It is lame to see all the leftist PC suck-ups defending the religion by pointing the finger at the other majority religion and saying "the extremists aren't any more representative of Islam than the vile, poisonous Westboro Baptists are representative of Christianity". While it's mostly true literally, the equivalency they concoct is BULL.

For one thing, as vile and sickening as Westboro is, I don't think they have cut off any soldier's or gay person's head (the people they hate and spew verbal poison on), nor do they throw gay people off rooftops 'to cleanse their sins' as Sharia courts approve and sentence!

Secondly, I don't think we've EVER seen the "moderate, peaceful" Muslims in our country speak out about the hijacking by butchers of their religion, as is seen often like this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cXTOlqb0f9o

I think the moderate, peaceful Muslims do not speak out against the killing because of reprisal and punishment in their places of worship--the mosques--the enormous difference from any of the world's Christian churches!!

Read online, several sources that the wife had supported Isis....so they both had links to these folks. More will come out with time, I'm sure.

There do try to scoop one another and often with a story like this the facts take a long time to actually present themselves. It is about ratings, advertising, and the like.

It seems to have always been like this that they chase stories and get stuff wrong. You see it quicker now with all the wide range of quickly accessible news sources now.

Bravo FBI
 

Well, it's official. The Deputy Director of the FBI in Los Angeles has just announced that the California shooting is regarded as an act of Terrorism based upon their preliminary investigation.

I'm sure that President Obama and his minions in the White House and Congress will be extremely displeased with this development.

It is heartening that the FBI is apparently following the evidence rather than the desires of the President. Other agency leaders in the government have not shown such courage.

Bravo FBI.

It is amazing how patient David Bowdiich is with the media. Not one eye roll, not one 'did you really ask that again'....

It is obviously terrorism but is there an ISIS direct involvement in it? The wife seems to be the radicalized Muslim who brought her husband on board. But, it sounds like ISIS is applauding their actions but did not plan, finance, or do anything else in this horrible event. The facts though are still up in the air as far as I can tell.

The quacking and walking have finally led to the identification that it is in fact a duck!

Why is it that Facebook had a special French flag filter for the Paris jihad victims, but not the San Bernardino jihad victims?


( I saw this online )

Why not create one???

I am not that bright.

Look Toward the Light.
 

Saw this on my Facebook page. https://www.facebook.com/AvaGardnerM...type=3&theater

Carl, as a former law enforcement officer and you seem to be following this story closely. I've been out all afternoon, but before I left about noon I was watching CNN and one of their reporters was going into the terrorist apartment. They said it was released by the FBI and the landlord had given CNN permission first to enter.

The reporter was making note of the many items spread out on the bed that apparently the FBI had looked over. What was somewhat puzzling was the CNN studio expert said he is surprised there is no fingerprint powder anywhere in the place. They scanned the camera around and it didn't appear to have been dusted. He said he was shocked, because they should want to know who else had been there. Also, he was surprised it had been released back to the landlord so quickly, he said normally they will pay the rent and keep the place as long as it's needed in case they need to return, if and when new information comes to light. What's your take on all of this? Any other experts hear anything else?

I heard on news that MSNBC or Inside Edition paid the landlord to be the first in. Then everyone else stormed in with cameras etc. Heard the SB Police and FBI were livid the 'crime scene' was compromised. If that's the case?????? Why was there not a guard posted or such - very confusing. Good news is the bad guys are dead - so no jury trial issues - but you're right - other's fingerprints.

Also heard on news from the family's attorney - news conf this afternoon. The Mother of the bad guy lived with the couple - after answering a question 'When the 6mo old was dropped off for babysitting that morning...." That's when they offered Mom lived there and apparently was questioned for 7hrs by FBI - knew nothing (Sgt Schultz)... sounds stinky...

The press moved in like a flock of vultures.
Why do I need to see a picture of a crib?

If Obama doesn't wake up to the fact that our biggest threat is Isis and not global warming then these terrorist strikes will continue.

