• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

San Bernardino shooting: Attacker pledged allegiance to ISIS, officials say

Status
Not open for further replies.

Calamari41

41 > 38
There's a difference than between expressing your allegiance for ISIS, and actually being a part of the organization.

I don't see much of a difference. ISIS has put out calls for people to take action wherever they are and however they can. At this point, it's kind of beyond ISIS and that doesn't make this somehow better or easier to deal with.
 

richiek

steals Justin Bieber DVDs
I'm wondering if this will finally budge Republicans into passing gun control legislation now that's it's been determined that ISIS is involved.

Probably not, if the NRA has any say.
 

LTWood12

Member
I don't think ISIS will endorse an attack on a facility treating people with disabilities. If for no other reason than the bad PR.

edit: also, do we know if any of the individuals killed were muslim?
 

RPGCrazied

Member
I'm wondering if this will finally budge Republicans into passing gun control legislation now that's it's been determined that ISIS is involved.

Probably not, if the NRA has any say.

They just passed a vote to not block people on a terror watchlist to attain a gun. Like what the hell?
 
"The female suspect in the California gun attack pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State (IS) group on Facebook, US media reported. Tashfeen Malik made the post under an account with a different name, US officials are quoted as saying."

"At this point we believe they were more self-radicalised and inspired by the group than actually told to do the shooting," the newspaper quoted an official as saying.

via BBC

So yeah, from what is known it can't be called an ISIS attack in itself. Neither has ISIS taken credit for it so there's no direct connection. She was obviously influenced by ISIS but it's not an attack orchestrated by ISIS itself but since ISIS calls for these attacks to be done by those living in the west, it can be argued to some extent it is.
 
There's a difference than between expressing your allegiance for ISIS, and actually being a part of the organization.

What is this . . . if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you're part of ISIS. Particularly if you and your radicalized wife stockpile assault weapons, bombs and handguns, are in contact with other known ISIS members, and then execute a coordinated attack killing 14 people.

Besides all of that, I'd love to know the criteria for being considered a member of the organization.
 
I'm wondering if this will finally budge Republicans into passing gun control legislation now that's it's been determined that ISIS is involved.

Probably not, if the NRA has any say.

At this point the only thing the GOP says it wants to do about terrorism is round up innocent Muslims and harass the shit out of them while looking the other way on reckless gun violence.
 

ColdPizza

Banned
I don't think ISIS will endorse an attack on a facility treating people with disabilities. If for no other reason than the bad PR.

I was thinking they wouldn't endorse an attack in which the attackers fled the site. They would have wanted them to stay and incur more damage.
 

Calamari41

41 > 38
I don't think ISIS will endorse an attack on a facility treating people with disabilities. If for no other reason than the bad PR.

Is this a joke? ISIS and ISIS-affiliated groups use disabled children as suicide bombers according to UN reports.
 

Bunta

Fujiwara Tofu Shop
I don't think ISIS will endorse an attack on a facility treating people with disabilities. If for no other reason than the bad PR.

edit: also, do we know if any of the individuals killed were muslim?

Huh? This is ISIS we're talking about...
 
I'm wondering if this will finally budge Republicans into passing gun control legislation now that's it's been determined that ISIS is involved.

Probably not, if the NRA has any say.

You think tougher U.S. gun laws will make it harder for ISIS to arm cells with weapons that can kill people?
 

Downhome

Member
I'm not sure they planned this with ISIS or if they just were sympathizers for them.....

Either way, it doesn't matter. Like I said in the other thread...

Next up people will say this still isn't a huge deal because it may not have been directly ORDERED by ISIS.

That doesn't matter, it doesn't matter at all. In a way, even if they had a physical hand in it or not, they were technically ordered to do this. They have asked people in countries all around the world, any who take up for their cause, to carry out acts of violence just like this.
 

Chariot

Member
Yeah, 'he pledged to ISIS' doesn't mean that ISIS did even know about him. This is another terrifying thing. People being inspired by ISIS. It's worse because single operating terrorists are more difficult to catch than networks and people who regularly are in contact with them. And in a country like the USA where everyone can get weapons without question this is very very dangerous.
 

entremet

Member
When the meme of Jihadism is no longer around. So, uhh... Not soon.



ISIS wants to kill you whether you bomb them or not.

Oh, I know. That's why I would focus more on homeland defense than going into their territories guns blazing.
 
What is this . . . if you pledge allegiance to ISIS, you're part of ISIS. Particularly if you and your radicalized wife stockpile assault weapons, bombs and handguns, are in contact with other known ISIS members, and then execute a coordinated attack killing 14 people.

Besides all of that, I'd love to know the criteria for being considered a member of the organization.

