “bad” movies and music. But the very fact that they have to do this indicates that people do want these things, and it takes policing to stop it. Most people out there in the world – yes, even in Muslim countries – are not crazy ideologues.

    3. ISIS actually adopted a set of opsec best practices for encryption and security that’s pretty sophisticated. There’s an actual manual floating around if you search. They’re savages, but not Luddites.

  61. The SUV they were driving had been rented locally several days before the shooting.

    Hmm…

    1. Ban car rentals!

  62. A couple of questions for serious libertarians:

    (1) Is domestic Islam-related terrorism a problem worth dealing with?

    (2) If so, what should be done about it?

    1. That is going to be THE QUESTION for the foreseeable future.

    2. (1) The terror caused by it is worth dealing with. The acts themselves just don’t kill enough people to be a significant deal considering our population size.

      (2) In a perfect world arm the populace. It won’t help against bombs, but our terrorist groups seem to be moving away from that methodology. Non-law enforcement official not weighing in on every shooting or explosion would help too. They want recognition, and if the only people they get it from are the cops it will lower the appeal.

      1. Arming the populace is good for a lot of reasons. It is however generally useless against terrorists. The point of being armed is to deter people so that you don’t have to use it. You really don’t want to get into a gun fight. Terrorists, at least religious fanatics, since they view dying as a good thing, can’t be deterred by an armed populace. And if they are not deterred, an armed populace doesn’t prevent them from creating terror and enforcing submission on the rest of society.

        Think about it. If ISIS decided that for whatever reason you or I were on the list and told the world that it was every Muslim’s duty to kill us, what good would being armed really do us? Yeah, it wouldn’t hurt but short of shooting anyone who got close to you, what are you going to do?

        1. I beg to differ in part. A point, not the point, of an armed populace is deterrence; another point that is absolutely applicable to domestic terror is the ability of armed victims to contain the threat. The Kenyan mall shootings, as a counterpoint, wouldn’t have happened if Kenyan law allowed for unrestricted open carry.

          1. I agree. It is a good thing and it does help to mitigate the threat. I just doesn’t eliminate it.

            1. I just doesn’t eliminate it

              Nothing does.

    3. What exactly do you want?

      Because the framing of the issue and how to deal with it depends very much on what your goals are and how realistic it will be to achieve them.

      1. I would like the views of people serious about libertarian philosophy on those two questions.

        1. You are proposing as an implicit assumption built into the wording of your questions that there is dissonance between the way things are and the way things should be.

          What is “the way things should be” as you see it?

          1. It’s not what I think, it’s asking libertarians for their thoughts on the matter.

            For what it’s worth, I lean toward encouraging an armed, observant and careful citizenry unhampered by politically correct thought control.

            1. And in order to get my thoughts you have to explain what kind of thoughts you’re looking for. That’s what I’m driving at.

              But as far as platitudes go, I agree wholeheartedly with your leanings.

              1. kbolino,
                Anything that comes to your mind on the matters in the question. Those are simply open-ended questions tossed out to find out more about libertarian thinking. Maybe there is no position on those matters. If so, fine.

                1. For the most part, the position is the same as for generally everything else: figure out what is best for the circumstances that are most relevant to you.

                  As for what the government should do, I might humbly suggest that the government is already doing “a lot” and yet bad things still happen. If you have a plan to enact, then I’m all ears, but I’m going to be critical of it like I would be of any proposal for the government to fix things.

                  Deporting foreign-born terrorists and terrorist sympathizers doesn’t raise my hackles. And I’m not keen on the government foisting a bunch of “refugees” on us. But those things are fairly circumspect and are certainly not silver bullets to preventing terrorism.

                  1. Government seems useless. All I can think of is an alert, informed and thoughtful populace, with arms but damned careful how they use them. Which, by the way, would stop a lot of other crime and violence.

                    A fantasy, I know.

            2. For what it’s worth, I lean toward encouraging an armed, observant and careful citizenry unhampered by politically correct thought control

              IMHO, I think the bolded portion is something worth exploring (not to the exclusion of the other portion of your answer, of course, just that the other portion is more obvious). Most people, here and elsewhere, have not examined this variable in the equation.

              Not every source of coercion comes from the state under color of law. Another source of coercion is culture. And culture has the benefit, among others, of reaching into places the law cannot go and compelling action the law cannot require.

              In this instance, I think one way to stopping this madness is to make it culturally unviable to be a moderately-literal Muslim. Have the populace generally hostile/nonreceptive to their ideals, stop the coddling, cease with the “religion of peace” nonsense, and expose the mainstream religion for what it is (not terrorists, but generally providing them cover and tending to produce terrorists in greater numbers than other ideologies). This might (or not) hasten the Enlightenment that mainstream Islam needs to coexist with Western society. The other religions have done so. Islam is next on the docket.

              This solution is currently impossible, however, as prevailing culture leans in the exact opposite direction?calling anyone who questions Islam’s unfailing purity a bigot.

