Styx
BANNED
- Joined
- May 22, 2015
- Messages
- 1,972
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
and gay is an english word that means "happy"
14 dead in shooting at San Bernardino, Calif., center for disabled; 3 suspects on loose
- Thread starter ArsalanKhan21
- Start date
illusion8
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,232
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
I don't need a detailed answer...Please justify..PA and PAF bombarding jihadi vs others bombarding jihadis in a simple reply.
I have never heard him say this
2ndly most Pakistanis dont take him as any spiritual leaders....
Search on YouTube. .zakir naik interview in a PakistanI channel.
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
sorry what?
2ndly, I dont know a thing about him...I am still trying to figure out how 3 men running from police managed a plastic surgery and 1 ended up becoming a woman
Jihad isnt even an English word so how can it be what you claim it? Coz someone told you so? SO if someone tomorrow tells you that Hinduism's god is ALLAH will you believe it automatically? Or that the india now is to be called Pakistan coz it is to be referred to as Pakistan....
I found it stupid to the core....coz to me it sounds like BS!
You want to put Arabic jihadi than john and jane?
If Jihad is adopted by English to be used for John and Jane than why link it to Islam? its English now ....Jihadi Hindu, Jihadi Christians and Jihadi Jews, makes sense? If not than why Jihadi John and Jane?
Put it up here....I am interested in knowing what new BS is flowing on media
why? @waz @Slav Defence
open invitation to troll or be ignorant?
it is...and gay is an english word that means "happy"
any problems?
Styx
BANNED
- Joined
- May 22, 2015
- Messages
- 1,972
- Reaction score
- -14
- Country
- Location
because of the batshit insane religious mumbo jumbo needlessly swarming and weighing down what is basically a really nice thing someone is trying to do ?
these wahhabis are crazy and beyond help.
just that in today's world 'jihad' means terror ?it is...
jihad al nafs
, jihad al ashgar 
.. good luck explaining it to the world. 
illusion8
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2011
- Messages
- 12,232
- Reaction score
- -20
- Country
- Location
sorry what?
2ndly, I dont know a thing about him...I am still trying to figure out how 3 men running from police managed a plastic surgery and 1 ended up becoming a woman
Jihad isnt even an English word so how can it be what you claim it? Coz someone told you so? SO if someone tomorrow tells you that Hinduism's god is ALLAH will you believe it automatically? Or that the india now is to be called Pakistan coz it is to be referred to as Pakistan....
I found it stupid to the core....coz to me it sounds like BS!
You want to put Arabic jihadi than john and jane?
If Jihad is adopted by English to be used for John and Jane than why link it to Islam? its English now ....Jihadi Hindu, Jihadi Christians and Jihadi Jews, makes sense? If not than why Jihadi John and Jane?
Put it up here....I am interested in knowing what new BS is flowing on media
why? @waz @Slav Defence
open invitation to troll or be ignorant?
it is...
Lol..no..I cannot win an argument with a lady..never have..The wavelengths don't match..
Men are simple beings..significance of jihad or jihadi does not concern men..its the thought behind the action that counts.
Men don't argue about inordinate things. I hope I am not sounding sexist.
As for the video..I am on a slow mobile network..I have seen that video many times. .so search for it..or take my word for it...I will post it here later.
Plastic surgery..3 men?..what's this? Conspiracy theory?..what happened to the jihadi wife's pakistani passport?.
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
It is important to note that Malik's own father accepts his daughter's role in the shootings. How come he is not mentioning the "three white men"?
"The father of San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik on Wednesday said he was saddened by the terror attack and does not know why she took part. "I am in such pain that I cannot even describe it," Gulzar Ahmad Malik told The Associated Press by phone from Jiddah, Saudi Arabia."
'Only God Knows Why': San Bernardino Shooter Tashfeen Malik's Father Condemns Attack - NBC News
The Conspiracy Theorists are BSC obviously.
"The father of San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik on Wednesday said he was saddened by the terror attack and does not know why she took part. "I am in such pain that I cannot even describe it," Gulzar Ahmad Malik told The Associated Press by phone from Jiddah, Saudi Arabia."