That Peaceful religion strikes again.

He is fully awake and knows that. It's a matter of wanting and leading the nation to:

a) be united and to prosper together; or

b) be divided and destroyed in another civil and/or world war.

I don't see interest in, nor leadership toward, choice a).

:(

Presumably this holds true for the Christian Crusades, the cry of which was "Kill them all. God will know his own!" The "all" were primarily Muslims.

Is it any wonder that the jihadists refer to Westerners as "crusaders" in their social media messages? Is it possible that memories like this just don't go away?

Just sayin' (that is, not intending this point as justification...).

Gracie girl's statement, "Religion, any religion is wrong if it kills" is stated in the present tense, not 1,000 years ago!

Blaming the victims of attack instead of the attackers is pretty small.

I repeat:

There is no "blaming the victims" in what I wrote, no "justification" (quoting myself).

Again, "just sayin'...."

FBI Professionals
 

I believe that the Search Warrant on the house was served by the FBI. I'm sure they sent in several Crime Scene Technicians to facilitate getting the search completed more quickly. I'm confident that they were quite thorough.

At the point where they executed the Search Warrant "Return" which lists the evidence items seized, they released the location back to the owner. This is customary.

A significant issue is the "probable cause" for the search warrant. It was probably to obtain evidence that the suspects who were killed in the police chase were the residents of the house and had the means to commit the crime of murder. That doesn't mean that they can search for "just anything," but rather for evidence that links the suspects to the crime of murder that they were "suspected" of having committed. Remember that at this early stage no one was willing to use the word "terrorist."

The items on the bed that the searchers had "apparently looked over" must not have had value related to the investigation. Since it was not a terrorist investigation, there were limits on how thorough the search could be.

The "strange men" who came on the property went to the garage, where much of the bomb material was found. Perhaps that area was dusted for fingerprints.

The media is full of "experts" who frequently talk through their hats. These are also the people who don't seem to know the difference between "automatic" firearms and "semi-automatic" firearms, or the difference between "clips" and "magazines." That doesn't keep them from spouting off.

Having said all that, the family of the deceased might have a good civil lawsuit against the owner of the property for allowing the press into the house if the rent was still paid up to date, violating the privacy of the six-month old child and the mother of the shooter, who also resided in the house.

History
 

Originally Posted by graciegirl
... Religion, any religion is wrong if it kills.

Two things:

1. Graciegirl overlooks the Roman Catholic doctrine of the just (as opposed to unjust) war. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraphs 2302-2317, authoritatively teaches what constitutes the just defense of a nation against an aggressor.

Called the Just War Doctrine, it was first enunciated by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). Over the centuries it was taught by Doctors of the Church, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and formally embraced by the Magisterium, which has also adapted it to the situation of modern warfare. This doctrine is generally observed by non-Catholic groups as well.

2. People who believe that Muslims have some justification for thinking that modern killing of Christians has some relationship to the Crusades do not understand the history of the Crusades.

The Crusades were the Christian push-back against Muslim expansionism, which had spread the Muslim religion BY THE SWORD across all of North Africa on the south side of the Mediterranean Sea and across the north shore of the Mediterranean all the way to Spain. (That's why Spain has so much "Moorish" architecture.)

If this push-back had not been mounted, all of Europe would be Muslim today. The Muslims, not the Crusaders, were the aggressors.

Just War Theory | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

You may want to look at this on the Just War in Philosophy.

You are completely and absolutely right.


I am more concerned however with what is happening today and in today's world. I am more concerned with people who are not concerned with what is happening today in today's world. The civil war and the crusades are gone. We have the folks who live on this earth at this time doing things that are far from fair or justified.


I do NOT believe both of those people were mentally ill and I don't think it was work place violence. I think that there exists a growing new form to a religion that thinks folks who don't belong to it should die.

