rigorousintuition.ca

^^Thanks very much, mentalgongfu2. The "injury" should be obvious to everyone. I hope the family's two lawyers will do just what you suggest, and that they will stay on the case honestly, bravely and persistently (and with all necessary wiliness too -- they will need a lot of all those qualities).

They will also need all the support they can get.

Iamwhomiam » 16 Dec 2015 21:02 wrote:That was pretty funny WRex, "He's a little busy, though."

But we also have JLaw, unless he's become burdened with another lawsuit defending an ex-husband from his former wife, who's seeking adequate support for their children.

I've provided this link several times over the years, Mac:
http://www.projectsalam.org/.

If you do contact PS, please do not mention who referred you, as some are still my friends.

You could also write your Ambassador to the US to ask him to share your concerns with the US Ambassador to your country, (Germany? Scotland?), and have him demand said US Ambassador answer all the questions you seek answers to, but you probably shouldn't if you ever want to fly again.

As far as I can tell, this appears to me to be a genuine case, perhaps the very first, of an autonomous, relativistically domestic case of Muslim initiated terrorism. To call it Jihad would be misplaced. I have seen no evidence to convince me otherwise. Ft. Hood could have been another.

Wondering why no one has asked the mother-in-law, who at the time you were asking you thought her mother, whether her dead child was really dead, whether the so-called "dead" daughter-in-law was the size of her daughter, well that seems just a bit too much, at least for me.

I have seen no concern, none for any of the victims, including the so-called dead perpetrators. Read the Maddow piece and re-read this thread, as I have. I'll add more to the SB shooting thread later, to follow-up.

What medicine can possibly keep such a sick puppy well?

Iamwhomiam » 16 Dec 2015 21:47 wrote:Mac, all over again - you got nothin no evidence at all, only second or fifth hand reporting, not even a single bullet casing, yet you know.

This will pass, too. With you, it's like a fever you'll eventually shake off, just like your interest in the source of that photo you felt so very important.

Thanks for the shaming. At this I concede you remain champ.

Doesn't do much to bolster your argument, though.

You are amazing. Please come back when you have more ammunition to blame the currently obviously innocent patsies. Your ammunition, while currently totally missing, won't be long in coming, I'm sure. But please, be certain to dance all over the wrongly accused's graves when the time is right for maintaining both your own credibility as well as that of the US establishment. And not a moment before. Threatcon level 5 noted.

Iamwhomiam » 16 Dec 2015 22:24 wrote:No one here has provided you with what you've asked for, except me. I put you in touch with real live legal advocates who have represented Muslims accused of terrorist crimes in US courts. You're fucking welcome, asshole.

Now the ball's in your court. I'm a man of action who likes to get results; You asked, I produced. What you do now is up to you. I'm tempted to ask PS in a week or two if they've heard from you. The?re is no better source I know of with a record of providing such representation.

Wow, you are so AMAZING! Are you by any chance related to Martin Niemöller?

stickdog, I have a far different opinion on this case. I said I believe they did the shooting and that they acted relatively on their own. The only questions I have right now is about the third shooter. That is a curiosity.

You call them "innocent patsies." All the evidence I've seen tells me they are not so innocent. I've blamed no one for anything, although I might in a moment blame you for being obtuse. What the hell is this supposed to mean?

"What medicine can possibly keep such a sick puppy well?"

Cuddly but helpless?
Because I see this horrible shooting far differently than you, I'm a sick puppy beyond all help of any medicine, I take it you mean psychotropic? Because I have a different opinion than you, I'm crazy beyond all hope ill?

I've accused no one of anything except for you guys of imagining "evidence."

Niemöller? Seriously? You think I feel afraid of angry Muslims? I know lots and lots of angry Muslims and in fact shared dinner with one just Monday evening. I just happen to think that Greek coworker keyed this guy to act out there, at his workplace. It does appear they were prepared for more gunfire afterwards. But then, I suppose I'm discounting that the guns were planted and the car was remote controlled.

