14 Killed in Shooting in San Bernardino (1 Viewer)

[Sinn Fein]

all jewish guys are loons

But not all loons are jewish guys

 

[tom22406]

Whatever became of those 72 Homeland Security employees who wound up on the no fly list?

 

[Sand]

Whatever became of those 72 Homeland Security employees who wound up on the no fly list?

It is the terrorist watch list - I'd imagine this is a more "serious" list than the no-fly list.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Congressmen Stephen Lynch said this on a Boston radio show:

"Back in August, we did an investigation -- the inspector General did -- of the Department of Homeland Security, and they had 72 individuals that were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the Department of Homeland Security. The director had to resign because of that. Then we went further and did and eight-airport investigation. We had staffers go into eight different airports to test the department of homeland security screening process at major airports. They had a 95 percent failure rate. We had folks -- this was a testing exercise, so we had folks going in there with guns on their ankles, and other weapons on their persons, and there was a 95 percent failure rate."

http://wgbhnews.org/post/congressman-lynch-72-department-homeland-security-employees-terrorist-watchlist

This is actually old news that did not get much attention until the refugee crisis. They are 73 TSA employees.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/09/ig-report-tsa-failed-to-identify-73-potential-terrorists-trying-to-get-access.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/tsa-failed-undercover-airport-screening-tests/

 

[Chemical X]

all jewish guys are loons

But not all loons are jewish guys

mind blown

 

[tom22406]

More

Here's Why the ACLU Is Suing the Government over the No-Fly List—and Winning

President Barack Obama made it abundantly clear in his speech that his administration is behind the push to deny guns to those who show up on federal no-fly lists. He said, "Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security."
Obama, a constitutional scholar, knows full well about this little thing called "due process," which prohibits the government from simply depriving people of their rights on the basis of just official suspicion. And he also knows full well that the lack of due process with the no-fly list is causing the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security some serious legal headaches. It's not the National Rifle Association (NRA) that's keeping the administration from depriving people on the no-fly list their rights; it's the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Rahinah Ibraham is not a suspected terrorist. She was a scholar and doctoral candidate at Stanford University in the United States from Malaysia with a valid student visa. She ended up on the no-fly list on what turned out to be a clerical error. It wasn't even a case of mistaken identity. An FBI agent literally checked the wrong box when filing paperwork in 2004. It took a decade of fighting with the government to fix this problem. Why? Because the system by which the government adds people to the no-fly list has absolutely no transparency or due process in its appeal process. Until this year, the federal government wouldn't even confirm that an individual was even on the no-fly list, which coincidentally made it a challenge to fight one's inclusion. A judge in 2014 ruled that the government violated Ibraham's and others' rights by mistakenly adding them to the no-fly list and refusing to fix the problem.

Ibraham's case wasn't an ACLU case, but the ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of 13 people, including four veterans, who have been placed on the no-fly list and not given appropriate due process procedures to have their names cleared. The ACLU (and others like Ibraham) have gotten a partial victory. The federal government will now actually inform individuals (if they actually ask) whether they are on a no-fly list. If possible, it will provide unclassified "summaries" of their reasons for being on the list.

But that's still not real due process, and the ACLU is not satisfied. They're continuing to challenge the lack of transparency and ability to appeal the no-fly list. From their case page:

[T]he government still keeps its full reasons secret. It also withholds evidence and exculpatory information from our clients and refuses to give them a live hearing to establish their credibility or cross-examine witnesses. Because of these and other serious problems, the ACLU has challenged the revised process as unconstitutional.
Until the government fixes its unconstitutional new process, people on the No Fly List are barred from commercial air travel with no meaningful chance to clear their names, resulting in a vast and growing group of individuals whom the government deems too dangerous to fly but too harmless to arrest.
The way the federal government under Obama has managed the no-fly list is already a fairly clear violation of our Fifth Amendment right to due process of law. Adding restrictions to the Second Amendment would be yet another violation. Fortunately, the Senate has already said no to what Obama demanded Sunday evening. Unfortunately, every Democrat except for one (Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota) voted in favor of Obama's blatantly unconstitutional proposal. It's a cynical effort to try to get culture war support, using fear of guns to turn Americans against basic civil liberties.https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/why-the-aclu-is-suing-no-fly-list

 

[snogger]

More

Here's Why the ACLU Is Suing the Government over the No-Fly List—and Winning

President Barack Obama made it abundantly clear in his speech that his administration is behind the push to deny guns to those who show up on federal no-fly lists. He said, "Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security."
Obama, a constitutional scholar, knows full well about this little thing called "due process," which prohibits the government from simply depriving people of their rights on the basis of just official suspicion. And he also knows full well that the lack of due process with the no-fly list is causing the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security some serious legal headaches. It's not the National Rifle Association (NRA) that's keeping the administration from depriving people on the no-fly list their rights; it's the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Admitting that wouldn't fulfill his and the left's agenda that the NRA are the bad guys so even the media along..

just like they do when they repeat his statement that in no other part of the world are mass shootings happening like here in the US.

 

[tommyboy]

hey, we want to take away your guns after we add you to this super secret list of people that only we control, isn't public, and can't be changed anytime soon. Just trust us.

 

[Clifford]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

A drastically misinterpreted right that is causing way more damage than good. One that needs to be either repealed or changed.

Whoa

Since any effort at reasonable gun control is stonewalled by the entire Republican party every time, and by the occasional Democrat, I see no reason not to change course and start addressing the source of the problem. Gun ownership and use should not be a right. To think it should requires near total ignorance of the human race and the American people. We, as a race and especially as a nation, are far too irresponsible, unbalanced, and lazy to have everyone naturally have that right from birth.

I'd say, at best, 30-40% of this country are sane and responsible enough to where their right to own a gun doesn't directly interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

 

[Clifford]

San Bernardino shooter’s dad: He was ‘obsessed’ with Israel In interview with Italian paper, father Syed Farook says his son ‘supported the creation of the Islamic State’Syed Farook, father of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, has described his son as negatively “obsessed” with Israel.

In an interview with Italian daily La Stampa, Farook said that he once tried to console his son by promising him that Israel would not exist in another two years because “China, Russia and America will bring the Jews back to Ukraine.”