    4. “Homple|2015/12/03 14:20:45|#5747761

      A couple of questions for serious libertarians:

      Sorry, this is the CosmoYokel Fight Club. You were looking for this guy

      “(1) Is domestic Islam-related terrorism a problem worth dealing with?”

      What incidents of domestic islam-related “terror” add up to anything at all? Assuming you’re not counting this shooting.

      ‘(2) If so, what should be done about it?’

      It hasn’t been demonstrated that there’s much of a “problem” we can do much about. And the only things the usual suspects put on the table are things that (like Gun Control) won’t actually stop “The Problem”, and end up punishing the non-terrorist citizens far more than any likely perpetrators.

      1. No it hasn’t been demonstrated yet. And hopefully it won’t be. It is however entirely possible it will be. So it is fair to ask what then.

      2. I interpret your answer to (1) as “No.”, implying that (2) doesn’t need an answer. Is this so?

        I’m looking for the ideas of others, not an argument.

        1. No –

          1 is more

          “If its a current problem at all, its a small one; not much different than other kinds of crime/violence problems”

          2 is more

          “the current “solutions” to problems we’ve seen floated (e.g. Gun Control, Real ID, etc) are fucking horrible. Do you have any better ones?”

          1. Those are fine answers as far as I’m concerned.

      3. Link is broken.

    5. 1) Barely. As is, it really doesn’t seem that big a deal in the grand schema. Big attacks or even medium ones seem to require large organizations ex 9/11 sponsored by AQ.

      2) To the extent there is a problem, get everybody armed. Get the economy moving and not sucky, so that fewer people get radicalized. Destroy ISIS.

    6. (1) Yes.
      (2) Primarily it’s an issue to be addressed by police and criminal justice system. Maybe restrict visas and green cards to people who are likely to be Wahhabis; e.g., most Sunni Gulf Arabs and madrassa-trained South Asians.

  63. OT: Jim McDermott, not progressive enough. 7th congressional district to get some real diveristy:

    While stressing he has “incredible respect and admiration” for McDermott, Walkinshaw said it’s time for a change. “I believe this region is ready for its next progressive leader,” he said.

    […]

    A former Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation program officer, Walkinshaw was appointed to his 43rd Legislative District seat in 2013 to fill a vacancy. He ran unopposed for election the next year.

    […]

    During his short time in the Legislature, Walkinshaw has had some successes, including passage of “Joel’s Law,” which gives families the ability to petition courts to involuntarily detain relatives who are in danger due to mental illness.

    […]

    As a relatively young, gay Cuban American, Walkinshaw said he can appeal to the region’s changing demographics. He’ll be a contrast with McDermott, 78, who is of Irish heritage and hosts an annual “Potato Festival.”

    Walkinshaw said he doesn’t so much disagree with McDermott on issues ? he could only cite McDermott’s long-ago vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Instead, Walkinshaw said he wants to focus on bringing Seattle’s progressive ideals ? such as raising the minimum wage and decriminalizing marijuana ? into the national mainstream.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/se…..ouse-race/

    1. Experience matters in Washington, D.C., McDermott added. “Around here, we’ve had a lot of people come in with no experience, and you see the good luck we’ve got,” he said, referring both to tea-party Republicans and President Obama.

      “You wouldn’t give a Maserati to a 15-year-old,” he added. “This is the government that runs the world.”

      Hubris much, McDermott?

  64. There can be no doubt now that this was Islamic terrorism. The politically correct (which includes the police in many cites, especially those run by liberals) don’t want to acknowledge this. So the same people who suggested pro-lifers because the attack site was only a mile or so from a Planned Parenthood clinic, or Republicans for blocking the sort of gun control they already have in California (which was worthless when dealing with a government employee with a clean record), or even right-wing militias, are now reluctant to admit what everyone else can see is obvious.

    As for Farook being assimilated, this is a reminder of the dangers of Muslim immigrants. Even if they have no prior connection to terrorism and assimilate, they remain Muslims and capable of being radicalized at a jihadist mosque.

    1. Pants shitting, the post.

    2. I had no doubt from the beginning that this was islamic terrorism. What I am still no sure if this guy and his wife are lone wolves seeking to bond with his movement by indulging in acts of terrorism or was he directeed or even directly encouraged by established extremists to do such a deed.

      My theory is he didn’t have a set date and time to attack a venue. But he did have such a type of attack in mind for months. And something at that party triggered something in him. Or something at work earlier in the week which made him look for an excuse internally to take that final step of killing so many people. It’s like he needed that final argument to make excuses for hismelf internally to go gung ho in murdering civilians.

      Having said that, I don’t blame authorities for being cautious in public utterances compared to people like us. Obama was tone deaf by resorting to the gun control spiel, but I have no problem with him and others saying it could be a combination of workplace rage plus terrorism until we get more facts.