You guys never admit your errors, you just ignore you've made any, even when the evidence you put forth asserting your claim actually disproves your claim. Tell me, did you think to enlarge the photo before claiming the rear window had not been shot out?

Like how here you claim the rear window is Not shot out, when in fact is most definitely is, as clearly seen in all the photographs.

Regarding the faulty Times reporting: Yes, it was sloppy work. But it might not be more than an intern confusing Malik with her sister, who did have more 'sinister' FB postings long ago.

But why even consider that possibility when we've got such a big bad gummint to blame, right? We all would agree they are that, but not that they are behind every single mass shooting.

Mac asked for a lawyer, & I gave him the best I know of. A simple thanks would have been nice. And you helped him? How? Your critique?

Mac want to see drops of blood, and can't imagine the guy exiting the vehicle and firing off a thirty round clip and every cop ducking their heads to cover their asses, until he exhausts his ammunition and reloads. The large pools of blood being insufficient in sating Mac's desire for more. But that was when Mac was pushing the robot car and the handcuffed corpses already dead inside, waiting to be dragged out by the "heroic' cops. He seems to have let that go. Maybe he's admitted that they drove the vehicle and weren't handcuffed, but he hasn't said he has.

The photo shows him before his corpse was handcuffed and later another explained how Malik exited the car. No acknowledgment of earlier "evidence" consequentially dismissed. No concession of earlier errors in judgment ever being made.

Yeah, stickdog, I'm the guy dancing on graves. You keep on thinking that.

And keep on telling everyone how I support our government. There's far to little of that sort of thing in my extensive FBI file.

Iamwhoiam, thanks for explaining your viewpoint. I wondered about Nicholas Thalasinos' role, too, and will try to sort out that question below.

Iamwhomiam wrote:I just happen to think that Greek coworker keyed this guy to act out there, at his workplace.

One of the early tidbits I heard on radio news was mention of a dispute between the suspect and a co-worker, and that the suspect had inexplicably left the event early; that byte of info fit into a mental picture that made it easy to assume the simplest solution: Farook did it, that stuff happens.

But the trickle of incriminating tidbits seem to emerge exclusively from anonymous leaks or tips phoned in to the police, and at the same time, the leaks and tips contradicted witesses who were there and who described the shooters as three tall males, with at least two witnesses unequivocally stating the three were "white."

All this was duly reported by career journalists who were competing for any scrap they could get, as long as it was from well-placed (but anonymous) "sources." "Sources familiar with the investigation" in many cases probably means SITE. And of course, a few of the reporters repeaters themselves are almost certainly outright agents of one clandestine body or another (John Miller?). Regardless of their intentions, can we trust what they say?

Maybe some accounts concerning the 'angry Farook stormed out of the party' story can shed light on whether an argument (about religion or whatever) constitutes a motivation in the shootings. (I don't know yet, I'm winging this; conclusions, if any, below.)

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/02/559 ... no-shooti/

KPCC Staff December 02 2015

Farook was employed as an environmental specialist with the county for the past five years, Burguan said. He's believed to be the man who left what was described as either a holiday party or a meeting for county public health department employees Wednesday morning held at the Inland Regional Center, before he is thought to have returned with Malik in assault gear and opened fire, leaving 14 dead. Berguan said he initially left the party under circumstances described as angry.

Burguan said the attack appears to have been at least somewhat planned and was not spur-of-the-moment based on an argument at the holiday party that took place earlier in the day.

A former colleague of Farook's, Griselda Reisinger, told the L.A. Times that Farook worked as a food inspector and that he was "very quiet."
. . .

