"Orwellian Double Speak" Topic

Some guy on the radio was talking about the tragic events in San Bernardino and said about the murderers:

"They might have been terrorists, but this might not have been a terrorist act."

Kinda split'n hairs there.

Wow, double speak at its best.

Words escape me…

Presumably the fellow was thinking that while the couple, based on reports, were gearing up for a terrorist attack, this may have been a more 'spontaneous' attack caused by the reported argument with the co-worker.

There were reports of others who visited the couples' apartment and who may have been involved with bomb making. Presuming they can be brought in for questioning, another target or targets could be identified.

On the other hand, the couple included cameras with their other gear. If it wasn't the original planned target, they were treating it as if it were one.

Just because you're a terrorist doesn't mean you can't also be a , or a lousy driver, or cheater at Monopoly.

:)

All and sundry trying their best to get away from the tag Fundamentalist Muslum Terrorist Attack.

My condolences to the bereaved. Yet another sad event in the name of misguided beliefs.

No, like goragrad said, from the original reports it was unclear whether it was motivated by ideology or a personal dispute. When someone leaves a workplace in the middle of the day, then comes back and starts shooting coworkers, it's only logical to consider both possibilities.

It's no different than the clinic attack in Colorado. Given the target, terrorism was the most likely motivation, but not the only one. Taking a day or two to learn something about the perpetrator before making a public statement seems prudent.

FWIW, a Confederate flag enthusiast set off a bomb in a Walmart (as an act of protest/revenge) last month and it barely got coverage, let alone labeled as a terrorist incident. There's your dishonesty.

If the terrorist had hit a mini-van full of people and killed 6 of them, then I say, it most likely was not an intentional terrorist act.

But with what happened, I gotta go with they knew what they were doing, planned it and wanted it video taped.

Also, from a screwed up American legal system view, if the terrorist was driving to the site he wanted to commit a terrorist act, but T-boned a mini-van on the way killing 6, is it only vehicular homicide and not an act of terror, because it wasn't his intended target?

I can hear the defense lawyer already.

I am guessing at this but…..
I am guessing that Mister Jihadi was planning something more spectacular all along.
Then he went to a Christmas(!) party and got into some kind of religious argument.
Or maybe the sight of Christians celebrating simply enraged him.
Then he went home and told Mrs Jihadi "That's it! I've had it with those infidels! We strike NOW!"
And Mrs Jihadi said "Yes Dear." Like all good wives should.

So, he was preparing a terrorist attack in Middle America, got ed off at The Boss and made it personal.
So instead of killing 200 strangers he killed 15 people he didn't like.

FWIW, a Confederate flag enthusiast set off a bomb in a Walmart (as an act of protest/revenge) last month and it barely got coverage, let alone labeled as a terrorist incident. There's your dishonesty.

Just did a quick search on it. November 3rd, Jackson Mississippi, no deaths. Hope he still gets thrown the book for that.

Just because the shooters killed and injured all those people, doesn't really mean that it really happened. And further, just because some of the victims are no longer alive, doesn't necessarily mean that they are dead. Since the victims that are no longer alive might not really be dead, the shootings didn't really happen. Therefore the shooters were actually going through the neighborhood doing random acts of kindness and good will.

I believe I am getting the hang of this. Now if I could just convince everyone that I am young, rich and good looking…

Well, here's what we now know:

1.) She may have been the radicalizer, not the radicalizee, though he himself was already moving that way (becoming "more religious," had "praised ISIS" and "hated Israel," according to his own father). Either way, a match made in Hell. Logical conclusion: They were already planning to do this, or something like it. (And note the targets of the Jewish coworker and the non-radicalized Muslim coworker).

2.) On a $50,000 USD yearly salary, and in the midst of pregancy and the birth of a child, they somehow managed to spend $40,000 USD on weapons, ammunition and bomb making tools and materials. Logical conclusion: They were funded, supplied and maybe even trained by an outside source. Therefore, not only not a "lone wolf" case, but an actual "cell" or at least supported agents of the ISIS/ISIL organization.

3.) The bombs were designed and set to go off as a secondary attack on first responders, a common tactic of ISIS, Al Qaeda and other terror groups. Logical conclusion: The work target was in fact planned from the start with the hopes that the secondary effects would create more carnage.

So there you have it. This was not "random workplace violence," nor was it "spur of the moment." It was planned, against an unsecure target. The target selection may heve been partially motivated by the man's own personal hatreds as much as his ideology, but the overriding motivation remained ideology. We can be thankful that at least as bomb-makers, these two were incompetent terrorists, but they were still terrorists.

Now for some speculation that's even more sinster
.Consider this: Sad sack American guy who can't get women (at least ones that want to live by his increasingly rigid religious code) tries on-line religious "matchmaking" site. (I suspect the term "dating" doesn't apply, as "dating" as the West knows it would be strictly forbidden to Islamic fundamentalists). What if the site were monitored by ISIS or radical allies/agents? What if they noted the American ciizenship status of the guy— the perfect infiltration route into the heart of the enemy? They arrange for a female disciple to contact him with professions of interest in marriage. He gets excied, responds, comes to meet her. She's the fundie girl-of-his dreams (which she would be; she's fundy and a GIRL). This guy (who is none too sharp, as can be seen) can't wait to begin his dream life with her. As for her, she's serving the caliphate; so what if she has to marry some guy and accept his physical expectations and even dump out a brat; it's all for the glory of her Caliph. She plays on his prejudices, his disastisfaction. She conveys to him the great message of the Caliph, the promises of martyrdom and the glories that will be theirs. And lo, she has the money and the blessing of the Caliph! "Why, yes, my husband, you may choose the target. Your workplace? Not impressive, but we can go straight from there to another, glorious target as well!"
And there you have it. The ISIS honey trap.

Just announced: $28,500 USD from an unknown source deposited into their bank account prior to the attack.

There's your proof. this was never "random workplace violence" by "lone wolf sympathizers." This was a planned, supported and funded attack, both terrorism and an act of war. The two perpetrators thus are not the only responsible parties, were acting under orders (even if just "cause death"), and were not alone in the plotting. I am willing to speculate that they were indeed part of what might be recognizable as a "terrorist cell," and that others were involved and may well be planning further attacks once they feel they have successfully eluded capture. It also shows that the terrorists are not merely going to focus on the expected "big" targets (sporting events, concerts, military sites), but are willing to hit "soft" unexpected targets, or in fact any target at all.

Well, I shall have to retract the above. The amount appears to have been acquired from an online loan source, with no apparant connections to any terrorist organization. Teaches me to speculate before facts are complete.
On the other hand, that may only amount to terrorists organuzations having found a nearly undetectable way to acquire funding from our own financial institutions: take out a (relatively) small loan on false pretense, commit the terror act with the money, and then default (most likely because of death).
That's a nasty security hole.

And yet I am also prescient. Authorities are indeed investigating whether the wife was an "operative" who may have deliberately used the marriage visa to infiltrate the U.S..