  65. Hillary Clinton ?@HillaryClinton 9m9 minutes ago

    “If you are too dangerous to fly in America, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America.” ?Hillary

    via Popehat

    1. “Hillary Clinton ?@HillaryClinton 9m9 minutes ago

      “If you are too dangerous to fly in America, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America.” ?Hillary”

      How about, if you start a stupid fucking pointless war to make your friends rich you are too dangerous to be president.

    2. I was almost tempted to type ‘LOL’.

      So Hillary supports a program where you can get on a list for no reason whatsoever, no conviction, and there’s no due process to get off the list, or any process to even find if you’re ON the list.

      Tying gun control to a no-fly list would actually be genius.

      1. Tying gun control to a no-fly list would actually be genius.

        Wouldn’t it be? They could just expand the list with names of all their enemies until no one could buy a gun.

      2. Yes, this has become a favorite liberal proposal, with Chucky Schumer suggesting it as an amendment to the budget bill. I’d like to see someone point out that there is no due process of law with the watch list, and ask every liberal who proposes this what they have against the Bill of Rights.

    3. If you’re too dangerous to fly in America you’re too dangerous to not have a solider quartered in your home to make sure you aren’t up to no good.

    4. Well there is a consistency in that. Though Hillary will say anything to get elected. I don’t even know what she believes.

  66. A moment of history:

    In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the US had a terrible problem with violent anarcho-communists — one that was largely imported from Europe. Radical immigrants such as Luigi Galleani and Emma Goldman provided intellectual justification and practical know-how for “propaganda of the deed”; that is to say, terrorism and assassination meant to cow the population into supporting the various anarchist programs in play. These were deeds which were worse in scale than any attempted by radical Islam, in many ways: Luigi Galleani, for example, published a guide to bomb-making and planning for anarchist attacks, as well as an anarchist magazine which included the names and addresses of businessmen such that a reader could find a list of convenient targets to murder. Many readers took up this charge and killed many people, up to and including the US president McKinley (without whom we might have avoided Teddy Roosevelt, and therefore much of the Progressive Era altogether — but that’s another story).

    So what solved this dilemma? The most obvious thing: deporting the anarchist instigators who were foreign-born. Violence decreased, conditions improved and these instigators went to live in other countries. The mistake of letting in violent subversives was by and large not repeated with Communism; one notes that we did not generally offer shelter to folks like Leon Trotsky or even milder socialists after the creation of the USSR.

    1. Arguably there is a lesson in all of this in the case of radical Islam: where you can avoid importing people with views which are fundamentally opposed by your society, do so. It is the best and surest way to avoid a subsequent history of combatting the ills brought by these view, and will save a lot of heartache the sooner it is done.

      1. “where you can avoid importing people with views which are fundamentally opposed by your society’

        “Society” doesn’t get a cut. Society has no rights only individuals do.

        Immigration has never been bad for America. Ever.

        1. I’ve seen the light — and I’ve got a great idea. Let’s extend an invitation for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to immigrate and naturalize. No immigration has ever been bad for America, so why not? It’ll make America a better place, as Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi contributes his unique talents and abilities to the marketplace, and will remove a violent enemy of America all with one deft move. And let’s not stop there: why not have the whole of ISIS immigrate here, to avoid them finding another leader and becoming our enemies? Why hasn’t this been thought of before? Think about how many wars we could have avoided if we would have just asked the Nazis and the Soviets to immigrate to our country.

          And remember: if we change our minds about how great an idea this was, we can’t deport them. That would violate their liberties, and of course their children should be allowed to vote, become citizens, and get welfare. Because all of those things are great ideas and would in no way backfire on us.

          1. lol Perfect Pants

            If a person reads the History of the FBI and what efforts Hoover put into removing the Communists threat from the country that person would get an idea how to successfully handle this modern day threat from Islamic ideology.

    2. That won’t sway the open borders crowd, you’re using reason to argue against an article of faith.

    3. “So what solved this dilemma? The most obvious thing: deporting the anarchist instigators who were foreign-born. ”

      What is meant by ‘instigators’? Were they given a trial? Does correlation prove causation? Pretty sure anarcho-communist violence also decreased in the places these guys came from, so what did deportation have to do with that? Kind of implies that AC violence was going to decline anyways.

      1. instigators = people who provide intellectual and other support for people to murder for the sake of ideology

        And anarcho-communist violence exploded in most of the places “these guys came from” from 1918-1919 after the first World War and culminated in a couple of anarchist strongholds in the Ukraine and Spain. The only reason AC violence decreased in other places in Europe was because communism sucked their air out of the room and caused the creation of enormous and usually violent communist parties all over Europe ranging from 10-20% of the European population in the interwar period. The reason that didn’t happen in the US is because (for whatever reason) we didn’t have as many native-born instigators and had a policy of expelling anyone foreign-born who fit that MO during the first Red Scare. (Canada has a similar history on that count, btw.)

        Oh, but I forgot that all immigration is 100% good and that folks like Luigi Galleani and Emma Goldman were priceless jewels who we were foolish to rid ourselves of.

