If the terrorists moved up the date and changed the target

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

because he was angry with a coworker and decided to make a work celebration their first target, it's not terrorism?

Is that the meme?

The denial is fascinating in a weird sort of way.

[randys1]

1. I am less concerned with what to call this than I am the arsenal they had, legally

I knew the ass that shot up PP was an asshole, rightwinger of course, but he is NOBODY and NOTHING without gunz

[B2G]

2. They did not purchase the AR15s used in the attack

Someone else did. So they were either purchased and given to them, or stolen from whoever purchased them.

Either way, not legal.

[randys1]

4. And perfect illustration that the problem is we have too many guns and it is WAY too

easy for people to get them no matter their intentions.

[B2G]

5. So what is your solution? nt

[Photographer]

9. Make those sorts of guns illegal

institute a buy back program and prosecute the hell out of those that don't comply.

[B2G]

16. They also had handguns.

Ban those too?

[Photographer]

18. Not for the police. 6 shots should be plenty for any civilian so get rid of the semi-autos.

[Rex]

11. Someone else has to be involved, there is no way these two did this all by themselves.

IMO.

[Kingofalldems]

3. Please link to any meme.

What denial?

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

7. A couple of posters on DU

People on CNN.

I would tell you to turn on the tv, but now that we have an ISIS connection, the workplace violence supporters might have to face facts, now.

[B2G]

8. Not just posters on CNN.

There are plenty of examples right here.

[951-Riverside]

6. I'm confused here. What are you getting at?

If the terrorists moved up the date and changed the target because he was angry with a coworker and decided to make a work celebration their first target, it's not terrorism?

I do not understand your question.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

13. Ok.

So, they are obviously planning an attack for a lengthy period of time, and have many more IEDs and ammunition than they need for this one attack, so logically we can assume that more attacks or a larger attack was originally planned.

Assuming that there was a workplace argument, and the perps decided to make his co-workers his first target, does this preclude terrorism? Because he had an argument with someone?

If they changed the original unknown target to that of his co-workers, is it no longer terrorism? Or is it just workplace violence because they didn't get to pull off other acts of violence, as well?

In other words, since the perps were killed and couldn't commit any more acts of violence, can we just call it just another act of workplace violence? Would they have had the IED (that didn't explode) if they had not being planning terrorist attacks?

And does one really kill that many people over an argument whether or not Islam is a religion of peace?

[951-Riverside]

19. Oh, I agree. I think its silly to dismiss this as just a workplace violence incident

I remember one person tried to dismiss it as just another gang-related shooting too. The people doing that have their own agendas and maybe they're scared for one reason or another.

Not that is matters anyway. Terrorism, racism or workplace shooting, it doesn't matter because in the end, dead is dead.

[BeyondGeography]

10. It was have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too

Co-workers were killed. This wasn't roaring up to an outdoor café and killing strangers. Farook wanted to settle some scores, don't you think? He had fought with at least one of the victims.

At the same time, they were participating in the greater political/cultural war. That much appears clear, too. People who want it to be 100% terror or workplace violence are missing the mark.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

14. I agree with you

Who knows, maybe these two saw the potential terrorism angle of "even at work you will not be safe". Take out people you hate and have a beef with on top of the idea that even a little office complex in random town USA is not safe, you need to fear for more than stadiums, subways and landmarks.

[Locrian]

15. and/or

Or they figured it would be a "easy" first target since they were familiar with the layout etc.

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. People are still denying this was terrorism?

What in the world?

[d_r]

17. if that scenario is true

do they have accomplices that haven't moved up the date and changed the target?

[boston bean]

20. I read somehwere they made deletions

To their technical footprint the night befor the attack. So i doubt that whatever might have happened at the gathering was the catalyst to the attack.