Loretta Lynch
 

In the wake of this terrorist massacre, our Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in speaking to the muslim community, has vowed to "crack down on free speech, if necessary", in order to forestall any "anti-muslim backlash", which she described as her "greatest fear." This is our government's response to terrorism on American soil.

So much for the victims...so much for the Christians and Jews...so much for our Constitutional rights.

I can see it getting way out of hand. Especially with the 2016 elections coming up.

I do read a lot of history and some of the worst moments in our history come from fear and bigotry fueled by politicians trying to get votes or somehow increase their power base. Bridge of Spies teaches some very good lessons about this. Movies can teach respect for our US Constitution and the values it has. A lot of the Founder Fathers worried about politicians who did not have enough checks-and-balances on them. They had read a lot of Roman history which is full of politicians misusing the passions of people.

No two victims feel the same about stuff so I do not think anyone speaks for them. They should be able to speak for themselves though. If a politician starts speaking for the victims, I get very suspicious of his or her motives.

-----------------------

I heard her say this too. Immediately went to the bathroom to get my earwax removal kit and flushed. Was sure THIS could not have been said in public by her...but no wax...

It's like Bizzaro World in the White House communications - everything's 180 degrees out of synch. Guess we'd better watch our language and follow their PC rule. Don't want the Fed Hate Police to lock us up = 1984.

I doubt if she would use the government to come after someone saying something nasty about Muslims on Facebook, TOTV, or elsewhere. She seems to be talking about certain politicians who use hateful rhetoric to stir up their voting base. These people make things worse with respect to preventing further violence. They are often very dishonest in what they say too.

Some might find this interesting-- https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...bout-Just-War/

----------------------------

We'll simply allow her words in quotes to stand for themselves. BUT - if WE 'see something-say something'.... WE may be prosecuted. And what does "edges towards violence" mean? Gray and murky talk for an ATTY GEN.

As for that term - what about the Imans that preach hate toward US citizens in Mosques ON OUR SHORES. IS THAT THE SAME???
As I said BIZARRO.

her words:

The day after a horrific shooting spree by what appears to be a radicalized Muslim man and his partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a Muslim advocacy and lobbying group that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used "anti-Muslim rhetoric" that "edges toward violence."

Speaking to the audience at the Muslim Advocates' 10th anniversary dinner Thursday, Lynch said her "greatest fear" is the "incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric" in America and vowed to prosecute any guilty of what she deemed violence-inspiring speech.

"Now obviously this is a country that is based on free speech, but when it edges towards violence, when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric—or, as we saw after 9/11, violence directed at individuals who may not even be Muslims but perceived to be Muslims, and they will suffer just as much—when we see that we will take action," said Lynch.

After touting the numbers of "investigations into acts of anti-Muslim hatred" and "bigoted actions" against Muslims launched by her DOJ, Lynch suggested the Constitution does not protect "actions predicated on violent talk" and pledged to prosecute those responsible for such actions.

“I think it’s important that as we again talk about the importance of free speech we make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not America," said Lynch. "They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted."

Assuring the pro-Muslim group that "we stand with you," Lynch said she would use her Justice Department to protect Muslims from "violence" and discrimination.

[QUOTE=Justus;1154687]In the wake of this terrorist massacre, our Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in speaking to the muslim community, has vowed to "crack down on free speech, if necessary", in order to forestall any "anti-muslim backlash", which she described as her "greatest fear." This is our government's response to terrorism on American soil.

So much for the victims...so much for the Christians and Jews...so much for our Constitutional rights.[/QUOTE]

Does that apply to the "press" invading that apartment?

What is she going to do to all those who speak and direct violence toward policemen

This is all factually (and historically) correct and verifiable:

In 732 A.D., the Muslim Army, which was moving on Paris, was defeated and turned back at Tours, France, by Charles Martell. (Charlemagne)

In 1571 A.D., the Muslim Army/Navy was defeated by the Italians and Austrians as they tried to cross the Mediterranean to attack southern Europe in the Battle of Lepanto.