        1. “instigators = people who provide intellectual and other support for people to murder for the sake of ideology”

          Nothing says freedom like tossing people out based on incredibly vague criteria like ‘support’ for evil ideas.

          “The only reason AC violence decreased in other places in Europe was because communism sucked their air out of the room and caused the creation of enormous and usually violent communist parties all over Europe ranging from 10-20% of the European population in the interwar period. ”

          There were also lots of fascists in Europe. Indeed, given the rise of Wilson and FDR in America, diet-fascism was also arguably pretty popular in America. IIRC, communism got pretty popular in America in the ’30s as well. Didn’t some outright socialist party nearly take Cali? Pretty sure immigration had a lot of nothing to do with the rise of either of these violent ideologies. There’s not a lot here to make me think it had much to do with the rise or fall of anarcho-communism.

          1. based on incredibly vague criteria like ‘support’ for evil ideas.

            The ideological predilections of prospective uninvited immigrants matters if you live under a democracy.

            1. Not really. Immigrants aren’t turning Europe into a Sharia society and they aren’t going to turn America or Canada into one. Contra nativist wailing, illegal hispanic immigrants haven’t turned Texas blue.

              1. Texas also has voter ID.

          2. Nothing says freedom like tossing people out based on incredibly vague criteria like ‘support’ for evil ideas

            And nothing says “good idea” like importing immigrants whose sole contribution to your society is agitating for violent revolt and providing their buddies the means to do so. I should be paying you to keep posting; you poison people against your better than I ever could.

            There were also lots of fascists in Europe. Indeed, given the rise of Wilson and FDR in America, diet-fascism was also arguably pretty popular in America. IIRC, communism got pretty popular in America in the ’30s as well. Didn’t some outright socialist party nearly take Cali?

            Stick to Canadian history. The high-water mark of socialism in the US was in the early 1900s; the only election in CA that could be described in that way might possibly be when Teddy Roosevelt’s won a majority, and later a third of the vote in the Coolidge election.

      2. Cytotoxic for some non American who is so concerned with America you have an alarming ignorance of US Histtory.

        Listen to IT here as he is trying to educate you.

        Now sit down and shut up and listen.

  67. Ah, so Obama is saying he won’t jump to conclusions.

    Fair enough.

    Of course, the one thing we *do* know is that a guy who passed the background check for being a government health inspector would *not* have passed Obama’s proposed new background check.

    I assume that’s what Obama means, otherwise he’s just being retarded and proposing something which wouldn’t even have the slightest chance of relevancy to the problem.

    1. Obama’s proposed new background check for the right to keep and bear arms.

  68. I turned to an automated system where I can manage my leads. This autopilot system is working for me now, but I didn’t start this way. I think it’s worth a try when you get to the point of wanting some automation.[][]
    Here’s a link for anyone interested in this strategy, and it’s free
    ??????—- http://www.buzznews99.com

  69. The guns involved were all purchased legally. The handguns were purchased directly by Farook. The rifles were not, and the origins of the rifles are still being researched.

    If the origin of the rifles is still being researched, how do they know he bought them legally?

    1. They were not bought by him.

  70. I am perplexed as to why people need to shove all this into neat little categories. Perhaps it’s because my philosophies begin with that fact life is an absurdity that I don’t necessarily HAVE to categorize this event so that a whole litany of memes get to settle on it to score points.

    This was murder. The murder of a lot of people. Certain technologies were used to accomplish it. The only thing that needs to be known is was there anyone else directly involved in the event.

    Muslims at large don’t need to be booted out. Guns at large don’t need to be banned or highly regulated. There’s NOTHING left to do but to find if there is anyone else involved, whether it be “terrorism” or “work place violence” or “love spat” or whatever. The why doesn’t matter so much as the who. WHO else MIGHT be involved. if no one, then we pick ourselves up and move on. If someone, arrest them, charge them, and sentence them if found guilty. No pogroms or hysterical bans are legitimized under any argument.

    1. This is way too sensible a sentiment to be allowed to stand on this thread.

      I’m emailing Alissi and demanding that your comment be deleted!

    2. I don’t think everyone who is saying that “Islam is a problem” are concluding that the solution is to round up the Muslims. I think only like one or two people are going that far. I’m just saying that simply saying “Islam is a problem” is the first step towards addressing the problem. Communism was kind of a problem in the 20th century, no? I mean it’s true that Stalin was murdering 14,000 people per day, but without an ideology and some degree of widespread support, he might have only been able to kill 14,000 in one single day before he was strung up on day two, for his crimes.

    3. I think there’s another question that needs answering. Is this systemic or was it a random, one-time murder spree? If it’s part of a larger plot–like ongoing terrorism against the west–then there will likely be more incidents and we might need to prepare for them or prevent them. Otherwise it’s as you said: find all the guilty parties and prosecute them.

      1. Is this systemic or was it a random, one-time murder spree? If it’s part of a larger plot–like ongoing terrorism against the west–then there will likely be more incidents and we might need to prepare for them or prevent them.

