San Bernardino Shooting Suspect on K1 Visa

[Ban Hammer 13,271]

one post removed for TOS
Post Content intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a broad demographic or group of people identified by a unifying trait or characteristic (discrimination).

Edited December 7, 2015 by charles!

[Pennycat 880]

No, the transcript is missing the "waiver" word. After I read you post, I went back and watched his speech again. He begins speaking about it at 6:19 through 6:28.

So Obama might have unintentionally added the word 'waiver' in his speech, but either way, there was a miscommunication or disconnect somewhere along the line.

Then he must have misspoken. The VWP is under scrutiny because all but one of the Paris attackers had EU passports and could have entered the US visa-free. How would a Pakistani national have had VWP privlidges? Where would the mountain of evidence that she came in on a K1 have come from if she in fact used VWP?

Edited: Yep. He misspoke and they corrected the transcript. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-obama-visa-waiver-speech-mistake-k1-tashfeen-malik-htmlstory.html

Edited December 7, 2015 by CatherineA

[Amhara 460]

Another interesting conflicting message:

"The father of Syed Farook, who with his wife shot dead 14 people in San Bernardino, California, says his son approved of the ideas of the Islamic State group and was fixated with Israel, the Italian daily La Stampa reported Sunday.

"He said he agreed with (IS chief Abu Bakr) al-Baghdadi's ideas for creating the Islamic State, and he was obsessed by Israel," La Stampa quoted the father of the shooter, also named Syed Farook, as saying.

"I always used to say to him, be calm, patience, in two years' time Israel will no longer exist," he said, in remarks reported in Italian.

"Geopolitics are changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants Jews over there. They will put them all in Ukraine. Why bother fighting them? We did that before, and we lost," the 67-year-old said.

(http://news.yahoo.com/father-shooter-farook-agreed-ideology-report-says-221911440.html)

and then:

"The elder Farook reportedly spoke to an Italian newspaper over the weekend and said that his son was fascinated by the Syria-based terror group ISIS and hated Israel. Other members of Farook’s family downplayed his purported comments, telling ABC News he is “not stable” and “not handling this well.” A spokesperson for the Muslim rights organization CAIR said the father did not recall talking to the Italian newspaper."

(https://gma.yahoo.com/welcome-america-photo-shows-terror-couple-entering-us-115600202--abc-news-topstories.html)

A little PR gaff...

[DavenMaura 62]

Terrible what happened to those people but would ISIL exist if we hadn't gone hell for leather in Iraq?

Cameron has just approved UK air strikes in Syria. He seems keen to follow Blair's example and drag the UK into yet another mess. ISIS is active in Afghanistan as well now and we are funding groups affiliated with Al Qaeda to fight them. I guess our governments must just like wasting money on pointless military action.

[ExPatty 502]

Terrible what happened to those people but would ISIL exist if we hadn't gone hell for leather in Iraq?

Cameron has just approved UK air strikes in Syria. He seems keen to follow Blair's example and drag the UK into yet another mess. ISIS is active in Afghanistan as well now and we are funding groups affiliated with Al Qaeda to fight them. I guess our governments must just like wasting money on pointless military action.

The answer is quite plainly no. ISIS is a direct result of the debacle that Bush led us all into and for which he has never answered.

The West has played a crucial role in the creation of the monster it now wants to destroy. We have seen multiple cases of horrendous dictators being taken down in the middle east but the vacuum created allows even worse actors to take up their mantle. As bad as Saddam was, I believe Iraq is worse off. As bad as Assad is, Syria is also worse off now. I've not really followed Libya.

[lostinblue 1,989]

The answer is quite plainly no. ISIS is a direct result of the debacle that Bush led us all into and for which he has never answered.

The West has played a crucial role in the creation of the monster it now wants to destroy. We have seen multiple cases of horrendous dictators being taken down in the middle east but the vacuum created allows even worse actors to take up their mantle. As bad as Saddam was, I believe Iraq is worse off. As bad as Assad is, Syria is also worse off now. I've not really followed Libya.

We will bring you up to speed.

[DavenMaura 62]

The answer is quite plainly no. ISIS is a direct result of the debacle that Bush led us all into and for which he has never answered.

The West has played a crucial role in the creation of the monster it now wants to destroy. We have seen multiple cases of horrendous dictators being taken down in the middle east but the vacuum created allows even worse actors to take up their mantle. As bad as Saddam was, I believe Iraq is worse off. As bad as Assad is, Syria is also worse off now. I've not really followed Libya.

Afghanistan is worse off too, ISIS are active there as well now, if the news is to be believed.

I'm angry that I voted for Cameron and now he's doing the same thing Blair did a decade before. Random airstrikes in the desert to prevent a Paris attack in London from radicalised EU citizens. None of it makes any sense.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Bush's fault. Yeah baby

[DavenMaura 62]

Bush's fault. Yeah baby

Can't tell if you're being serious or not but I don't see why Bush shouldn't be blamed. He responded to 9/11 by declaring war on Afghanistan and Iraq. Are we in a better or worse place in 2015 than we were in 2002?