'Only God Knows Why': San Bernardino Shooter Tashfeen Malik's Father Condemns Attack - NBC News
The Conspiracy Theorists are BSC obviously.
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
Let me break it down for you....
1) When a French word is borrowed and merged into English, does it change its meaning?
2) tag me when you post
3) There was also a "fake" passport of a refugee in Paris...what does that tell you? Passports now a days are bomb proof like from 9/11....A closed metal tube (airplane) blows up and somehow the passport of the passenger inside the tube is found on the road (unburnt unscratched) while the people in the tube are cooked...NOW THAT sounds like a conspiracy, no?
4) as for the 3 white man...it is a recording from the tv news which (when the shooting was going on) was airing it as "several eye witness" had actually said 3 tall white men and even described the clothing! Now you can call it conspiracy but the truth is those who heard it on the news before a BROWN woman was caught know what they heard!
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...o-americas-defences-against-jihadism-are-high
American jihadists
The home-grown threat
Despite the attack in San Bernardino, America’s defences against jihadism are high
YOU do not need to be Donald Trump to be confused by the massacre Syed Rizwan Farook and his Pakistani wife, Tashfeen Malik, carried out in San Bernardino, California, on December 2nd. The couple responsible for the deadliest act of terrorism in America since 2001 were well-educated, affluent and unknown to the police. Mr Farook earned $70,000 a year as a government inspector; his brother served in the navy. Unlike ne’er-do-well European jihadists, with their uncouth accents and mugged-up theology, the killers were quiet, unremarkable middle-class Muslims.
Their target, a get-together of Mr Farook’s colleagues at a suburban health centre, was so banal investigators at first suspected the massacre of 14 people was a case of workplace rage. Even the fact that the couple turned out to have kept an arsenal at home and practised on gun ranges was only alarming in retrospect. Millions of Americans do the same. A few minutes before going postal, they dropped off their six-month-old daughter with Mr Farook’s mother, claiming to have a doctor’s appointment: Mr Farook and Ms Malik were the jihadists next door.
There are two starkly opposed ways of understanding this banality. The first, exemplified by President Barack Obama, is to find it almost reassuring. In an address from the Oval Office on December 6th he said the attack reflected America’s success in preventing more spectacular terrorist violence. While promising one or two security measures—including checks on the fiancé visa on which Ms Malik entered America—he also urged Americans to see the killing in the context of an already violent society: “As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass-shootings that are all too common.” The best way to foil them, Mr Obama added, was to keep calm and carry on. “Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like [Islamic State] are hoping for.”
The alternative, demonstrated by Mr Trump, is to conclude that, since such Muslim maniacs are hard to detect, all Muslims must be considered suspect. “We have to look at mosques. We have no choice. We have to see what is happening because something is happening in there. Man, is there anger!” mused the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. His solution was a perfect rebuke to Mr Obama: Mr Trump called “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”.
The facts are with the president. Since 9/11, over 400,000 people have been killed by gunfire in America and 45 by jihadist violence, of whom half died in two shootings: one carried out by a Muslim army doctor in Texas in 2009, the other in San Bernardino. France has so far suffered seven fatal jihadist attacks this year, costing 150 lives; America has suffered nine at home in 14 years. And though the government has raised its threat levels, fearing San Bernardino could augur an uptick, that is partly a matter of due diligence. “I see the threat as being relatively consistent since 9/11,” says Raymond Kelly, who served as New York’s police commissioner between 2002 and 2013, and now works for a corporate snooper, K2 Intelligence.
Three things account for America’s relative security. The first is its distance from the Middle East; the second is decent law enforcement, especially by the FBI, which since 2001 has partly turned itself into the internal spy agency America lacked. Its counter-terrorism staff, whose number has grown by 2,000, are investigating links to IS in 50 states. By far the most important reason, however, is that American Muslims are less interested in being radicalised than their European counterparts.
They are richer, better educated and altogether better integrated into the mainstream. Though less than 1% of America’s population, they account for 10% of its doctors; in 2011, less than half said that most of their closest friends were Muslims. Plainly, IS, which has flooded the internet with jihadist propaganda, represents a new test to that moderation. Yet, as a rule, American Muslims are probably less tempted by a genocidal medieval revival act than any others in the West. While more than 5,000 Europeans have joined IS, fewer than 250 Americans are thought to have tried to—of whom, estimates Peter Bergen, author of a forthcoming book on American jihadists, only two dozen succeeded.