        I don’t think for a moment that there is some sort of international conspiracy taking place. I think it’s a decentralized phenomenon characterized by millions of people whose common thread is a shared belief system that provides the source material necessary for the justifications of these crimes.

        1. I think it’s a decentralized phenomenon characterized by millions of people whose common thread is a shared belief system that provides the source material necessary for the justifications of these crimes.

          Exactly. That’s what I meant even if I chose the wrong word. If Islam and ME society share a hatred or disgust of western civilization, then I consider that hatred and disgust to be systematic. But maybe there’ a better adjective.

    4. Muslims don’t need to be booted out, but they do need to be secularized.

      Islam is a crap religion, period. It’s like the Old Testament re-written by a violent schizophrenic. It exhorts its followers to kill and enslave unbelievers.

      To the extent that most muslims don’t do that is because they don’t take their religion all that seriously. But there is a trend where they are. It’s helped by not just radical preachers but the fear the West has of ever actually criticizing Islam.

  71. Libertarianism cannot account for a group of people who won’t leave anyone alone and is happy to die making their point.

    I agree. IMHO, the root of libertarianism is the NAP. If more than a certain number of actors are not willing to abide by this, agreeadly sane, principle, you don’t and never will have have a libertarian society. Apparently there is this social contract (for which I gave no consideration) which requires I give up my right to unilateral self-dense in the name of having a sovereign who will have the monopoly on violence. That contract is, ahem, being breached. Government agents, inner city thugs, sub-contracted foreign policy wars, drug wars,, the war of terror, tm., and Muslims all add to this stew of risk. So I’m not going to invite cops to my house, I’m not going to visit Baltimore, not travel to Syria, Iraq, the Ukraine, Turkey, Lybia or Cuidad Juarez, and I want Muslims to keep their distance.
    There is no doubt that there is a thing called Islam which has as fundamental truths of submit or die. That the penalty for apostasy is death. I realize that there is a lot of baggage about what the fuck islam is. But there is this thing called islam and their “truths” shall never be compatible with the NAP.

    1. So, what do you do? You have three choices as far as I can tell when dealing with islam: submit, die, or fight. Charles Schulz’s Pigpen….. Islam is a pigpen of culture and I wouldn’t feel bad if that meme were to visit the dustbin of history.

      1. Troy muy grande boner|12.3.15 @ 3:21PM|#
        “So, what do you do? You have three choices as far as I can tell when dealing with islam: submit, die, or fight.”

        Forth:
        Deal with the perpetrators and do NOT allow the remainder to run your life.
        Do you really want several other iterations of TSA?

    2. The NAP only works if everyone either respects it or can be deterred into respecting it.

      There isn’t a single majority Muslim society in the world that is anything like free or even close to the freedom we have, which is granted flawed in a million ways. That is not by accident. I don’t see how you can have a society that has even a large minority of devout Muslims and have it be free by any reasonable definition.

      That sucks. It would be great if it didn’t matter. But it does and will continue to matter for the foreseeable future.

      1. “There isn’t a single majority Muslim society in the world that is anything like free or even close to the freedom ”

        Except for Albania.

        1. LOL So out of a billion Muslims in the world, a single country of 2.8 million manages to not be a theocratic hell hole.

          You are not helping your case very much.

        2. Albania.

          Formerly communist, still-corrupt Albania.

          Yup, real bastion of freedom right there. And of course the forced secularization of Albania until the 90s (one of two countries to attempt a complete elimination of religion) wouldn’t be a confounding factor, would it?

          1. Isn’t Albania still a Mafia-run economic basket case? Or was that just during the 90s? Decent people, judging by my sample size of one exchange student. KFOR participants probably had a different story…

      2. There isn’t a single majority Muslim society in the world that is anything like free or even close to the freedom we have, which is granted flawed in a million ways. That is not by accident. I don’t see how you can have a society that has even a large minority of devout Muslims and have it be free by any reasonable definition.

        How bad are Malaysia and Indonesia? Because those are the only possible exceptions I can think of to your point.

        Dubai is libertine—in a very cabined manner—not libertarian. IIRC, Turkey is not at all free.

        Looking at this “political terror scale” index, it appears Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia are all about the same, a 3 on a 1-5 scale, with the U.S at 2, and countries like Ireland at 1. Israel is a 4, so I’m not at all sure about their methodology.

        It seems that whatever Indonesia and Malaysia are doing may be worth emulating in other Muslim countries. Or more likely is that I’m ignorant of the true situation.

        1. Dubai is Libertine if you are a foreign business man. If you are a native, it is a theocratic hell hole. Go try and pass out bibles in Dubai or be a local Muslim who converts to another religion and get back to me on how free it is.

          And Turkey was relatively free for the last century but was a horrific theocracy for the five hundred years before that.

          As far as SE Asia, they are better than the rest but I would not call those country’s “free” by Western Standards.

        2. Indonesia has had its share of problems, though it’s nothing compared to Africa or the Middle East. Malaysia less so.

      3. There isn’t a single majority Muslim society in the world that is anything like free or even close to the freedom we have

        This was true of every Christian nation for most of history as well.

