This is an interesting tidbit getting a lot of mileage in Conservative news sources. Apparently one of Syed Farook victims and coworkers, Nicholas Thalasinos, was an extreme 2A supporter, stridently Pro-NRA, and pro-life doing a rant on FB that the PP shooter let the baby killers live. He was a Messianic Jew and was one of Farook's direct coworkers.

A curious situation and I wonder if these two were amplifying each other's extremism.

I still have a hard time understanding how Farook could mow down all his coworkers who seem like a nice group of people. I mean it's one thing killing people you don't know because one can dehumanize them. As much as I disliked a few of my former coworkers before I retired, I wouldn't wish death upon them. Maybe a bad case of poison ivy in inconvenient places, but not death!

Irrelevant victim blaming.

With some manipulation, perhaps that factoid could be twisted into portraying the San Bernardino shooting as identical in motivation as the Planned Parenthood shooting. I look forward to seeing someone have a go at this.

Not blaming the victim. I only wonder if part of the dynamic was that these two individuals were antagonizing each other. It in no way excuses or renders it in any way acceptable for someone going out and blowing away all their coworkers even if one is antagonizing you.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Not blaming the victim. I only wonder if part of the dynamic was that these two individuals were antagonizing each other. It in no way excuses or renders it in any way acceptable for someone going out and blowing away all their coworkers even if one is antagonizing you.

I got the same " blame the victim" thing when I posted a link to a story elsewhere, about the wife of one of those shot wondered if her outspoken husband could have been a reason for the shooting, saying that her husband was very loud and aggressive when it came to speaking his views on his feelings about Muslims. Its getting to the point you can not question and ponder, without someone claiming your up to something ..
Interestingly though, I posted the link to the story on a Republican sight, so I should have expected what I got.

Merk cleared up his thinking so I now understand where he's coming from but initially, yeah, it does sound like blaming the victim. Bringing up strongly conservative, religious, anti-Muslim views of a victim has implications. Such as: "If only those mean people were more tolerant and accepting of the poor, marginalized terrorist, maybe they'd be alive now. Boo-hoo." This crap was prevalent on the far left after Charlie Hebdo. What if I posted that one of the Planned Parenthood victims was a fundamentalist Muslim who hated Christians, loved abortion and personally knew the shooter? The PC brigade would be immediately up my ass sideways. Same thing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /76889434/


right after the shooting, before much was even known about it, Jennifer Thompson-Thalasinos, came out saying her husband was one of those killed, and she thought maybe he had something to do with it, as he was always outspoken and confronted anyone he thought was a muslim or terrorist.

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/12/07/ ... holocaust/



Now today on Fox, she is being interviewed and says that her husband was a kind gentle soul who never bothered anyone, and she thinks he was targeted because of his faith.. Funny how a couple days and a Fox interview can change ones views. I think Fox is trying to turn her into the next Kim Davis..


Its horrible he and the others were killed, but his wife is really sending mixed messages.


http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/12/07/j ... ut-hannity

If you're just standing around with your thumb up your butt and suffer an unprovoked attack, insurance is on the hook. If you precipitated the attack, insurance may have an argument that it was your own fault. Just saying...

rascally wrote:If you're just standing around with your thumb up your butt and suffer an unprovoked attack, insurance is on the hook. If you precipitated the attack, insurance may have an argument that it was your own fault. Just saying...

The insurance may be off the hook anyway, if you go with Cruz and Trump saying we are at war. Most insurance won't pay if the claim is due to an act of war or civil unrest.

TrueTexan wrote:

rascally wrote:If you're just standing around with your thumb up your butt and suffer an unprovoked attack, insurance is on the hook. If you precipitated the attack, insurance may have an argument that it was your own fault. Just saying...

The insurance may be off the hook anyway, if you go with Cruz and Trump saying we are at war. Most insurance won't pay if the claim is due to an act of war or civil unrest.

Good luck with the current administration admitting that this was an act of war...

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:Not blaming the victim. I only wonder if part of the dynamic was that these two individuals were antagonizing each other. It in no way excuses or renders it in any way acceptable for someone going out and blowing away all their coworkers even if one is antagonizing you.

Such accounts lend credence to the idea that the couple were originally planning something much bigger but altercations at work so enraged the husband that he was like, "Fuck it! We'll do it live!"

In a twisted way, it might have actually worked out better this way... With all the explosive devices reportedly found in their home and with cooler heads to follow a real plan, these two could have inflicted many more casualties than they did...

Here's what's really messed up though. This anti-Muslim guy ... in the end his fears were apparently justified. I mean, if his altercation was like "Muslims are terrorists", I guess the murderer essentially responded with "yep".