This also makes American Muslims unusually likely to report suspected jihadists to the police. According to Mohamed Magid, a Virginia-based imam who has advised the administration on radicalisation, 42% of the jihadist plots rumbled since 2001 were reported by suspicious Muslims. That includes a recent case within his own congregation, in which the parents of a 16-year-old youth, Ali Amin, reported his interest in IS. He was sentenced in August to 11 years in prison after pleading guilty to fund-raising for IS and helping another American teenager, Reza Niknejad, join it. Mr Amin was radicalised online by IS agents in Canada and Britain. “It doesn’t matter where the recruiter is so long as there is internet,” said Mr Magid. “But thank God his parents came forward.”
That is why Mr Trump’s demagoguery, occasioned as much by a bad poll for the blow-hard in Iowa as the massacre in California, is so dangerous, as well as wrong. Americans are lucky. Their defences against jihadism are high. But that is provided Muslims are manning them, which Mr Trump has already made less likely.
At an Islamic Centre in Jersey City, whose large Muslim population Mr Trump had previously accused, mendaciously, of celebrating 9/11, people are rattled. “When we heard about the Paris and California attacks, first thing that comes to our mind is, ‘Oh God, please don’t let it be a Muslim’,” says Ahmed Shedeed, the centre’s president. “The good thing is we look like Latinos,” he adds. Given how Mr Trump once denigrated Mexicans as rapists, that shows how his campaign has moved on.
From the print edition: United States
American jihadists
The home-grown threat
Despite the attack in San Bernardino, America’s defences against jihadism are high
YOU do not need to be Donald Trump to be confused by the massacre Syed Rizwan Farook and his Pakistani wife, Tashfeen Malik, carried out in San Bernardino, California, on December 2nd. The couple responsible for the deadliest act of terrorism in America since 2001 were well-educated, affluent and unknown to the police. Mr Farook earned $70,000 a year as a government inspector; his brother served in the navy. Unlike ne’er-do-well European jihadists, with their uncouth accents and mugged-up theology, the killers were quiet, unremarkable middle-class Muslims.
Their target, a get-together of Mr Farook’s colleagues at a suburban health centre, was so banal investigators at first suspected the massacre of 14 people was a case of workplace rage. Even the fact that the couple turned out to have kept an arsenal at home and practised on gun ranges was only alarming in retrospect. Millions of Americans do the same. A few minutes before going postal, they dropped off their six-month-old daughter with Mr Farook’s mother, claiming to have a doctor’s appointment: Mr Farook and Ms Malik were the jihadists next door.
There are two starkly opposed ways of understanding this banality. The first, exemplified by President Barack Obama, is to find it almost reassuring. In an address from the Oval Office on December 6th he said the attack reflected America’s success in preventing more spectacular terrorist violence. While promising one or two security measures—including checks on the fiancé visa on which Ms Malik entered America—he also urged Americans to see the killing in the context of an already violent society: “As we’ve become better at preventing complex, multifaceted attacks like 9/11, terrorists turned to less complicated acts of violence like the mass-shootings that are all too common.” The best way to foil them, Mr Obama added, was to keep calm and carry on. “Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like [Islamic State] are hoping for.”
The alternative, demonstrated by Mr Trump, is to conclude that, since such Muslim maniacs are hard to detect, all Muslims must be considered suspect. “We have to look at mosques. We have no choice. We have to see what is happening because something is happening in there. Man, is there anger!” mused the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination. His solution was a perfect rebuke to Mr Obama: Mr Trump called “for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”.
The facts are with the president. Since 9/11, over 400,000 people have been killed by gunfire in America and 45 by jihadist violence, of whom half died in two shootings: one carried out by a Muslim army doctor in Texas in 2009, the other in San Bernardino. France has so far suffered seven fatal jihadist attacks this year, costing 150 lives; America has suffered nine at home in 14 years. And though the government has raised its threat levels, fearing San Bernardino could augur an uptick, that is partly a matter of due diligence. “I see the threat as being relatively consistent since 9/11,” says Raymond Kelly, who served as New York’s police commissioner between 2002 and 2013, and now works for a corporate snooper, K2 Intelligence.