        1. So what? If someone builds a time machine and wants to let 16th Century Calvinists immigrate, I will object to that too. Seriously, what is your point? If Muslims ever get better, then we no longer have a problem

          1. You appear to me to be blowing off steam, and I hope that’s true. If not, then you really are the crypto-fascist many here think you are.

            Back in 2001, the entire country took the counsel of it’s fears and that is exactly what you are doing right now. That led to many bad policy decisions from the creation of the TSA to the invasion of Iraq that I think you agree were ill considered.

            My point is this. Do not take the counsel of your fears. Even if you managed to create the necessary condition to deport every single Muslim in the US, it would end badly for everyone else as well. We would all be living in a police state and snitching on each other, just like East Germany. Is that what you want? To be free from the risk of violence at the expense of actual freedom?

            1. The problem with the reaction to 911 is that we refused to face the problem and pretended that targeting everyone was the solution. No, you target the people whose ideology is behind it.

              1. Regardless, we took the counsel of our fears and doing that again in this instance would be just as bad, and wrong.

                I am theoretically not opposed to keeping tabs on people that exhibit suspicious behavior. The problem is what gets defined as suspicious behavior. For instance, much is being made of the amount of ammo they had. Well, what if someone likes to go shooting and instead of paying exorbitant prices for a couple boxes of 9mm at the range they buy in bulk from luckygunner to save some money? Do they get to have their phones tapped, emails read, EZ Pass monitored?

        2. Christian nations seem to have trended towards more freedom and a sense of ethics closer to what we have today as part of the indigenous working out of Christianity in majority-Christian societies.

          Islamic societies appear to have more or less industrialized without similar indigenous pressures towards our norms, indicating a different trajectory.

          Not to say that it’s impossible that such a thing might happen in the future, but past performance favors Christianity followed perhaps by Buddhism as the religions most likely to be liberty- and western-friendly.

          1. We in the west like to compartmentalize everything so we can analyze the pieces. But society is not made up of interchangeable pieces just because we define it that way.

            Religion cannot be easily separated from society. The values (beliefs, kinda) are part of the society even for those who do not participate in the religious rituals. Just as Secularism has very similar values to Judeo-christianity since it came out of it. The Middle East will not adopt Judeo/Christian/Secual values just becuase they adopt our technology. They will remain honor bound, while we are merit bound. The two don’t mix well. They will consider us shameful, and therefore worthy of death or dhimmitude, no matter our technological prowess, because our merit means nothing to them.

      4. “There isn’t a single majority Muslim society in the world that is anything like free”

        Freedom House rates Tunisia, 99.8% Muslim, and Senegal, 95.9% Muslim, as “free”. Morocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia are rated as “Mostly free”. Bang-up job of research you did there, John.

        1. Strange that a country that just overthrew its leader recently (Tunisia) would come out that high, but the cite I had agrees with you. 2s from everyone except State, who gave them a 3. Not sharia, but their legal code is heavily based on Islamic law and French civil law. And they’ve a healthy indigenous human rights org. Double strange. But hey, better than the usual Muslim Brotherhood/PFLP/Hamas slumgullion that often shows up when elections are allowed in the Islamic world.

          Though isn’t Morocco an absolute monarchy? (Checks wiki) O.k., not absolute, there is a legislature, but the King can make laws independent of it and can dissolve parliament when he feels like it. I’m guessing he’s a bit of a benign despot?

          O.k., they seem to be able to play nice with non Muslims, if not availing them the full measure of participation in government. How do they reconcile their religion with the fundamentalist nutbars in ISIS? Or Saudi, for that matter?

    3. To a certain degree, John’s right. I still say that we have plenty of history to draw on, and that our solution need not be some horrorscape out of Orwell: expel the people causing trouble (any radical or supportive imams, for instance), prohibit further immigration, and wait it out. Hell, good Muslims left in the US after that task is done may very well be relieved and willing to create the type of constructive Islam that I’m always hearing about, without the toxic influence of their coreligionists in the wider Islamic world.

      1. ” expel the people causing trouble (any radical or supportive imams, for instance), prohibit further immigration”

        Both of these violate individual rights.

        1. Nope, they really don’t. Immigrants are here at our sufferance; we don’t need to extend visas to them for any reason, anymore than I need to provide you with my couch whenever you want to crash in the US.

          1. Immigrants pay into the system. They own public property as much as the rest of us do.

            1. Because we require them to. The fact that my house guest chips into the beer money jar I have at the house doesn’t entitle them to piss all over my carpet.

              1. That’s a weak argument. If they are paying into the system then they paid for the carpet. Immigrants work, idk what you think other people do with their time. The majority of people are good hearted and are striving to provide a living for their family. An employer shouldn’t be prohibited from hiring an immigrant if it’s advantageous to doing so.