The shooting took place at a holiday party at the Inland Regional Center, Burguan said. At least one person left the party after a dispute. It's not yet clear if the shooting was related to the that incident, Burguan said.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/friend-former-n-j-man-killed-in-san-bernardino-verbally-sparred-with-alleged-shooter-two-weeks-ago-1.1467142

December 3, 2015, 6:08 PM Last updated: Thursday, December 3, 2015, 11:43 PM
By ABBOTT KOLOFF

One of the victims in the San Bernardino massacre is a former New Jersey man who verbally sparred about Israel two weeks ago with a man whom police have identified as one of the shooters, a friend of the victim said Thursday in a telephone interview.
. . .
Stephens said that she heard Farook over the phone talking loudly two weeks ago, but that the tone of the argument seemed passionate rather than threatening. “I can’t get anywhere with him,” Thalasinos said, according to Stephens.
. . .
His wife, Jennifer, a schoolteacher, told the Los Angeles Times. . .that her husband and Farook “got along.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/active-shooter-reported-in-southern-california-1449085770


Police and federal agents in San Bernardino, the Southern California city where the violence occurred around 11 a.m., said the motive for the attack was still unknown.

There were reports that someone may have left the holiday party in anger, then possibly returned, police said. “Somebody did leave but we have no idea if that is the person who came back. There was some type of dispute or something,” Mr. Burguan said.

Based on witness statements, law-enforcement officials suspect one of the perpetrators was at the event, got into an argument, and then returned with at least one other person.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

Officials: Farook appeared to have been radicalized
December 3

Law enforcement sources said it appears Syed Farook was radicalized and the belief contributed to the shooting motivation, though other motivations like workplace grievances could also have played a role. President Barack Obama hinted as much Thursday when he said that the attackers may have had "mixed motives."

A tangent—from that same page: wasn't it a little too convenient that the black SUV arrived at the apartment just as the police did? Fours hours after the shootings? To me that's highly suggestive of a setup:

Officers went with a search warrant to the couple's rented apartment in the neighboring city of Redlands, where they saw a black SUV drive by them, slowly at first, before speeding away.

A police car took up pursuit, and the SUV raced back toward San Bernardino. Then came shots from that vehicle, and a barrage of police gunfire in return.

These remarks from Thalasinos' wife, seems contradictory but so far I can't find any first-hand witness to or description the dispute; when she says "From what I understand from those where there..."—does that mean that those who were there told her about the argument? Or did someone who wasn't there tell her that someone who was there saw it?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/12/04/wife-victims-jewish-faith-didnt-spark-san-bernardino-shootings/76800232/

Thompson-Thalasinos said her husband never spoke ill of his colleague and never expressed that Farook may have had extreme views. She said the two just “agreed to disagree.”

“There are those out there who are spinning this,” she said, adding, “They are making it to be that my husband was asking for it … that he caused this to happen.”

Thompson-Thalasinos said survivors of the party later described to her an argument between her husband and Farook before Farook stormed off, returning heavily armed with his wife.

"From what I understand from those where there, my husband got into an argument with Farook about the Holocaust," she said, adding "That's always been a hot button issue between Muslims and Messianic Jews."

*****

Has anyone seen first-hand witnesses to the argument between Farook and Thalasinos?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooter-victim-islam-20151204-story.html
DECEMBER 4, 2015
. . .

Kuuleme Stephens said she called Thalasinos during his lunch break, and when he picked up the phone she could hear him in conversation with someone else.

The other person was Farook, a fellow health inspector. The men were discussing politics, religion and Islam.

She said Thalasinos told her that "Syed did not believe Islam was not a peaceful religion."

She said it was not unusual for Thalasinos to have spirited discussions with his co-workers about politics and religion. “He always kept the door open for discussion.”

Authorities are now investigating the attack at the social services center as an act of terrorism. But they have also said witnesses reported a tense exchange Wednesday at a holiday luncheon for the county health department before Farook left. . .
. . .
Some conservative news outlets, including Red State and Brietbart, have slammed mainstream outlets for asking Jennifer Thalasinos questions implying that her husband was involved in an encounter that may have set off Farook.