In Sunday’s La Stampa (link in Italian) report, Farook said, “My son said that he shared [iS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel.”

“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting? We have already done it and we lost. Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics. But he did not listen to me, he was obsessed,” Farook explained to US correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli.

Farook’s son is suspected of carrying out a mass shooting that killed 14 people in San Bernardino. The father was interviewed in Corona, California, where he lives with his older son, Syed Raheel Farook, a US Navy veteran.

Farook senior was born in Pakistan and arrived in the US in 1973. The family has been described by many as very integrated in American society, almost the embodiment of the American dream.

Farook told La Stampa how, once in the US, he got a degree in engineering and started to work hard to guarantee his children “an education and the opportunity to succeed in life.”

Other reports told a more nuanced story: Farook split from his wife Rafia, also Pakistan-born, who filed for divorce in 2006 and, according to The New York Times, said her husband was violent and an alcoholic and beat her and the children.

In the La Stampa interview, Farook denied the accusations, saying that “Rizwan’s mother is very religious, as he was, and they united against me. Once we had a dispute over the historical figure of Jesus. My son called me a godless person and he decided that my marriage with my wife had to end,” he recalled. “They destroyed the family.”

Farook declared himself in complete despair and disbelief over what his son allegedly did. His daughters, Rizwan’s sisters, told The New York Times that they had seen no warning signs.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/san-bernardino-shooters-dad-he-was-obsessed-with-israel/

http://www.lastampa.it/2015/12/06/esteri/il-pap-del-killer-di-san-bernardino-affascinato-dallisis-odiava-israele-t52TU5O4wHwqD1uYHmzsGJ/pagina.html

Again, if we are at war, why are we allowing the father and brother of a combatant who attacked us to remain in this country?

 

[cubd8]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

A drastically misinterpreted right that is causing way more damage than good. One that needs to be either repealed or changed.

Whoa

Since any effort at reasonable gun control is stonewalled by the entire Republican party every time, and by the occasional Democrat, I see no reason not to change course and start addressing the source of the problem. Gun ownership and use should not be a right. To think it should requires near total ignorance of the human race and the American people. We, as a race and especially as a nation, are far too irresponsible, unbalanced, and lazy to have everyone naturally have that right from birth.

I'd say, at best, 30-40% of this country are sane and responsible enough to where their right to own a gun doesn't directly interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

How do we decide who is 'sane and responsible enough' to own a gun without impacting someone else's rights?

How did you determine your %?

 

[jon_mx]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

A drastically misinterpreted right that is causing way more damage than good. One that needs to be either repealed or changed.

Whoa

Since any effort at reasonable gun control is stonewalled by the entire Republican party every time, and by the occasional Democrat, I see no reason not to change course and start addressing the source of the problem. Gun ownership and use should not be a right. To think it should requires near total ignorance of the human race and the American people. We, as a race and especially as a nation, are far too irresponsible, unbalanced, and lazy to have everyone naturally have that right from birth.I'd say, at best, 30-40% of this country are sane and responsible enough to where their right to own a gun doesn't directly interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Given we have 100 million gun owners, you really believe nearly 70 million Americans could kill at anytime. How do you even walk outside?

 

[tommyboy]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

A drastically misinterpreted right that is causing way more damage than good. One that needs to be either repealed or changed.

Whoa

Since any effort at reasonable gun control is stonewalled by the entire Republican party every time, and by the occasional Democrat, I see no reason not to change course and start addressing the source of the problem. Gun ownership and use should not be a right. To think it should requires near total ignorance of the human race and the American people. We, as a race and especially as a nation, are far too irresponsible, unbalanced, and lazy to have everyone naturally have that right from birth.

I'd say, at best, 30-40% of this country are sane and responsible enough to where their right to own a gun doesn't directly interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

rather extreme viewpoint, imo

 

[tommyboy]

San Bernardino shooter’s dad: He was ‘obsessed’ with Israel In interview with Italian paper, father Syed Farook says his son ‘supported the creation of the Islamic State’Syed Farook, father of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, has described his son as negatively “obsessed” with Israel.

In an interview with Italian daily La Stampa, Farook said that he once tried to console his son by promising him that Israel would not exist in another two years because “China, Russia and America will bring the Jews back to Ukraine.”


In Sunday’s La Stampa (link in Italian) report, Farook said, “My son said that he shared [iS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel.”

“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting? We have already done it and we lost. Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics. But he did not listen to me, he was obsessed,” Farook explained to US correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli.

Farook’s son is suspected of carrying out a mass shooting that killed 14 people in San Bernardino. The father was interviewed in Corona, California, where he lives with his older son, Syed Raheel Farook, a US Navy veteran.

Farook senior was born in Pakistan and arrived in the US in 1973. The family has been described by many as very integrated in American society, almost the embodiment of the American dream.

Farook told La Stampa how, once in the US, he got a degree in engineering and started to work hard to guarantee his children “an education and the opportunity to succeed in life.”

Other reports told a more nuanced story: Farook split from his wife Rafia, also Pakistan-born, who filed for divorce in 2006 and, according to The New York Times, said her husband was violent and an alcoholic and beat her and the children.

In the La Stampa interview, Farook denied the accusations, saying that “Rizwan’s mother is very religious, as he was, and they united against me. Once we had a dispute over the historical figure of Jesus. My son called me a godless person and he decided that my marriage with my wife had to end,” he recalled. “They destroyed the family.”

Farook declared himself in complete despair and disbelief over what his son allegedly did. His daughters, Rizwan’s sisters, told The New York Times that they had seen no warning signs.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/san-bernardino-shooters-dad-he-was-obsessed-with-israel/

http://www.lastampa.it/2015/12/06/esteri/il-pap-del-killer-di-san-bernardino-affascinato-dallisis-odiava-israele-t52TU5O4wHwqD1uYHmzsGJ/pagina.html

Again, if we are at war, why are we allowing the father and brother of a combatant who attacked us to remain in this country?

check out the mom:

Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, is an active member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Muslim organization that promotes the establishment of a caliphate and has ties to a radical Pakistani political group called Jamaat-e-Islami.Farook’s affiliation with ICNA was revealed on Friday when MSNBC and other new outlets scoured the Farooks’ apartment in Redlands, Cal. An MSNBC reporter found a certificate of appreciation presented to Safia Farook last summer by ICNA's sisters' wing.

now the FBI is looking at her

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/06/loretta-lynch-says-fbi-is-looking-at-mother-of-san-bernardino-gunman-video/

 

[Clifford]

I guessed and there are tons and tons of things we can do to decide. There is a nice blueprint on a more effective background check a few posts up. But to do any of that you have to change it from being a right, like breathing, to a privilege, like joining the CIA or driving a car.

