New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Terrorist?

Zam-Zam

Senator
From CBS News:

One of Farook's co-workers told CBS News correspondent David Begnaud he had a sense that Farook was becoming radicalized after getting married.

That worker narrowly missed the shooting. San Bernardino health inspector Christian Nwadike said he and four other men were in the bathroom when the first shots were fired.

"When the blast came in, I lost every feeling, I kept thinking this may be life or death," Nwadike told CBS News. He stayed on the floor of the bathroom for about 10 minutes, but could hear what was happening outside.

There were cries, there were shots," he said.
Nwadike, who's originally from Nigeria, sat in a cubicle next to Farook for 5 years.

"When he came back from Saudi Arabia, he started growing beards -- that was the change," Nwadike said. He believes Malik helped radicalize Farook.

"Yes, by the wife, I think he married a terrorist," he said.

Nwadike said Farook was never violent or rude, and that "he rarely talked."

"I couldn't believe it, that's what I'm missing, there's no way that I can look at him and see attached to this," Nwadike said. "But it happened and it was him."



Complete text: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-ber...-whether-suspect-syed-farook-was-radicalized/


Whatever his motives, what Farook did seems to me to be a clear act of terror - thereby making him, be definition, a terrorist. This was planned, coordinated, and deliberate, not unlike the recent shootings in Paris. There is a common denominator here, and those trying to spin it in a different direction are going to have a difficult time.
 
Well then we have a goal for the media: talk about the wife as little as possible.
 
From CBS News:

One of Farook's co-workers told CBS News correspondent David Begnaud he had a sense that Farook was becoming radicalized after getting married.

That worker narrowly missed the shooting. San Bernardino health inspector Christian Nwadike said he and four other men were in the bathroom when the first shots were fired.

"When the blast came in, I lost every feeling, I kept thinking this may be life or death," Nwadike told CBS News. He stayed on the floor of the bathroom for about 10 minutes, but could hear what was happening outside.

There were cries, there were shots," he said.
Nwadike, who's originally from Nigeria, sat in a cubicle next to Farook for 5 years.

"When he came back from Saudi Arabia, he started growing beards -- that was the change," Nwadike said. He believes Malik helped radicalize Farook.

"Yes, by the wife, I think he married a terrorist," he said.

Nwadike said Farook was never violent or rude, and that "he rarely talked."

"I couldn't believe it, that's what I'm missing, there's no way that I can look at him and see attached to this," Nwadike said. "But it happened and it was him."



Complete text: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-ber...-whether-suspect-syed-farook-was-radicalized/


Whatever his motives, what Farook did seems to me to be a clear act of terror - thereby making him, be definition, a terrorist. This was planned, coordinated, and deliberate, not unlike the recent shootings in Paris. There is a common denominator here, and those trying to spin it in a different direction are going to have a difficult time.
It seems likely to have been terrorism, but wouldn't it make sense to wait and see what the facts are?
 
It seems likely to have been terrorism, but wouldn't it make sense to wait and see what the facts are?


Of course it does.

However, when you kill 14 people in one blast, whatever your motivation, that's an act of terror, is it not?
 
usually guys mellow out once they get a girlfriend or wife.

evidently this wasn't a match made in heaven, if his anger boiled over after marriage.

a normal American girl probably wouldn't have egged him on to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo and build pipe bombs all day long on weekends.
 
It seems likely to have been terrorism, but wouldn't it make sense to wait and see what the facts are?

I somewhat agree. For example, I was thinking it was a combination of terrorism and workplace violence. I thought the terrorism was planned but moved ahead on an emotional outburst after some incident at the holiday party. Now it's looking like just terrorism. Could there be another turn? Maybe, but doubtful.

But in the end, PJ may as well shut down if we're going to wait for all the facts to come out before arguing and attacking. ;)
 
usually guys mellow out once they get a girlfriend or wife.

evidently this wasn't a match made in heaven, if his anger boiled over after marriage.

a normal American girl probably wouldn't have egged him on to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo and build pipe bombs all day long on weekends.


lay pipe. not build pipe.

American girl, that is...


sorry...

:oops:
 
usually guys mellow out once they get a girlfriend or wife.

evidently this wasn't a match made in heaven, if his anger boiled over after marriage.

a normal American girl probably wouldn't have egged him on to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo and build pipe bombs all day long on weekends.


She may have exerted some influence on him to be sure, but ultimately is was his decision to do what he did. This was planned, coordinated, and deliberate.
 
I somewhat agree. For example, I was thinking it was a combination of terrorism and workplace violence. I thought the terrorism was planned but moved ahead on an emotional outburst after some incident at the holiday party. Now it's looking like just terrorism. Could there be another turn? Maybe, but doubtful.

But in the end, PJ may as well shut down if we're going to wait for all the facts to come out before arguing and attacking. ;)


It occurred in the workplace, and was violent. Workplace violence.

It was an act of terror. Terrorism.

No matter what you call it, the result is the same.
 
Of course it does.

However, when you kill 14 people in one blast, whatever your motivation, that's an act of terror, is it not?
That would depend on how we define terrorism. However, using either my own definition or the definition under federal law, motivation matters. For both domestic and international terrorism definitions, the FBI includes intent in the definition. To be terrorism, there had to be an intent (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping. So, what was the intent of the attack? Do we know yet? That's not a rhetorical question -- I haven't been following the story closely, so I don't have the latest info. But, the last time I checked, we didn't know and inferences were still tenuous as new information came in. If this was personal (some beef with those people at that location), that wouldn't show an intent to coerce a population or influence or affect the conduct of a government.
 
When he came back from Saudi Arabia, he started growing beards -- that was the change,

Yes, because beards are un-American!

George Carlin: Lenin had a beard. Gabby Hayes had whiskers!

617_123857397210.jpg
 
I called that the day after the attack.

You did.... I remember that. Well-done! I was just in the car and heard on the news she posted her allegiance to ISIS on Facebook. I wonder if... whoever does the evening news these days will have that as a headline.
 
Back
Top