It’s not clear whom Farook argued with before leaving the party.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-san-bernardino-shooting-victims-htmlstory.html

DECEMBER 14, 2015
. . .
Thalasinos said her husband, a health inspector, worked with shooting suspect Syed Rizwan Farook. She said that he was aware Farook was Muslim but had never mentioned that his co-worker had any extreme views. "If he would have ... my husband would have had something to say."

"They got along," she said. "As far as I know, [Syed] got along with everybody. That's what's so shocking."

Thalasinos said she had heard that before the shooting there may have been an argument at the party.

tl;dr: Has anyone seen first-hand witness account of the reported argument at the party between Farook and Thalasinos?

Iamwhomiam » 17 Dec 2015 09:51 wrote:stickdog, I have a far different opinion on this case. I said I believe they did the shooting and that they acted relatively on their own. The only questions I have right now is about the third shooter. That is a curiosity.

You call them "innocent patsies." All the evidence I've seen tells me they are not so innocent. I've blamed no one for anything, although I might in a moment blame you for being obtuse. What the hell is this supposed to mean?

I've accused no one of anything except for you guys of imagining "evidence."

What "evidence" (other than her being Muslim) makes you think the wife riddled her husband's co-workers with bullets for Allah?

Niemöller? Seriously? You think I feel afraid of angry Muslims? I know lots and lots of angry Muslims and in fact shared dinner with one just Monday evening. I just happen to think that Greek coworker keyed this guy to act out there, at his workplace. It does appear they were prepared for more gunfire afterwards. But then, I suppose I'm discounting that the guns were planted and the car was remote controlled.

And the fact that the wife had no military training whasoever and not a single witness saw any short, slight female shooter.

And

You guys never admit your errors, you just ignore you've made any, even when the evidence you put forth asserting your claim actually disproves your claim. Tell me, did you think to enlarge the photo before claiming the rear window had not been shot out?

Like how here you claim the rear window is Not shot out, when in fact is most definitely is, as clearly seen in all the photographs.

Which proves what other than you think you found a meaningless error? "See, you said the rear window was not shot out when it was!" So the fuck what? What does that have to do with the fact that you have convicted this couple in your mind without authorities' having produced a shred of evidence against them that is actually presumptive of guilt?

As for the supposed argument Farook had on the day of the shooting, no witnesses saw this and the FBI has already walked back that unnamed source leak.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/06/us/wi ... .html?_r=0

Mr. Farook had arrived with everyone else before 8 a.m. and taken a seat at one of the tables in the back of the room, joining four other workers, including Mr. Nwadike. Mr. Farook was, to everyone who knew him from his five years working for the department, quiet and reserved, engaging in conversation only when colleagues like Mr. Nwadike greeted him good morning.

“He was himself,” Mr. Nwadike said. “He was quiet. He doesn’t laugh — he smiles. He hardly initiates conversation.”

In the hours after the attack, there were some suggestions that Mr. Farook had engaged in an argument with someone at the center, though that does not appear to have been the case. He just left, without warning. “Fight? Syed? No,” Mr. Nwadike said. “I’ve never seen him disagree with anyone.”

http://www.wmur.com/national/san-bernar ... e/36791708

San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan had earlier said there were indications Farook appeared angry when he suddenly left the holiday luncheon at Inland Regional Center, only to return heavily armed with his wife.

But the chief on Friday played down that possibility, saying many people at the holiday party said they saw no evidence of an argument.

stickdog99 wrote:In the hours after the attack, there were some suggestions that Mr. Farook had engaged in an argument with someone at the center, though that does not appear to have been the case. He just left, without warning. “Fight? Syed? No,” Mr. Nwadike said. “I’ve never seen him disagree with anyone.”

I thought I had heard as much somewhere, thank you.

So far, that's the 'social media' "garble," the 'shooting range' rumor, and the curious 'argument at the party' fabrication—all now discredited. What else?