As long as it is a right no politician will ever budge on their stance that they are going to do absolutely nothing to change the status quo.

I for one am sick and ####### tired of suggesting one thing after another only to have people with zero interest in solving the problem shoot down one idea after the other because it's not a magic bullet.

Nothing we can do will ever actually cure the sickness guns and the NRA have brought on this country. The America our children grow up will never be free of the words mass shooting or school shooting or active shooter situation. Our children will grow up seeing this on the TV every week and they will accept it as normal. Thanks to the massive allowances that have allowed people of all mental states and backgrounds to acquire weapons, as well as the laws passed decriminalizing what we used to call murder, we will never, ever get America back.

But I want to see something that recognizes the inherent lack of reason in giving every single person born in this country that right, regardless of who they are, what their mental state is, or how angry they are.

If we can undo the massive fraud that the NRA has perpetrated around the 2nd amendment in the past 35 years, then there is a chance that the generation below our children might start to see this horrific trend start to reverse.

 

[Loan Sharks]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

A drastically misinterpreted right that is causing way more damage than good. One that needs to be either repealed or changed.

Whoa

Since any effort at reasonable gun control is stonewalled by the entire Republican party every time, and by the occasional Democrat, I see no reason not to change course and start addressing the source of the problem. Gun ownership and use should not be a right. To think it should requires near total ignorance of the human race and the American people. We, as a race and especially as a nation, are far too irresponsible, unbalanced, and lazy to have everyone naturally have that right from birth.

I'd say, at best, 30-40% of this country are sane and responsible enough to where their right to own a gun doesn't directly interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

How do we decide who is 'sane and responsible enough' to own a gun without impacting someone else's rights?

How did you determine your %?

I think he just took the stat for bad drivers and changed it to gun owners.

 

[Ladsud]

I guessed and there are tons and tons of things we can do to decide. There is a nice blueprint on a more effective background check a few posts up. But to do any of that you have to change it from being a right, like breathing, to a privilege, like joining the CIA or driving a car.

As long as it is a right no politician will ever budge on their stance that they are going to do absolutely nothing to change the status quo.

I for one am sick and ####### tired of suggesting one thing after another only to have people with zero interest in solving the problem shoot down one idea after the other because it's not a magic bullet.

Nothing we can do will ever actually cure the sickness guns and the NRA have brought on this country. The America our children grow up will never be free of the words mass shooting or school shooting or active shooter situation. Our children will grow up seeing this on the TV every week and they will accept it as normal. Thanks to the massive allowances that have allowed people of all mental states and backgrounds to acquire weapons, as well as the laws passed decriminalizing what we used to call murder, we will never, ever get America back.

But I want to see something that recognizes the inherent lack of reason in giving every single person born in this country that right, regardless of who they are, what their mental state is, or how angry they are.

If we can undo the massive fraud that the NRA has perpetrated around the 2nd amendment in the past 35 years, then there is a chance that the generation below our children might start to see this horrific trend start to reverse.

We should also come up with lists for who is sane enough to use the internet, since this mass shooting thing has really seen an uptick since the net came out. There are examples of countries making lists of who and who shouldnt have rights. We can learn and apply lists from the French in the late 1700s, and the German and Russian lists in the 1930s.

 

[Loan Sharks]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

A drastically misinterpreted right that is causing way more damage than good. One that needs to be either repealed or changed.

Whoa

Since any effort at reasonable gun control is stonewalled by the entire Republican party every time, and by the occasional Democrat, I see no reason not to change course and start addressing the source of the problem. Gun ownership and use should not be a right. To think it should requires near total ignorance of the human race and the American people. We, as a race and especially as a nation, are far too irresponsible, unbalanced, and lazy to have everyone naturally have that right from birth.I'd say, at best, 30-40% of this country are sane and responsible enough to where their right to own a gun doesn't directly interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Given we have 100 million gun owners, you really believe nearly 70 million Americans could kill at anytime. How do you even walk outside?

The government protects him.

 

[Clifford]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

A drastically misinterpreted right that is causing way more damage than good. One that needs to be either repealed or changed.

Whoa

Since any effort at reasonable gun control is stonewalled by the entire Republican party every time, and by the occasional Democrat, I see no reason not to change course and start addressing the source of the problem. Gun ownership and use should not be a right. To think it should requires near total ignorance of the human race and the American people. We, as a race and especially as a nation, are far too irresponsible, unbalanced, and lazy to have everyone naturally have that right from birth.I'd say, at best, 30-40% of this country are sane and responsible enough to where their right to own a gun doesn't directly interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Given we have 100 million gun owners, you really believe nearly 70 million Americans could kill at anytime. How do you even walk outside?

Hold on, do not twist my words. I said sane and responsible. Responsible being key. Likely less than 1 percent would ever use a gun to willingly inflict harm on someone else out of some sort of malice.

BUT

I'd say easily 5% have anger or substance issues that could cause them to lose their cool and do something stupid

I'd say another 10-15% are irresponsible enough to leave the gun lying around, clean it improperly, or allow someone to use it that shouldn't

Probably another 10% are stupid enough to treat it like a toy and show it off to their friends

Another 5% maybe knows better but doesn't lock it up every time they are not using it, or maybe keeps it in their purse without the safety on

And likely another bigger percentage of 30% has fear or security issues that would cause them to use a gun when not warranted, such as when they feel threatened or feel that someone is stealing from them or attacking someone else or someone else's property

And then another 10 percent that is on meds that affect their mood, and is a suicide risk because of the gun being around

So yeah, I think about 70% are directly interfering with the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness merely by exercising their second amendment rights.

Less than 1% are psycho enough to want to do harm with a gun. But that 1% typically interfere with the basic rights of many, many people when they choose to.

 

[Clifford]

I guessed and there are tons and tons of things we can do to decide. There is a nice blueprint on a more effective background check a few posts up. But to do any of that you have to change it from being a right, like breathing, to a privilege, like joining the CIA or driving a car.

As long as it is a right no politician will ever budge on their stance that they are going to do absolutely nothing to change the status quo.

I for one am sick and ####### tired of suggesting one thing after another only to have people with zero interest in solving the problem shoot down one idea after the other because it's not a magic bullet.

Nothing we can do will ever actually cure the sickness guns and the NRA have brought on this country. The America our children grow up will never be free of the words mass shooting or school shooting or active shooter situation. Our children will grow up seeing this on the TV every week and they will accept it as normal. Thanks to the massive allowances that have allowed people of all mental states and backgrounds to acquire weapons, as well as the laws passed decriminalizing what we used to call murder, we will never, ever get America back.

But I want to see something that recognizes the inherent lack of reason in giving every single person born in this country that right, regardless of who they are, what their mental state is, or how angry they are.

If we can undo the massive fraud that the NRA has perpetrated around the 2nd amendment in the past 35 years, then there is a chance that the generation below our children might start to see this horrific trend start to reverse.

We should also come up with lists for who is sane enough to use the internet, since this mass shooting thing has really seen an uptick since the net came out. There are examples of countries making lists of who and who shouldnt have rights. We can learn and apply lists from the French in the late 1700s, and the German and Russian lists in the 1930s.

Or limit it to the one thing that makes it super easy to kill people. But yeah, let's just come up with a list of random ####

 

[Ladsud]

I guessed and there are tons and tons of things we can do to decide. There is a nice blueprint on a more effective background check a few posts up. But to do any of that you have to change it from being a right, like breathing, to a privilege, like joining the CIA or driving a car.

As long as it is a right no politician will ever budge on their stance that they are going to do absolutely nothing to change the status quo.

I for one am sick and ####### tired of suggesting one thing after another only to have people with zero interest in solving the problem shoot down one idea after the other because it's not a magic bullet.

Nothing we can do will ever actually cure the sickness guns and the NRA have brought on this country. The America our children grow up will never be free of the words mass shooting or school shooting or active shooter situation. Our children will grow up seeing this on the TV every week and they will accept it as normal. Thanks to the massive allowances that have allowed people of all mental states and backgrounds to acquire weapons, as well as the laws passed decriminalizing what we used to call murder, we will never, ever get America back.

But I want to see something that recognizes the inherent lack of reason in giving every single person born in this country that right, regardless of who they are, what their mental state is, or how angry they are.

If we can undo the massive fraud that the NRA has perpetrated around the 2nd amendment in the past 35 years, then there is a chance that the generation below our children might start to see this horrific trend start to reverse.

We should also come up with lists for who is sane enough to use the internet, since this mass shooting thing has really seen an uptick since the net came out. There are examples of countries making lists of who and who shouldnt have rights. We can learn and apply lists from the French in the late 1700s, and the German and Russian lists in the 1930s.

Or limit it to the one thing that makes it super easy to kill people. But yeah, let's just come up with a list of random ####

Its as random as what you posted, are we going to give millions of people psychological exams to decide who gets this right, who is disturbed, who is sane? Thats a big list man.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

San Bernardino shooter’s dad: He was ‘obsessed’ with Israel In interview with Italian paper, father Syed Farook says his son ‘supported the creation of the Islamic State’Syed Farook, father of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, has described his son as negatively “obsessed” with Israel.

In an interview with Italian daily La Stampa, Farook said that he once tried to console his son by promising him that Israel would not exist in another two years because “China, Russia and America will bring the Jews back to Ukraine.”


In Sunday’s La Stampa (link in Italian) report, Farook said, “My son said that he shared [iS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadi’s ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel.”

“I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don’t want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting? We have already done it and we lost. Israel is not to be fought with weapons, but with politics. But he did not listen to me, he was obsessed,” Farook explained to US correspondent Paolo Mastrolilli.

Farook’s son is suspected of carrying out a mass shooting that killed 14 people in San Bernardino. The father was interviewed in Corona, California, where he lives with his older son, Syed Raheel Farook, a US Navy veteran.

Farook senior was born in Pakistan and arrived in the US in 1973. The family has been described by many as very integrated in American society, almost the embodiment of the American dream.

Farook told La Stampa how, once in the US, he got a degree in engineering and started to work hard to guarantee his children “an education and the opportunity to succeed in life.”

Other reports told a more nuanced story: Farook split from his wife Rafia, also Pakistan-born, who filed for divorce in 2006 and, according to The New York Times, said her husband was violent and an alcoholic and beat her and the children.

In the La Stampa interview, Farook denied the accusations, saying that “Rizwan’s mother is very religious, as he was, and they united against me. Once we had a dispute over the historical figure of Jesus. My son called me a godless person and he decided that my marriage with my wife had to end,” he recalled. “They destroyed the family.”

Farook declared himself in complete despair and disbelief over what his son allegedly did. His daughters, Rizwan’s sisters, told The New York Times that they had seen no warning signs.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/san-bernardino-shooters-dad-he-was-obsessed-with-israel/

http://www.lastampa.it/2015/12/06/esteri/il-pap-del-killer-di-san-bernardino-affascinato-dallisis-odiava-israele-t52TU5O4wHwqD1uYHmzsGJ/pagina.html

Again, if we are at war, why are we allowing the father and brother of a combatant who attacked us to remain in this country?

check out the mom:

Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, is an active member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Muslim organization that promotes the establishment of a caliphate and has ties to a radical Pakistani political group called Jamaat-e-Islami.Farook’s affiliation with ICNA was revealed on Friday when MSNBC and other new outlets scoured the Farooks’ apartment in Redlands, Cal. An MSNBC reporter found a certificate of appreciation presented to Safia Farook last summer by ICNA's sisters' wing.

now the FBI is looking at her

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/06/loretta-lynch-says-fbi-is-looking-at-mother-of-san-bernardino-gunman-video/

I had read that it was the sister who was in ICNA, but if it's the mother that's a bigger deal because she was actually living in that 900 sf house with the arsenal and mini bomb factory.

I will post below some info on ICNA for any so interested... separate post so as not to crowd the thread.

 

[Loan Sharks]

I guessed and there are tons and tons of things we can do to decide. There is a nice blueprint on a more effective background check a few posts up. But to do any of that you have to change it from being a right, like breathing, to a privilege, like joining the CIA or driving a car.

As long as it is a right no politician will ever budge on their stance that they are going to do absolutely nothing to change the status quo.

I for one am sick and ####### tired of suggesting one thing after another only to have people with zero interest in solving the problem shoot down one idea after the other because it's not a magic bullet.

Nothing we can do will ever actually cure the sickness guns and the NRA have brought on this country. The America our children grow up will never be free of the words mass shooting or school shooting or active shooter situation. Our children will grow up seeing this on the TV every week and they will accept it as normal. Thanks to the massive allowances that have allowed people of all mental states and backgrounds to acquire weapons, as well as the laws passed decriminalizing what we used to call murder, we will never, ever get America back.

But I want to see something that recognizes the inherent lack of reason in giving every single person born in this country that right, regardless of who they are, what their mental state is, or how angry they are.

If we can undo the massive fraud that the NRA has perpetrated around the 2nd amendment in the past 35 years, then there is a chance that the generation below our children might start to see this horrific trend start to reverse.

We should also come up with lists for who is sane enough to use the internet, since this mass shooting thing has really seen an uptick since the net came out. There are examples of countries making lists of who and who shouldnt have rights. We can learn and apply lists from the French in the late 1700s, and the German and Russian lists in the 1930s.

Or limit it to the one thing that makes it super easy to kill people. But yeah, let's just come up with a list of random ####

Its as random as what you posted, are we going to give millions of people psychological exams to decide who gets this right, who is disturbed, who is sane? Thats a big list man.

I am eagerly waiting for the revised Clifford driving test and requirements to purchase alcohol.

 

[Clifford]

No, I am saying you repeal it as a right. You take the right away. Then and only then are you in a position to do any real sort of test/check that would actually be effective at determining whether you are handing that gun off to a psycho or an idiot or a headcase or a pillhead or a boozer or a sane responsible person.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Who is ICNA- the Group tied to Islamic State-inspired Bomb Plotter?News is breaking today that Noelle Velentzas, one of the two women indicted in New York City court for an alleged bomb plot in support of Islamic State, had ties to the Islamic Circle of North America, a U.S. Islamic group. CNN reports ICNA admitting it’s connection to the woman saying:

“She stayed for a short period of time between 2008 and 2009,” the statement said. “While she was staying in our shelter, our staff helped her get on her feet. During this time she successfully completed studies to become a home health care provider after which she became gainfully employed. She left the facility when she married.”

But who is ICNA, and why is it significant that they played a part in the life of Noelle Velentzas?

Velentzas appeared to have experienced hardship in her life but was “working towards self-development and long-term stability,” the statement said.

“She also appeared to be someone who had greatly benefited from the assistance ICNA Relief provides through our shelter system, so we asked her to speak about the experience of our shelter. She appeared at several fundraisers and was the subject of videos as well.”

ICNA has described itself as being founded on the principles of massively influential Jihadist ideologue Abul Ala Maududi, founder of Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI).

Specifically they describe themselves as:

“using the organizational development methodology of [JI founder] Maulana Mawdudi and the Jamaat Al-Islami of Pakistan, which lays special emphasis on spiritual development, ICNA has developed a strong foundation.”

ICNA is widely considered JeI’s front in the United States, and ICNA Relief has been accused of soliciting funds for a Pakistani charity known to donate to Hamas. ICNA’s former Secretary General Ashrafuzzaman Khan was convicted in Bangladesh of engaging in war crimes as part of a JeI militia operating on behalf of Pakistan during Bangladesh’s liberation war.

Maududi’s writings on the political nature of Islamic doctrine, and especially “On Jihad“, and was highly influential on a number of key Islamist figures, including Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al Banna, MB ideologue Sayyid Qutb, as well as Al Qaeda and Hamas Co-Founder Abdullah Azzam, whom the two New York girls reportedly praised by name.) While relying on established Islamic sources, Maududi’s writing married Islamic doctrine with more a modern language of “world revolution.” Maududi wrote:

Muslims are in fact an international revolutionary party organised under the ideology of Islam to implement its revolutionary programme. Jihad is the term, denoting the revolutionary struggle to the utmost, of the Islamic revolutionary party to bring about Islamic revolution.”

ICNA’s 2010 “Tarbiyah Guide” for it’s “Sisters’ Wing” features heavy use of Maududi’s works, along with other ideologues including Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al Banna, Chief MB Jurist Yusuf Al Qaradawi, and other MB members, including Canadian Muslim Brotherhood Member Jamal Badawi, who was subject to the DHS “Hands Off” List current being investigated by Sen. Chuck Grassley. ICNA unified with the Muslim Brotherhood in North America in the 1990s, according to Muslim Brotherhood archival documents acquired by Federal law enforcement and submitted during the Holy Land Foundation Trial. The Tarbiyah guide does not shy away from commenting on Jihad, noting in a comment on regarding the As’hab us-Suffah (Men of the Platform, a group of men close to Muhammed who were homeless following the hijra to Medina and known for their learnedness and memory):

Their services to Islam were not limited to the Suffah and whenever the call for Jihad was made they were ever ready to sacrifice their lives on the battlefield despite being hungry, without proper provisions and with insufficient armor.

If it was ICNA that helped Noelle Velentza with her “Self-development” in the manner of Abul Ala Maududi and the JeI, then perhaps we should not be surprised by the outcome being a young woman enamored of jihadist violence and seeking to join the “Caliphate” as she has been taught is her obligation. Until we are prepared to address the actual role of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami in training and indoctrinating young people that they have an obligation to engage in jihad, Islamic State will continue to find potential recruits susceptible to their message.

https://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/04/03/who-is-icna-the-group-tied-to-islamic-state-inspired-bomb-plotter/

- That sounds awfully familiar.

 

[Clifford]

I guessed and there are tons and tons of things we can do to decide. There is a nice blueprint on a more effective background check a few posts up. But to do any of that you have to change it from being a right, like breathing, to a privilege, like joining the CIA or driving a car.