In 1683 A.D., the Turkish Muslim Army, attacking Eastern Europe, was finally defeated in the Battle of Vienna by German and Polish Christian Armies.

If these battles had not been won, we might be speaking Arabic and Christianity could be non-existent; Judaism certainly would not exist.


Do you remember?:

1. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by a Muslim male.

2. In 1972, at the Munich Olympics, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and massacred by Muslim males.

3. In 1972, a PanAm 747 was hijacked and eventually diverted to Cairo where a fuse was lit on final approach. Shortly after landing it was blown up by Muslim males.

4. In 1973, a PanAm 707 was destroyed in Rome, with 33 people killed, when it was attacked with grenades by Muslim males.

5. In 1979, the US embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim males.

6. During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim males.

7. In 1983, the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim males.

8. In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70-year old Jewish American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by Muslim males.

9. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a US Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by Muslim males.

10. In 1988, PanAm Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim males.

11. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim males.

12. In 1998, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim males.

13. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked; two were used as missiles to take down the World Trade Centers and of the remaining two, one crashed into the US Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by Muslim males.

14. In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim males.

15. In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded by - you guessed it - a Muslim male. (Plus two other American journalists were just recently beheaded).

16. In 2013, the Boston Marathon Bombing resulted in 4 Innocent people, including a child, being killed plus 264 people injured by Muslim males.

Radicalized Muslim males and some females did these things for the most part. Islam is one of the largest religions in the world with most adherents being peaceful. At War With Whom?: A short history of radical Islam :: Middle East Forum

GoodTimesInTV, Sadly, I believe you're right, which brings back the phrase, "...and then they came for me."

I'd be "peaceful" and keep my mouth shut, too, if I were a gay man not wanting to be hurled off a rooftop so that according to the Sharia Court, my 'sins would be cleansed'.

Islam: Governing Under Sharia


"Sharia, or Islamic law, influences the legal code in most Muslim countries. A movement to allow sharia to govern personal status law, a set of regulations that pertain to marriage, divorce, inheritance, and custody, is even expanding into the West...

...Some interpretations are used to justify cruel punishments such as amputation and stoning, as well as unequal treatment of women in inheritance, dress, and independence."

Islam: Governing Under Sharia - Council on Foreign Relations

History is certainly subject to interpretation. However, to keep it simple, what would be the explanation that there still exist today Crusader fortifications built hundreds of years ago in places that would not be associated with Christianity during the time of the Crusades--such places as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and more.

The "kill them all!" applied not solely to Muslims; it applied to everyone who did not accept the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church. In this context, consider the Inquisition in Catholic countries like Spain and Portugal, which I would think we're all familiar with. And though not directly related to this issue, consider the response of the Roman Catholic Church to the Cathars (fellow Christians who felt the true principles of Christianity were being compromised by the Church, sought to separate themselves from it, and were followed and massacred by the armies of the Church because of their beliefs).

History cannot be viewed in such black-and-white terms. History--especially when forgotten or, worse, never learned--has a way of coming back to haunt us. We cannot glibly say that one side is the aggressor, not the other, when there are so many other factors to consider, for example, colonialism (France "owning" Algeria, for one, and its results in the present); and rule by individual despotic dictators that did result in a semblance of stability, even if were not what we in the West would consider ideal or even acceptable (Marshal Tito in the "made-up country" of Yugoslavia, Saddam Hussein in Iraq after the whole Middle East had been carved up into so-called "countries" mainly by the British from the Ottoman Empire early in the 20th century). These are just two examples.

Again, I reiterate that I am not justifying today's jihadism but just considering what might be one (of many) possible reasons for it.

...And they all read and recite the Quran faithfully, which iterates and reiterates, "Kill the infidels". We are the infidels. Islam means "submission". No slur. Just fact.

I believe there is always an attempt to try to analyze and apply logic to what is essentially an illogical situation. That is one of the problems we have in the west.

I doubt she cares any more than her predecessor did.