[smilesammich 10,727]

Bush's fault. Yeah baby

cause and effect.

[Amhara 460]

The answer is quite plainly no. ISIS is a direct result of the debacle that Bush led us all into and for which he has never answered.

The West has played a crucial role in the creation of the monster it now wants to destroy. We have seen multiple cases of horrendous dictators being taken down in the middle east but the vacuum created allows even worse actors to take up their mantle. As bad as Saddam was, I believe Iraq is worse off. As bad as Assad is, Syria is also worse off now. I've not really followed Libya.

I gotta tell ya, this argument is a fallacy to me. It really bothers me to hear the "The WEST caused it all!" position. The problem is, while it addresses the ugly things that the American military has done, it fails to address the issue in totality - thus making "The West" a convenient scapegoat that is **justifiably** attacked.

Here's what I know:

• Britain formed the Durand line in 1893 creating the border from Pakistan and Afghanistan.
• Britain carved out the borders of Kuwait, Iraq and Syria about the end of WWI around the 1920's after the fall of the Ottoman Empire
• The Saud family was disposed by the Ottoman Empire, but was then back in power by means of Britain in 1916.
• Somalia had experienced chaotic grabs of power between Britain and Ethiopia between the late 1940's and 1960's.
• Libya was an Italian colony since 1911 to the end of WWII, when the Axis powers fell. It then came under British control until it's independence in 1951.

Here's what I can't contribute to the "evils of the West":

• During the 1947 partition of Pakistan and India, an estimated 200,000 to 1,000,000 people were killed in massacres of people transferring to either country.
• Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. There was also a rather serious war between Iran and Iraq that lasted the majority of the 1980's.
• Saudi Arabia didn't outlaw slavery until the late 1950's. I am rather certain I can find some other stuff on the KSA.
• Somalia has been in a civil war since 1992.
• Libya is accused of using it's oil revenues to support global terrorism and tried repeatedly to take Chadian lands.

These are a few examples of why we can't blame ISIS on Westerners. Wars are not limited to only one side. We typically become what our past is; however, the future of our children is based on the reality we accept and form today.

Much of the "Western" influence collapsed in MENA and Southeastern Asia after WWII, but atrocities continue to happen - West or no West. America had to undergo a long struggle for stabilization after independence in 1776. However, we maintained our government, which helped greatly. America has been in war for 93% of our history. I am not proud of that fact, but I bring it up to point out that trying to cause a war on America is not going to bring peace nor will it bring stability to any exterior country.

Anyone that thinks war will cause peace is lying to themselves - no matter what side of the pond or compass they are on.

[DavenMaura 62]

Like the other poster said it's cause and effect.

We went to war to stop Al Qaeda and now things are worse..

[smilesammich 10,727]

Anyone that thinks war will cause peace is lying to themselves - no matter what side of the pond or compass they are on.

agreed. but it is completely irresponsible to disregard america's actions in the ME over the past 15 years. that's the one thing i will never forget about the days after 9/11. all the war drums sounding, all the freely spoken hatred for anyone who looked like they might be non christian..all the knee jerk reactionaries rallying behind bush and those same knee jerk reactionaries cheering and satisfied with the 'mission accomplished' theater..that's what i'll never forget about 9/11. how dangerous mass hysteria and the leaders who feed it really are..

[Amhara 460]

Afghanistan is worse off too, ISIS are active there as well now, if the news is to be believed.

Afghanistan is worse off compared to what?

Yes, some people in Afg are saying they are ISIS. However, some people don't want to bring peace to their own country. These are influenced by foreigners to continue the fight. In Afg, the Taliban and ISIS hate each other. Taliban issued a statement to ISIS saying that they need to be united within the Al Qaeda network to be stronger. Well, ISIS says that the Talibs aren't strong or drastic enough. (You know, because killing thousands of civilians each year isn't good enough.) So they decided to issue a fatwah on each other meaning that they will kill each other's troops where ever they find each other.

They do all this in addition to fighting their own government. (You know, because it's an American puppet or not Islamic enough. These people never read the Afghan Constitution...) Many people claim the Taliban is a clandestine group supported by an exterior country, so it's all chaos. At least after the Taliban were disposed, my Afghan family was able to return to their homeland they had been displaced from.

Another point on it all being chaos is that if I read comments to related articles on The Times of India, people attribute ISIS to Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, Israel, America, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and I'm sure there are more that I missed. Why would anyone be sucked into this type of ideology that ISIS spreads?

[DavenMaura 62]

It's funny how things come and go around. US funded the Taliban to fight the soviets in the 80s, then came back to fight the taliban and Al Qaeda for 9/11. Now they're funding Al Qaeda groups to fight ISIL.

Noone learns anything.