Meanwhile, clear witness reports of three tall white guys are ignored by the media and the FBI (and hence the general public), while the ramblings of a mental hospital patient WHO HAS NO LAWYER are given full credence and now seem to form the critical supporting backstory. Did I mention Marquez HAS NO LAWYER?

Iamwhomiam » Thu Dec 17, 2015 4:51 am wrote:stickdog, I have a far different opinion on this case. I said I believe they did the shooting and that they acted relatively on their own. The only questions I have right now is about the third shooter. That is a curiosity.You call them "innocent patsies." All the evidence I've seen tells me they are not so innocent.

What evidence?

And "not so innocent" -- what a lawyerism!

Your unscrupulousness apparently knows no bounds. You wilfully ignore all the evidence provided to exonerate that dead couple. You wilfully ignore, for example, the fact (already known to you) that no one -- including the 50-60 surviving witnesses from that conference room -- has described the shooters as man-sized and child-sized respectively.

Iamwhomiam wrote:Mac was pushing the robot car and the handcuffed corpses already dead inside, waiting to be dragged out by the "heroic' cops. He seems to have let that go.

That is a lie. I "pushed" no such thing, nor did I even ever say it, so I cannot possibly have "let it go", nor can I even "seem" to.

If you have any evidence to the contrary -- and you don't, for no such evidence exists or has ever existed -- then you will post the link. You will provide evidence for your claims - chapter and verse. Or else you will offer a retraction and an apology. You will not spread any more lies or indulge in any more shabby evasions on this thread, least of all at my expense.

- edited to remove invective, because i am a goddamn saint.

^^Someone else mentioned the possibility of remote control, but I have seen zero evidence that you refuted it, which is absolute proof that you agree!

Bump, for the festering season.

This thread's had well over a thousand views now. I don't believe there are no honest lawyers out there following it. I just believe they are all terrified and therefore hiding.

Re: The argument. I think there were initial reports that he left after an argument, and then later that he just left suddenly. That the Messianic Jew at work argued with someone online...Seriously though, much like "I clearly saw three men with guns" to a man and a five foot nursing mother. You can't misremember an argument so easily can you?

^^Memory can be pretty dodgy.

“I think this is the guy”—The complicated confidence of eyewitness memory

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/12/ ... ss-memory/

Iamwhomiam wrote:stickdog, I have a far different opinion on this case. I said I believe they did the shooting and that they acted relatively on their own. The only questions I have right now is about the third shooter. That is a curiosity.

You call them "innocent patsies." All the evidence I've seen tells me they are not so innocent. I've blamed no one for anything, although I might in a moment blame you for being obtuse. What the hell is this supposed to mean?
"What medicine can possibly keep such a sick puppy well?"
Cuddly but helpless?
Because I see this horrible shooting far differently than you, I'm a sick puppy beyond all help of any medicine, I take it you mean psychotropic? Because I have a different opinion than you, I'm crazy beyond all hope ill?
I've accused no one of anything except for you guys of imagining "evidence."

Niemöller? Seriously? You think I feel afraid of angry Muslims? I know lots and lots of angry Muslims and in fact shared dinner with one just Monday evening. I just happen to think that Greek coworker keyed this guy to act out there, at his workplace. It does appear they were prepared for more gunfire afterwards. But then, I suppose I'm discounting that the guns were planted and the car was remote controlled.
You guys never admit your errors, you just ignore you've made any, even when the evidence you put forth asserting your claim actually disproves your claim. Tell me, did you think to enlarge the photo before claiming the rear window had not been shot out?
Like how here you claim the rear window is Not shot out, when in fact is most definitely is, as clearly seen in all the photographs.