                You want to ban immigrants, give more power to white ran worker unions, and damage enterprise. Same ole story, same ole failures. More Propaganda. Yawn

        2. Ok, but at what point does the exercise of those rights infringe upon the rights of others? At what point does the encouragement and support of aggression become itself aggression? I’d argue that preaching violent jihad and providing a space for terrorists to recruit and plan is no different than encouraging local gangs to rob and murder while providing them a safe house from which to operate. If someone expresses the wish to do me harm, appears to be planning to do me harm, and is obviously capable of doing me harm, I don’t believe I have a moral imperative to wait until that person actually harms me before I take steps to prevent the harm from occurring.

  72. I am perplexed as to why people need to shove all this into neat little categories.

    It makes venn diagrams easier?

  73. The hard-left Marxist and Islamists who infect our federal government plus the MSM media prostitutes who protect them will gleefully lie, falsify, fabricate, slander, libel, deceive, delude, bribe, and treasonably betray the free citizens of the United States..

    Second Amendment foes lying about gun control – The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with personal self-defense.Firearms are our constitutionally mandated safeguard against tyranny by a powerful federal government. Only dictators, tyrants, despots, totalitarians, and those who want to control and ultimately to enslave you support gun control.

    No matter what any president, senator, congressman, or hard-left mainstream media prostitutes tell you concerning the statist utopian fantasy of safety and security through further gun control: They are lying. If their lips are moving, they are lying about gun control. These despots truly hate America..

    These tyrants hate freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and private property. But the reality is that our citizens’ ownership of firearms serves as a concrete deterrent against despotism. They are demanding to hold the absolute power of life and death over you and your family. Ask the six million Jewws, and the other five million murdered martyrs who perished in the Nazzi death camps, how being disarmed by a powerful tyranny ended any chances of fighting back.

    American Thinker

  74. It’s been an outrageous experience to read the MSM news accounts of the San Bernardino massacre. Up to this point (8 AM, Thursday, 12/3/15), NO MSM media outlet (TV or newspaper) wants to suggest that it’s even PROBABLE that this was a Muslim terrorist attack. OF COURSE it was!

    My conjecture is that this was a “two fer” terrorist attack. The couple was planning to execute a terrorist attack for Islam (CLEARLY they’ve been preparing for some time), and decided that the most “deserving” (and unarmed) target was the people he worked with and didn’t like. Am I the only one to suggest this combo? So far, YES!

    All the press and the cops can say is that a terrorist attack “has not been ruled out.” That’s like saying that it’s “not been ruled out” that Bonnie and Clyde killed people because they wanted the money in the banks.

    Passing this San Bernardino attack off as “workplace violence” is absurd. NO ONE arms themselves AND THEIR WIFE (and perhaps a third person) with AR-15’s and multiple magazines (plus handguns) and then carries out an obviously planned massacre (complete with escaping unscathed) — due to some perceived Christmas party slight at work. No impulsive killer leaves booby-trap pipe bombs behind to blow up responders in a spontaneous “workplace violence” attack. No workplace violence incident includes the shooters WEARING LAPEL CAMERAS on their vests to record the carnage, as one source reports.

  75. “Nihilistic?”

  76. The crucial difference between Mexicans and Muslims
    by Richard Rider

    . . .

    Here’s why I much prefer “Mexicans” (really all Hispanics and damn near anyone else) to Muslims. When a Mexican comes here, we don’t need to monitor their ideology, or be concerned about their terrorist tendencies, or be worried that their offspring will become terrorists. When a Muslim comes here, we do.

    When a Mexican anchor baby is born here (becoming a U.S. citizen), we don’t have to worry about him being brainwashed by the Catholic church to be a terrorist — despising the country he lives in. With a Muslim baby, we have to (well, should) set up lifetime surveillance to monitor their upbringing, to assure the mosque they attend is not teaching hatred of infidels.

    If a Mexican-American citizen becomes aware of a terrorist plot, we can be reasonably confident that they will report their information to the authorities (well, as likely as any other American citizen). With a Muslim-American, it’s unlikely they will report the Islamic terrorists in their midst. Indeed, the more Muslims in America, the bigger the sanctuary for Jihad terrorists to hide in with little fear of exposure.

  77. (continued)
    The crucial difference between Mexicans and Muslims
    by Richard Rider

    Mexicans — like most migrant groups — maintain their Hispanic heritage, but over time adopt most of what we can only describe as American values. One thing’s for sure: Hispanics have zero interest in forcibly converting others to Catholicism. But most Muslims remain insular, waiting for the day when the society they live in can be assimilated into Islam. As part of their religion, they seek to impose Sharia law on us all — peacefully or otherwise.

    It’s probably too much to consider expelling our current Muslim population. In hindsight, we should have never let ’em in, but Islam has not been recognized as a threat until recently, so it’s understandable.

    BOTTOM LINE: From this point forward, we should no longer allow Muslim migration, with a few extraordinary exceptions. We have a worldwide pool of people who would love to come to America, and most could make welcome additions to our society. Muslims and their “Religion of Peace” are the enemies of tolerant Western civilization — keep them off our shores. Europe is already doomed — we should not make the same mistake.