I don't believe that has been confirmed yet, has it? The furthest I've seen anyone go is to say that they had brief - non-concerning, as far as I can tell - contact with at least someone on a watch list.
 

Downhome

Member
Yeah, 'he pledged to ISIS' doesn't mean that ISIS did even know about him. This is another terrifying thing. People being inspired by ISIS. It's worse because single operating terrorists are more difficult to catch than networks and people who regularly are in contact with them. And in a country like the USA where everyone can get weapons without question this is very very dangerous.

Not to mention that ISIS has at least publicly praised them already. I think the fact that they said "the three lions" or whatever it was is enough to say they didn't directly order it, but instead were happy about it happening and following the previous orders calling on folks to do things like this. They took the number "3" like everyone else because it was in the news, otherwise they would have known it was just two.

Also, if anything, this will make people stand more strongly FOR the Second Amendment considering that this is more along the lines of what it's actually meant to be for, and not just anyone being able to have guns just for the hell of it. If anything this will cause it to be LESS likely for gun control to be strengthened.
 
"The female suspect in the California gun attack pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State (IS) group on Facebook, US media reported. Tashfeen Malik made the post under an account with a different name, US officials are quoted as saying."

"At this point we believe they were more self-radicalised and inspired by the group than actually told to do the shooting," the newspaper quoted an official as saying.

via BBC

So yeah, from what is known it can't be called an ISIS attack in itself.

basically ISIS then

the only reason they would have needed to reach out to ISIS would have been for supplies to get the job done--but they were capable enough
 

cackhyena

Member
I don't think ISIS will endorse an attack on a facility treating people with disabilities. If for no other reason than the bad PR.

edit: also, do we know if any of the individuals killed were muslim?

Tell me my sarcasm detector is on the fritz...
 

RPGCrazied

Member
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1150455&highlight=

In one of a series of near-party-line procedural votes, the Senate by 54-45 blocked a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would have stopped people on the government’s anti-terrorist “no fly” list from buying guns. Republican opponents said that the no-fly list includes too many errors to be used for preventing gun sales. By 50-48 the chamber also blocked a measure by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to tighten the background-check system.

All Republicans voted to block the Feinstein measure except for Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, who faces a difficult reelection campaign next year in a heavily Democratic state. On the background-check measure, Kirk, Toomey and Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine voted with the Democrats.

On both measures, all Democrats were in favor except for Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who voted no, and Sen. Mark Warner of Virgina, who did not vote. A spokesman for Warner said he was unable to vote because of a prior commitment but would have supported both measures.
 

Arkeband

Banned
I'm wondering if this will finally budge Republicans into passing gun control legislation now that's it's been determined that ISIS is involved.

Probably not, if the NRA has any say.

No. It has increased islamophobia, with police chiefs releasing "public service announcements" for all civilians to buy guns and arm themselves, and the right wing calling for increased profiling of brown people and scarf enthusiasts.
 

2700

Unconfirmed Member
When I heard his wife was from Saudi Arabia and he just came from there, I had a bad feeling.

But we keep supporting SA and giving them money, so...
His wife was Pakistani and he went to Saudi Arabia to do umrah. Just visiting Saudi Arabia isn't a cause for suspicion, plenty of westerners go to Saudi for work and return to the West to resume their lives.
 

cackhyena

Member
His wife was Pakistani and he went to Saudi Arabia to do umrah. Just visiting Saudi Arabia isn't a cause for suspicion, plenty of westerners go to Saudi for work and return to the West to resume their lives.

Pretty sure future travelers will be looked at with more scrutiny after this.
 

Calamari41

41 > 38
His wife was Pakistani and he went to Saudi Arabia to do umrah. Just visiting Saudi Arabia isn't a cause for suspicion, plenty of westerners go to Saudi for work and return to the West to resume their lives.

From the other thread:

Christian Nwadike, who worked with Farook for five years, told CBS that his co-worker had been different since he returned from Saudi Arabia.

"I think he married a terrorist," Nwadike said.

I don't think the act of a random person going there should cause suspicion, but learning that someone who just carried out a military-style attack on a soft target did should indeed cause suspicion.
 

Henkka

Banned
Oh, I know. That's why I would focus more on homeland defense than going into their territories guns blazing.

I think destroying ISIS' hold in Syria is important. Much of the appeal of ISIS is that they claim to have recreated the caliphate. If that is taken away from them, they lose their credibility.
 

newjeruse

Member
Did ISIS claim the attack? If not, I don't believe they are related. ISIS would brag themselves about it.
No, but that makes it more crazy in ways. If people with no connection to ISIS start committing atrocities in their name, it's going to be almost impossible to prevent these type of attacks.
 