Regarding the faulty Times reporting: Yes, it was sloppy work. But it might not be more than an intern confusing Malik with her sister, who did have more 'sinister' FB postings long ago.
But why even consider that possibility when we've got such a big bad gummint to blame, right? We all would agree they are that, but not that they are behind every single mass shooting.
Mac asked for a lawyer, & I gave him the best I know of. A simple thanks would have been nice. And you helped him? How? Your critique?
Mac want to see drops of blood, and can't imagine the guy exiting the vehicle and firing off a thirty round clip and every cop ducking their heads to cover their asses, until he exhausts his ammunition and reloads. The large pools of blood being insufficient in sating Mac's desire for more. But that was when Mac was pushing the robot car and the handcuffed corpses already dead inside, waiting to be dragged out by the "heroic' cops. He seems to have let that go. Maybe he's admitted that they drove the vehicle and weren't handcuffed, but he hasn't said he has.

The photo shows him before his corpse was handcuffed and later another explained how Malik exited the car. No acknowledgment of earlier "evidence" consequentially dismissed. No concession of earlier errors in judgment ever being made.
Yeah, stickdog, I'm the guy dancing on graves. You keep on thinking that.
And keep on telling everyone how I support our government. There's far to little of that sort of thing in my extensive FBI file.

This is roughly my position, minus the personal shout outs and RI social intrigue. I'm always a little surprised at the assumption of expected clarity in reporting during and after an event like this. I've had experiences and jobs where minor to medium crisis's have gone done (luckily never anything on this Richter scale) and noticed people have a deep need to find a reason, a theory, why something is happening- even if it doesn't even figure into solving the problem. What happens is someone wants to believe X is happening because of Y, so they tell other people this, others want to believe this and use it as the working model, etc. This can happen continuously where a dozen theories are floated before lunch, are all true in their brief life span and then are dropped as quickly and ceremoniously as the next one is taken up as the truth. The need to find meaning and reasons (or rather a villian or scapegoat) usually trump any cool, calm analysis. The media does the exact same thing and is really just meeting the demand of "a reason why" and since their short cycles demand something, anything, they grab whatever is being tossed up. In reality they are tasked with delivering not "the news" but "the meaning". And they are improvising. To "expose" this doesn't necessarily point to a wider hidden agenda but that people are generally sloppy, harried and illogical when the shit hits the fan.

Whether the shooter had a spat at the function with the coworker, whether the wife was an active shooter or just an ammo mule, whether she was texting allegiance or not, whether they were so dumb to drive by their house after starting jihad in San Bernandino, that their house/crime scene became a journalistic yard sale, etc don't really bother me so much because I don't really subscribe to people thinking all that clearly or even logically in a crisis and assume their is going to be mass confusion and inconsistencies reported and happening at a bloody traumatic event from survivors of a horrific life changing event and that law enforcement and media personnel, likewise, (depending on the region) may not be use to such high stakes events. There are norms that leave you flummoxed when they are broken (the media house yard sale) but sometimes these can show a lack of preparation instead of an exercise which had mapped out all the contingencies. Agenda wise the journalistic yard sale only hurt the narrative that they were a suburban sleeper cell because it fowled the one message narrative nest and only gave credence to the ptb not caring enough to spend more time on "this production" because they had other A movie plots in production.

Related to that, the perpetrators themselves unless they are seasoned pros are going to be improvising and doing inconsistent, stupid things. Did Farook think he could put a mask on and shoot up his co-workers at the christmas party and then drive home, thank Mama for babysitting and watch what happened on the news at home and just pretend he was one of the lucky ones that got away? Maybe, judging from what he had planned previously with Enrique. It doesn't look they had much of a plan beyond causing the mayhem. And many of the inconsistencies that seem so befuddling, Enrique? But he's such a kitten! Probably stem from the idiocy and character of the perpetrators. For Farook to even contemplate any operation beyond changing windshield wipers with Enrique shows how isolated and desperate he had to be. People are looking for either the ISIS Frank and Jesse James or innocent/programmed patsies a la Mark David Chapman and Sirhan Sirhan but it looks morel like, frankly, the Harold and Kumar of ISIS fanboys.