    1. Yeah, we definitely can’t exploit muslims like we do mexicans. I like mexicans more too.

  78. LOL! They are only careful now that their meme has fallen apart. While the suspects were still being hunted and the bodies were still warm, Progressives were blaming evil white racist Christian conservative gun nuts who hated Planned Parenthood, and from Obama to Hillary they bayed for more gun control. They are only being careful now that it looks like an act of Islamist terrorism, a radicalized homegrown Jihadi who had been in contact with ISIS and/or other terror groups. They are already floating the “workforce violence” meme and a new “if only those evil conservatives hadn’t made them feel unwelcome” meme to try and take control of the issue on their terms. Amazing.

  79. I guess they missed the memo from the CIA that they were supposed to be wearing body cameras.

  80. I subscribe to the ‘Quacks Like A Duck’ theory of profiling. So even though we know Farook had a bomb factory in his garage, was armed to the teeth, picked out a gun free zone he knew very well, promptly went home as soon as he verified the room. Got dressed in camo and a mask along with his wife, grabbed pipe bombs already prepared plus 1,500 rounds of ammo and then both came back in the SUV he rented just days before and killed as many in that room as possible before fleeing. That is a duck….. We are at war with Islamic Terrorists and we better start acting like it. Stupid anti-gun zealots pushing gun control will only make the problem worse, not better. I am now carrying and ready for the ‘ducks’….

  81. Plenty of time to learn more, but an obvious thought is that they were planning a terror attack. Their place was full of pipe bombs and parts and tools to make more; between the SUV and the apartment they had almost 5000 rounds of ammo for their AR-15s and 2000 rounds for their pistols–this is not normal and hard to explaion any other way. But the incident in San Bernardino may have been more a workplace dispute where they lost their tempers and rolled out all the heavy armament prematurely.

  82. Shackford

    You are being completely unReasonable.

    Good Day

  83. Shackford

    You are being completely unReasonable.

    Good Day

  84. He was not some disaffected youth with no future ready to embrace the nihilistic attitudes of the Islamic State.

    Good Lord! Why are you repeating this fucking tripe? When do these terrorists ever fit that mold, especially in the US? Nidal Hasan was a FUCKING DOCTOR. Arafat was an ENGINEER, the 9/11 gang were engineers too. The Times Square bomber had some fancy pants job, until he spent too much time at terrorist summer camp. The list goes on.

    Even outside of the Islamic terrorist segment, ALL of the Weathermen were college educated, with the bonus of getting laid and stoned whenever they felt like it. Same with the George Jackson Brigade, the Black Panthers, and all the rest.

    Now who the hell are YOU talking about?

  85. Why do you think jihadists have to be poor, disaffected, and unassimilated to go on a murderous rampage? What evidence supports this position? Note that the ones who drove the airplanes into the World Trade Center weren’t poor but college educated and from affluent families. To paraphrase Slick Billy, “It is religion, stupid.”

    And “moderate” and “modern” by whose definition? The killer’s? Come on! Think! No one considers themselves in extreme in their views. Everyone thinks their views are what everyone should have. In other words, everyone thinks their views are “moderate” and “modern”.

    You’re just not willing to call a spade, a spade, Scott.

  86. I’m so sick of propaganda. These events give every angle we could be coming from a platform to exploit. And exploit it they will! Can’t ever let a good tragedy go to waste.

    Let’s say he was a known christian and the shooting was at planned parenthood. Even though the guy is a loner who is mentally unstable BOTTOM LINE. How many would be exploiting the situation to forward their chosen narratives? No one in the media would be apologizing for his religion.

    The mentally Ill man who shot up PP has absolutely been used to associate hateful anti PP rhetoric with his actions. But here we are seeing people actively attempting to disconnect the mans Muslim status as not having any connection to anti USA ISIS rhetoric. Come on. Give me a break. At least be consistent with narratives and propaganda! GEESH.

    This IS insanity planet.

  87. Om the cell phone video of the attackers entering the building there were 3 of them. And now we are down to two?

    1. Video of attackers in the parking lot

      Dorothy Vong, a nurse at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, recorded this video around 11 a.m. to send to her husband, thinking it was a active-shooter drill.

      1. That video shows police responding to the report of an active shooter, not the shooters themselves. You can identify a few cops despite the grainyness. And there’s like a dozen of them.

  88. After mocking Republicans for being afraid of Islamic women Obama got a glimpse of what they’re capable of!

  89. I’m guessing someone wished him a Merry Christmas.

  90. On his dating profile (seen on the nightly toobe) Farook called himself a

    LIBERAL

    I wonder how that slipped in.

  91. I think it’s pretty clear that the perps’ motive was to attach a stigma to stupid-looking camo gear, the way that the Columbine perps vilified anyone wearing those stupid long goth coats.

    The FBI should look into who stands to gain from shifts in the fashion industry.

    -jcr

  92. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.