I think anyone can pledge an allegiance to any group but until ISIS officially takes responsibility for it, the 'pledge' doesn't mean much

Still scary stuff
 
I don't believe that has been confirmed yet, has it? The furthest I've seen anyone go is to say that they had brief - non-concerning, as far as I can tell - contact with at least someone on a watch list.

The BBC and CNN are both reporting that the wife was engaging with ISIS on Facebook, albiet under a different name but that doesn't matter. She did.
 
I feel that the best way to combat this would be stopping the spread of the ideology by combating them on social media, television, Al Jazeera, etc. Not necessarily positive messaging, just get them out of the public eye. Drop their websites, remove their propaganda, total blackout. Make them disappear from social media.

Groups like Anonymous have declared war on ISIS. Getting government organizations involved in a support role, working with other countries and these grass-roots "hacker" organizations could start making a dent on recruiting for extremist groups like ISIS and Al Queda, as well as identifying satellite cells, etc.

Prevent them from getting their message out and get their members out in the open. My 2 cents anyway.
 

Schattenjäger

Gabriel Knight
So she seems to be the main villain here...
Wonder if it was her attention to find a weak-minded American that she could mold.. Pretend she loved just to come here and wreck havoc
Chilling if true
 

Downhome

Member
No, but that makes it more crazy in ways. If people with no connection to ISIS start committing atrocities in their name, it's going to be almost impossible to prevent these type of attacks.

Here is how ISIS responded to it...

http://www.westernjournalism.com/is...ernadino-shooting-was-jihadist-attack-on-u-s/

Oh Allah, we are seeing what is happening now in the country of the donkey, Obama. And it is an act of our partisans of the Islamic State. Even if not, we are going to see it very shortly, our brothers.

“We swear to Allah we will take vengeance even if it will take time, as our sheikhs said. The invasion of Paris won’t be the last one. We are coming to slaughter you. This is your fate, you infidels.

It seems that our fighters in America and our lone wolves started to act fulfilling the call of our Sheikh (Abu Mohammad) al-Adnani (Spokesman and senior official of Islamic State). We swear that we will repeat the same act that happened on 9-11. And as we grilled your bodies in Paris we swear to Allah that we will not rest until we shake you in the heart of Washington as well as in all the capitals of the infidels. We will invade Washington before invading Rome. Our explosives are on their way to you, you sons of infidels.

Three lions made us proud. They are still alive. California streets are full with soldiers with heavy weapons.

The Unites States is burning #America_Burning #Takbir
 

ColdPizza

Banned
I feel that the best way to combat this would be stopping the spread of the ideology by combating them on social media, television, Al Jazeera, etc. Not necessarily positive messaging, just get them out of the public eye. Drop their websites, remove their propaganda, total blackout. Make them disappear from social media.

Groups like Anonymous have declared war on ISIS. Getting government organizations involved in a support role, working with other countries and these grass-roots "hacker" organizations could start making a dent on recruiting for extremist groups like ISIS and Al Queda, as well as identifying satellite cells, etc.

Prevent them from getting their message out and get their members out in the open. My 2 cents anyway.

Anonymous is a non-factor here.
 

Kurtofan

Member
Did ISIS claim the attack? If not, I don't believe they are related. ISIS would brag themselves about it.

There are two kinds of ISIS terrorists:

the ones they train in Syria and send to do terrorist attacks (Paris, highly equipped, highly trained)

the ones that self radicalized, do their attacks while pledging.

ISIS will probably brag about those two, but these aren't the kind of attacks they exactly plan, they encourage them.

Remember that hostage crisis in Sydney, the guy was a total nutjob who didn't even have the right flag, yet ISIS used him as a poster boy.
 

Calamari41

41 > 38
Anonymous is a non-factor here.

The only thing they're good for is fodder for useless facebook-shared articles with titles like "Anonymous just declared war on ISIS and that's amazing" and "Anonymous just shut down a bunch of ISIS profiles and I can't even"
 

Chariot

Member
Not to mention that ISIS has at least publicly praised them already. I think the fact that they said "the three lions" or whatever it was is enough to say they didn't directly order it, but instead were happy about it happening and following the previous orders calling on folks to do things like this. They took the number "3" like everyone else because it was in the news, otherwise they would have known it was just two.

Also, if anything, this will make people stand more strongly FOR the Second Amendment considering that this is more along the lines of what it's actually meant to be for, and not just anyone being able to have guns just for the hell of it. If anything this will cause it to be LESS likely for gun control to be strengthened.
Sadly true. So much shit happens and nothing changed.

How could that not pass? I don't get it.
The United States of America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom