Featured If you believe the SoCal shootings were work place violence, raise your hand!

The FBI is investigating several possible motives, including workplace violence and terrorism, said David Bowdich, assistant director of the bureau's Los Angeles office, adding that terrorism is "a possibility, but we do not know that yet."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...t-we-know-now-latest-facts-thursday/76712186/

One of the perps worked for five years for the company that was having the Christmas party. He was at a work related function. He left the work function and came back and shot co-workers.

How do these facts preclude it being a work related shooting?

 

So what. No evidence has been presented that he had a beef with anybody at work or with his place of employment.

It's far more likely that he just decided this would make a nice easy target and now was a good time, so he left to get his wife, guns and already prepared explosive devices, and returned quickly to do the deed. His wife had already left the baby with a sitter so she was ready to go. Planned from the get go.

 

It smells like terrorism to me, too. But there are none of the classic trappings of terroristic acts--no yelling of Allah Akbar, no rambling note praising Islam and denouncing the West, no videos, etc. left for authorities to find.

The guy was at an employee award program. Maybe he didn't win an award he thought he was supposed to receive and had the whole thing planned on that contingency.

We just don't know.

 

So you think he had explosives prepared, guns ready and baby at a sitters because he thought he might not get an award he deserved and would come back and kill a bunch of people if he didn't?

You may not know. People that have looked reasonably at the evidence, do know.

 

It fits the scenario. Why would he attend the award ceremony, then leave, then come back? If it was going to be an act of terror and he had planned out to kill his co-workers at this event, why even attend it to begin with? Why not skip work, then show up and start shooting?

 

No. It doesn't. Not even a little.

 

You know what that is the first time I have ever seen you go that far. Shame on you. I thought better of you. Disappointed.

 

Trying to figure out every scenario in which a terrorist would act is above your pay grade. You need to find your station on this issue and relax. You do not have any idea what you are talking about.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/s...ivity-for-fear-of-being-labeled-racist-video/

 

Notice I didn't say "racial prejudice", I said prejudiced, Meaning a predisposition to believe in a certain way.

 

Notice what you did there? You have already decided in your mind that this was a terrorist act.

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence, Swami.

 

Your darn right I did. He has been in communication with other known terrorists, he just returned from Saudi, his neighbors were already suspicious of him, he is a Muslim who went in with bombs and guns for the sole purpose of slaughtering people. Absolutely I have decided that.

I have none. Have you ever received any military training on terrorism or anything even closely related? Why should anyone care about all the poor little scenarios you can play in your head to try to prove it is not terrorists. Cuz that is what it looks like your doing.

 

"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (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; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
  
  https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

Now wouldn't an act of terrorism, domestic or otherwise, have to have in it a component to affect the conduct of a government?

Terrorists don't in general target folks they know because it usually will be deemed something else. They want to instill fear in a populace and I'm not sure you get that in targeting folks you work with. It seems to be up there with post men going crazy at work.

 

And you don't believe this act is already affecting the conduct of government? When the Obama administration is forced to admit this was terrorism, some things will change in a hurry. Although he will never admit it had anything to do with islam, every American will know he's delusional. Thus, the fervent wish to label it some sort of workplace violence.

Islamic terrorists do, in fact, kill for the sake of killing. By targeting people who could be considered friends, it shows the killer's dedication to their cause and sends the message that no one is safe. Even your friends and people you work with will kill you . It's the will of allah.

 

ITL - thanks for posting the links.

RD2 - You were, in fact, correct that someone would play this off as workplace violence. Please accept my sincere apologies.

 

My links were from mid-morning news reports. Up until this morning the workplace violence angle had not been officially put forth.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

Okay, pardon my ignorance here, but what exactly is "workplace violence" anyways? I know the fed called Fort Hood that but I take it to mean an attack on the place where you work, aimed at other employees. It follows that "workplace violence" could be terrorism, Islamic or domestic so why do they say "an incident of workplace violence or terrorism"? They are not mutually exclusive terms, although "workplace violence" is one heck of a euphemism. I think SB was both.

 

I don't know if you remember the term "going postal" from a few years back, but disgruntled(for one reason or another) postal employees went to their place of employment and shot some people. It was a completely job related killing. Had zero to do with anything else. They weren't making a statement. They were just angry because things didn't go their way. That's workplace violence.

 

i didn't say that it didn't considering the things that have recently happened. But the FBI uses what they consider to be a legal definition of terrorism. I don't know from the details we have that anybody can say that their intent was to influence or affect the way the government operates.

When he speaks too early , y'all complain. When he doesn't speak soon enough, y'all complain.

You're speculating.