Three things account for America’s relative security. The first is its distance from the Middle East; the second is decent law enforcement, especially by the FBI, which since 2001 has partly turned itself into the internal spy agency America lacked. Its counter-terrorism staff, whose number has grown by 2,000, are investigating links to IS in 50 states. By far the most important reason, however, is that American Muslims are less interested in being radicalised than their European counterparts.
They are richer, better educated and altogether better integrated into the mainstream. Though less than 1% of America’s population, they account for 10% of its doctors; in 2011, less than half said that most of their closest friends were Muslims. Plainly, IS, which has flooded the internet with jihadist propaganda, represents a new test to that moderation. Yet, as a rule, American Muslims are probably less tempted by a genocidal medieval revival act than any others in the West. While more than 5,000 Europeans have joined IS, fewer than 250 Americans are thought to have tried to—of whom, estimates Peter Bergen, author of a forthcoming book on American jihadists, only two dozen succeeded.
This also makes American Muslims unusually likely to report suspected jihadists to the police. According to Mohamed Magid, a Virginia-based imam who has advised the administration on radicalisation, 42% of the jihadist plots rumbled since 2001 were reported by suspicious Muslims. That includes a recent case within his own congregation, in which the parents of a 16-year-old youth, Ali Amin, reported his interest in IS. He was sentenced in August to 11 years in prison after pleading guilty to fund-raising for IS and helping another American teenager, Reza Niknejad, join it. Mr Amin was radicalised online by IS agents in Canada and Britain. “It doesn’t matter where the recruiter is so long as there is internet,” said Mr Magid. “But thank God his parents came forward.”
That is why Mr Trump’s demagoguery, occasioned as much by a bad poll for the blow-hard in Iowa as the massacre in California, is so dangerous, as well as wrong. Americans are lucky. Their defences against jihadism are high. But that is provided Muslims are manning them, which Mr Trump has already made less likely.
At an Islamic Centre in Jersey City, whose large Muslim population Mr Trump had previously accused, mendaciously, of celebrating 9/11, people are rattled. “When we heard about the Paris and California attacks, first thing that comes to our mind is, ‘Oh God, please don’t let it be a Muslim’,” says Ahmed Shedeed, the centre’s president. “The good thing is we look like Latinos,” he adds. Given how Mr Trump once denigrated Mexicans as rapists, that shows how his campaign has moved on.
From the print edition: United States
Vassnti
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,167
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
2ndly, I dont know a thing about him...I am still trying to figure out how 3 men running from police managed a plastic surgery and 1 ended up becoming a woman
Short answer because people are idiots. Eye witnesses have identified black guys as the perpetrator when the actual criminal was white, male female in body armor is an easy mistake to make.
Long version:
Reconstructing MemoriesThe uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording. Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witnesss testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.
Many researchers have created false memories in normal individuals; what is more, many of these subjects are certain that the memories are real. In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subjects parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies.
Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts - Scientific American#
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
So insisting eye witness is lying:
Eyewitness to San Bernardino Terror Attack Still Says ‘three tall white men did it’ | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
Third eyewitness to San Bernardino shooting says it wasn't Sayd Farook.
Third Eyewitness To San Bernardino Shooting Says It Wasn't 'Terror Couple' Who Carried Out Attack - Counter Current News
the people who carried out the attack were very athletic, large, Caucasian men, who were three – not two – in number. Farook’s wife, it should be remembered weighed approximately 90lbs.
Third Eyewitness To San Bernardino Shooting Says It Wasn’t ‘Terror Couple’ Who Carried Out Attack » Infowars Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
San Bernardino Shooting Witnesses Claim 3 White Men, Not The Muslim ‘Terror Couple’, Carried Out The Attacks AnonHQ
Eyewitnesses insist ’3 shooters’ in San Bernardino
Well this video doesnt run nor tdoes the page load anymore...It was loading before (dont remember when): http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/sur...ness-account-san-bernardino-shooting-35647312
Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
He isn't adamant about him not being the shooter. He just says he is shocked that it was him since he was such a quiet person.
Last edited:
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
The family knows it was the two of them who did it. Funny on how some choose to ignore the facts as a sign of their deranged thinking, just like when OBL was killed and his wives attested to it.
Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
Funny how some educated people portray questioning anything they cant reply to or refuse to believe of think down the path of thinking beyond what is fed to them (questioning is the very basis of learning) as something wrong ...To me it sounds VERY similar to the Mullahs who send you to hell for asking ANY questions which they either dont know or cant phantom as thinking out of the box
RIP literate educated people!
VCheng
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2010
- Messages
- 48,460
- Reaction score
- 57
- Country
- Location
Apparently, the cost of mounting the terror attack by Syed and Malik was below $5k:
The Price of Terror? About $4500 - NBC News
"How much does it cost to kill 14 people and terrorize a city?
About $4,500, according to an NBC News analysis of the pre-tax cost of the guns and explosives assembled by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik for their attack on an office holiday party in San Bernardino, California on Wednesday, Dec. 2.
In addition to a low cost, the ingredients also proved very easy to gather on short notice. It took just two hours and stops at three chain stores not far from the scene of the attack to buy the parts for remote-controlled bombs similar to those that Farook and Malik assembled in their garage bomb factory.
We found that four remote-controlled cars cost less than $300 before taxes at a chain store, while we spent about $550 on galvanized pipe. Four pounds of explosive powder, which required us to show a driver's license and fill out a form, ran just over $100. With Christmas tree lights and a few additional items, the total cost for bomb parts came to $959.45. (Computing the cost of the same items on-line yielded much cheaper pipes and more expensive powder, and came out to about $800.)
We then went shopping for the most expensive items on the list, the guns and ammo the couple used to murder Farook's fellow San Bernardino County government employees. At a Riverside, California gun store, we priced two assault-style rifles and two 9mm handguns like those carried by Farook and Malik. The handguns were $725, the assault-style rifles were $1450. Malik and Farook had assembled 1700 rounds of 9mm and .223 ammunition, which would have cost just under $600. The total price for the guns and ammo: Less than $3000.
The last item on the shopping list was the rental of an SUV like that Malik and Farook drove to the scene of the massacre, and in which they died not far from their Redlands home in a shootout with police. A two-day SUV rental would run about $440, bringing the total cost of the ingredients in the terror plan to about $4500."
The Price of Terror? About $4500 - NBC News
"How much does it cost to kill 14 people and terrorize a city?
About $4,500, according to an NBC News analysis of the pre-tax cost of the guns and explosives assembled by Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik for their attack on an office holiday party in San Bernardino, California on Wednesday, Dec. 2.
In addition to a low cost, the ingredients also proved very easy to gather on short notice. It took just two hours and stops at three chain stores not far from the scene of the attack to buy the parts for remote-controlled bombs similar to those that Farook and Malik assembled in their garage bomb factory.
We found that four remote-controlled cars cost less than $300 before taxes at a chain store, while we spent about $550 on galvanized pipe. Four pounds of explosive powder, which required us to show a driver's license and fill out a form, ran just over $100. With Christmas tree lights and a few additional items, the total cost for bomb parts came to $959.45. (Computing the cost of the same items on-line yielded much cheaper pipes and more expensive powder, and came out to about $800.)
We then went shopping for the most expensive items on the list, the guns and ammo the couple used to murder Farook's fellow San Bernardino County government employees. At a Riverside, California gun store, we priced two assault-style rifles and two 9mm handguns like those carried by Farook and Malik. The handguns were $725, the assault-style rifles were $1450. Malik and Farook had assembled 1700 rounds of 9mm and .223 ammunition, which would have cost just under $600. The total price for the guns and ammo: Less than $3000.
The last item on the shopping list was the rental of an SUV like that Malik and Farook drove to the scene of the massacre, and in which they died not far from their Redlands home in a shootout with police. A two-day SUV rental would run about $440, bringing the total cost of the ingredients in the terror plan to about $4500."
Similar threads