As long as it is a right no politician will ever budge on their stance that they are going to do absolutely nothing to change the status quo.

I for one am sick and ####### tired of suggesting one thing after another only to have people with zero interest in solving the problem shoot down one idea after the other because it's not a magic bullet.

Nothing we can do will ever actually cure the sickness guns and the NRA have brought on this country. The America our children grow up will never be free of the words mass shooting or school shooting or active shooter situation. Our children will grow up seeing this on the TV every week and they will accept it as normal. Thanks to the massive allowances that have allowed people of all mental states and backgrounds to acquire weapons, as well as the laws passed decriminalizing what we used to call murder, we will never, ever get America back.

But I want to see something that recognizes the inherent lack of reason in giving every single person born in this country that right, regardless of who they are, what their mental state is, or how angry they are.

If we can undo the massive fraud that the NRA has perpetrated around the 2nd amendment in the past 35 years, then there is a chance that the generation below our children might start to see this horrific trend start to reverse.

We should also come up with lists for who is sane enough to use the internet, since this mass shooting thing has really seen an uptick since the net came out. There are examples of countries making lists of who and who shouldnt have rights. We can learn and apply lists from the French in the late 1700s, and the German and Russian lists in the 1930s.

Or limit it to the one thing that makes it super easy to kill people. But yeah, let's just come up with a list of random ####

Its as random as what you posted, are we going to give millions of people psychological exams to decide who gets this right, who is disturbed, who is sane? Thats a big list man.

I am eagerly waiting for the revised Clifford driving test and requirements to purchase alcohol.

Revised driving test

Assuming most applicants around 16

You put the teen in a car

You put their phone in the seat next to them

You tell them to drive 10 mph in a straight line on a controlled course

You have all their friends message them on every social app the kid has while he/she is driving

If the kid looks at their phone once they fail.

If they don't they get to take an actual driver's test.

 

[Sand]

hey, we want to take away your guns after we add you to this super secret list of people that only we control, isn't public, and can't be changed anytime soon. Just trust us.

The US has a super-secret list - the background check database used for purchasing weapons. This, by law (NICS law), can't be collated and shared as requests come in so there is no gun registry. As it turns out the govt. is keeping a registry and is even pulling statistics from it. So the list is being kept. If you've bought a gun, you're in the database.

Article.

Another interesting tidbit from that article. There has been lots of screaming about people on the no-fly list and terrorist list being denied gun ownership. Another in a long list of black marks on these lists is this story - known nonviolent protesters that were put on the list "just because". Nothing like being being denied your 2nd amendment rights for exercising your 1st amendment rights. Staggering the liberties that some folks want to give away here.

 

[Ladsud]

No, I am saying you repeal it as a right. You take the right away. Then and only then are you in a position to do any real sort of test/check that would actually be effective at determining whether you are handing that gun off to a psycho or an idiot or a headcase or a pillhead or a boozer or a sane responsible person.

Will a person have to go under another round of psych tests whenever they want to buy some rounds? Alot can change day to day in a persons mental well being.

 

[Clifford]

Nope. Again, I am not suggesting we can cure the plague the moneyed interests behind the NRA have unleashed on this country to the applause of millions. The NRA and their supporters have won. All we can do at this point is craft desperate plans to limit the damage.

 

[jon_mx]

 

[tommyboy]

No, I am saying you repeal it as a right. You take the right away. Then and only then are you in a position to do any real sort of test/check that would actually be effective at determining whether you are handing that gun off to a psycho or an idiot or a headcase or a pillhead or a boozer or a sane responsible person.

too bad its one of those "inalienable" rights. I think they did that on purpose to keep people like you from taking it away

 

[tdoss]

Can we implement Clifford's test on those who wish to vote?

I know we can't ask for proper ID but just wondering if a psyche test can be slipped in before the vote is cast?

 

[cstu]

Owning a gun is right that requires responsibility. Yes, it's in the Bill of 'Rights' but the government should have the ability to restrict ownership from people who are mentally ill/unstable.

 

[cstu]

hey, we want to take away your guns after we add you to this super secret list of people that only we control, isn't public, and can't be changed anytime soon. Just trust us.

The US has a super-secret list - the background check database used for purchasing weapons. This, by law (NICS law), can't be collated and shared as requests come in so there is no gun registry. As it turns out the govt. is keeping a registry and is even pulling statistics from it. So the list is being kept. If you've bought a gun, you're in the database.

Article.

Another interesting tidbit from that article. There has been lots of screaming about people on the no-fly list and terrorist list being denied gun ownership. Another in a long list of black marks on these lists is this story - known nonviolent protesters that were put on the list "just because". Nothing like being being denied your 2nd amendment rights for exercising your 1st amendment rights. Staggering the liberties that some folks want to give away here.

Everyone should buy a gun - problem solved.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Owning a gun is right that requires responsibility. Yes, it's in the Bill of 'Rights' but the government should have the ability to restrict ownership from people who are mentally ill/unstable.

So that totally eliminates any hope you had of owning a gun.

 

[Jim11]

Nope. Again, I am not suggesting we can cure the plague the moneyed interests behind the NRA have unleashed on this country to the applause of millions. The NRA and their supporters have won. All we can do at this point is craft desperate plans to limit the damage.

Yep, those NRA guys have been shooting up Paris & SB...oh, wait.

 

[spreagle]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

A drastically misinterpreted right that is causing way more damage than good. One that needs to be either repealed or changed.

Whoa

Since any effort at reasonable gun control is stonewalled by the entire Republican party every time, and by the occasional Democrat, I see no reason not to change course and start addressing the source of the problem. Gun ownership and use should not be a right. To think it should requires near total ignorance of the human race and the American people. We, as a race and especially as a nation, are far too irresponsible, unbalanced, and lazy to have everyone naturally have that right from birth.I'd say, at best, 30-40% of this country are sane and responsible enough to where their right to own a gun doesn't directly interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Given we have 100 million gun owners, you really believe nearly 70 million Americans could kill at anytime. How do you even walk outside?

Hold on, do not twist my words. I said sane and responsible. Responsible being key. Likely less than 1 percent would ever use a gun to willingly inflict harm on someone else out of some sort of malice. BUT

I'd say easily 5% have anger or substance issues that could cause them to lose their cool and do something stupid

I'd say another 10-15% are irresponsible enough to leave the gun lying around, clean it improperly, or allow someone to use it that shouldn't

Probably another 10% are stupid enough to treat it like a toy and show it off to their friends

Another 5% maybe knows better but doesn't lock it up every time they are not using it, or maybe keeps it in their purse without the safety on

And likely another bigger percentage of 30% has fear or security issues that would cause them to use a gun when not warranted, such as when they feel threatened or feel that someone is stealing from them or attacking someone else or someone else's property

And then another 10 percent that is on meds that affect their mood, and is a suicide risk because of the gun being around

So yeah, I think about 70% are directly interfering with the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness merely by exercising their second amendment rights.

Less than 1% are psycho enough to want to do harm with a gun. But that 1% typically interfere with the basic rights of many, many people when they choose to.

I totally trust all my conservative friends who own guns. No anger issues, no irresponsibility issues, no stupidity issues, no forgetfulness issues, no fear issues, no med issues. I think this is why there is such a chasm between liberals and conservatives on guns ... the liberals know their liberal friends are mostly nuts and the conservatives know their conservative friends are mostly sane. But the liberals assume the conservatives are just like them, nuts.

 

[Bucky86]

It doesn't matter. The idea that the government can throw your name on a list with no due process and strip you of your rights is awful. I'm pretty surprised at how many liberals are supporting that idea.

So you are opposed to the Terrorist Watch List, or ok with it as long it only hampers your ability to travel, buy a home, etc.? Asking because none of these are rights.

It's a constitutional right. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less so.

A drastically misinterpreted right that is causing way more damage than good. One that needs to be either repealed or changed.

Whoa

Since any effort at reasonable gun control is stonewalled by the entire Republican party every time, and by the occasional Democrat, I see no reason not to change course and start addressing the source of the problem. Gun ownership and use should not be a right. To think it should requires near total ignorance of the human race and the American people. We, as a race and especially as a nation, are far too irresponsible, unbalanced, and lazy to have everyone naturally have that right from birth.I'd say, at best, 30-40% of this country are sane and responsible enough to where their right to own a gun doesn't directly interfere with someone else's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Given we have 100 million gun owners, you really believe nearly 70 million Americans could kill at anytime. How do you even walk outside?

Hold on, do not twist my words. I said sane and responsible. Responsible being key. Likely less than 1 percent would ever use a gun to willingly inflict harm on someone else out of some sort of malice. BUT

I'd say easily 5% have anger or substance issues that could cause them to lose their cool and do something stupid

I'd say another 10-15% are irresponsible enough to leave the gun lying around, clean it improperly, or allow someone to use it that shouldn't

Probably another 10% are stupid enough to treat it like a toy and show it off to their friends

Another 5% maybe knows better but doesn't lock it up every time they are not using it, or maybe keeps it in their purse without the safety on

And likely another bigger percentage of 30% has fear or security issues that would cause them to use a gun when not warranted, such as when they feel threatened or feel that someone is stealing from them or attacking someone else or someone else's property

And then another 10 percent that is on meds that affect their mood, and is a suicide risk because of the gun being around

So yeah, I think about 70% are directly interfering with the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness merely by exercising their second amendment rights.

Less than 1% are psycho enough to want to do harm with a gun. But that 1% typically interfere with the basic rights of many, many people when they choose to.

I totally trust all my conservative friends who own guns. No anger issues, no irresponsibility issues, no stupidity issues, no forgetfulness issues, no fear issues, no med issues. I think this is why there is such a chasm between liberals and conservatives on guns ... the liberals know their liberal friends are mostly nuts and the conservatives know their conservative friends are mostly sane. But the liberals assume the conservatives are just like them, nuts.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Owning a gun is right that requires responsibility. Yes, it's in the Bill of 'Rights' but the government should have the ability to restrict ownership from people who are mentally ill/unstable.

I get really caught up on the academic side of things, but we restrict a variety of rights for 1. felons and 2. the mentally disabled and ill, so I can see this and even agree.

But I just know that here in NO and many other major cities the first group of persons and even the second can still gain access to guns. We had a female cop gunned down by an insane person who needed treatment but was out on the street, the cops get asked to handle those people. The point just being that AQ, Isis and other terror groups must laugh at this argument, as if it really matters to them or will affect them, it won't.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

We need a jumped the shark emoticon

 

[Clifford]

No, I am saying you repeal it as a right. You take the right away. Then and only then are you in a position to do any real sort of test/check that would actually be effective at determining whether you are handing that gun off to a psycho or an idiot or a headcase or a pillhead or a boozer or a sane responsible person.

too bad its one of those "inalienable" rights. I think they did that on purpose to keep people like you from taking it away

Well, to their credit they knew it was only their trusty muskets that stood between them and the King of Enfgland

 

[Nathan R. Jessep]

We need a jumped the shark emoticon

I've pulled a few strings and....

 

[Bucky86]

Link

 

[spreagle]

I'm seriously thinking of buying an AK 47 with this years fantasy football winnings before the Democrats ban AK 47s and fantasy football.

 

[3C's]

We need a jumped the shark emoticon

I've pulled a few strings and....

http://orig10.deviantart.net/9248/f/2010/176/1/b/jumping_the_shark_by_mirz123.gif

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

San Bernardino shooters practiced at gun range, FBI saysSAN BERNARDINO, Calif. - The married couple responsible for the San Bernardino shooting participated in target practice, including once within days of the attack that killed 14 people, the FBI announced Monday.

David Bowdich, assistant director of the FBI's Los Angeles office, said at a news conference Monday that Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, participated in target practice at ranges within the Los Angeles area.

Farook signed in at Riverside Magnum Gun Range target practice with his AR-15, two days before the San Bernardino massacre. Mike McGee says Farook approached him at the range with a question.

CBS News' Carter Evans spoke with McGee who said when he met Farook, nothing about him stuck out. Farook had asked McGee a question when his gun began smoking.

McGee said the question, "Tells me that it was a new rifle. He was not familiar with it."

John Galletta is an instructor at the range. He said he had seen Farook at the range at least twice.

"It is devastating to people to know that this is where he might have prepared for those last days," Galletta said.

The couple used two altered AR-15 semiautomatic weapons in the attack, as well as two pistols, officials have said previously. They carried extra ammunition on the military-style tactical fatigues they were wearing. Witnesses told officers that the two shooters were wearing ski-type masks and vests.

Bowdich said they also found 19 pipes in the couple's home in Redlands, California, that could be turned into bombs with all the right components.

A federal law enforcement source told CBS News investigative correspondent Pat Milton that Enrique Marquez, who purchased the two assault rifles used in the attacks, is being questioned by the FBI today. The source said that Marquez is apparently providing information. He has not been arrested and has not been charged.

The FBI could not interviewed Marquez until today because he was being evaluated at a mental health facility where he had checked himself in after the shooting.

The FBI said Monday said the couple were radicalized and had been "for some time," although officials don't know when or whether anyone else radicalized them.

Although Farook had been living together in the U.S. for some time, they arrived here as a couple in July of 2014.

FBI Director James Comey said after the shooting that officials are combing through a "very large volume of electronic evidence" indicating that the pair tried to hide from law enforcement.

Chaz Harrison told CBS News he met Farook in college in 2008, and that he was talkative. However, he was not very open about his wife, describing Farook as very "secretive" and someone "didn't want to reveal too much about his wife."

"One of the first things I said, 'Hey you got a picture?' He didn't have any pictures," Harrison said. "He said that she was very uncomfortable. Everyone looked at her -- they stared her because of the way she dressed.

"He was very secretive about his wife," Harrison added. "He didn't want to reveal much about his wife. I could see he wasn't really comfortable talking about it but what he did tell me, she was a pharmacist in her country. He also told me that, she didn't want to be here neither."

Just before the shooting, Malik pledged her allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in an online posting. However her radicalization is thus far a public mystery. Those who knew her called Tashfeen Malik a "modern girl" who became deeply religious, never an extremist.

Few details have emerged about Malik's life in Pakistan, where she lived from 2007 to 2014 before heading to the United States on a fiancee visa. Malik studied pharmacy at the Bahauddin Zakariya University in the central city of Multan, where she got a degree in 2013.

She also took classes at the Multan branch of Al-Huda International Seminary, a women-only madrassa with branches across Pakistan and in the U.S. and Canada. The school has no known links to extremists, and in Pakistan it is popular among upper-middle class and urban women.

CBS News' Carter Evans reports that both Farook and Malik were generally quiet students and both became deeply religious. And on Sunday, CBS News heard from Farook's father at his Southern California home.

The elder Syed Farook told the Italian newspaper La Stampa, "My son said he shared (ISIS leader Abu Bakr) Al Baghdadi's ideology, and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He also was obsessed with Israel."

The official investigation into Farook and Malik hit a snag when five years' worth of telephone records for the married couple lapsed just four days earlier when the National Security Agency's controversial mass surveillance program was formally shut down.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooters-farook-malilk-practiced-at-gun-range-fbi/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Video report from CBS, more details on the wife. She stuck to the upstairs room. No one saw her out at the store, buying children's supplies, out and about. She did not drive. Prayed. That was about it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/shooters-co-worker-on-the-san-bernardino-shooting

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

San Bernardino shooting: Ex-neighbor's home raidedEarly on Saturday, authorities with guns drawn raided a home next door to the house where family of one the shooters in the San Bernardino rampage used to live in Riverside, California, breaking windows and using a cutting torch to get into the garage, neighbors said.

The FBI would not say what it was looking for, but a neighbor said an old friend of Syed Farook's lives there.

CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton reports a law enforcement source says the target of the raid was Enrique Marquez, who is believed to have been the individual who three years ago bought the AR15 rifles in California used in the San Bernardino attack.

Marquez checked himself into a mental health facility after the attack.

The source told CBS News Marquez is not under arrest and is not considered a suspect in the shooting rampage. The source said that Marquez was employed as a security guard.

Another law enforcement source also tells CBS News they are confident only Farook and Marquez purchased the guns legally in California and reconfigured them to be more powerful. At this point they are confident no one else was involved in the purchase of the guns.

Law enforcement officials are also reviewing video from California gun store owners who have called saying they saw the two together.

...

Former classmate Afsheen Butt said Malik showed drastic changes after a trip to Saudi Arabia in late 2008 or early 2009.

"She used to tell us that this is the real life. We are a nation that has strayed from the right path," Butt said. "She used to give us Islamic religious literature."

Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki said authorities there have received no indication Malik was radicalized in Saudi Arabia.

A year before she got married, she began wearing a scarf that covered all but her nose and eyes, the maid said. The maid spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of jeopardizing her employment with the family.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernardino-shooting-ex-neighbors-home-raided/

- You have to see the picture of Marquez in the link to grasp this. He's probably just a goofball.

Here's a hint: if your quiet, secretive neighbor asks you to buy assault rifles for him..... maybe pass, mmkay?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

We need a jumped the shark emoticon

I've pulled a few strings and....

http://orig10.deviantart.net/9248/f/2010/176/1/b/jumping_the_shark_by_mirz123.gif

Boom

 

[Rohn Jambo]

NATO saying ISIS is a problem that Muslims have to fix themselves?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-nato-idUKKBN0TQ0HU20151207

NATO has ruled out sending ground troops to fight against Islamic State militants in Syria, NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg told a Swiss newspaper, stressing the need to bolster local forces in the conflict.

"That is not on the agenda of the coalition and the NATO allies," he told the Tages-Anzeiger paper when asked about dispatching ground forces to accompany air strikes.

"The United States has a limited number of special forces. In the foreground, however, is strengthening local forces. This is not easy, but it's the only option," he added

Stoltenberg stressed that the conflict was not a war between the West and the Islamic world, but rather against "extremism and terrorism".

"Muslims are on the front line in this war. Most victims are Muslims, and most of those who fight against the IS are Muslims. We can not carry on this struggle for them," he said.

Stoltenberg pointed out that NATO would help Turkey improve its air defenses after Turkey shot down a Russian military jet last month. The alliance will adopt a package of measures for Turkey before Christmas, he added.