Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until we hear from the Feds; it is a good presumption that he borrowed the money. But it could have been funneled to him; we will find out in the future.
You have a valid point about how much he knew about banking. Actually the tellers will sometimes tell you that $5,000 or more has to be reported. So I don't know why he did not just make withdrawals of $4,999? As far as I understand; that would have not triggered the reporting requirements.
PS Can you get us the 44% return on an investment?
He definitely borrowed the funds, using a peer to peer online lending facility. Such loans are unsecured and based on employment history and established credit. Many use such loans to consolidate debt or buy a car.
Identities of borrowers are not disclosed to investors, not that it would have mattered before the attack. It's all based on a proprietary credit score.
Peer to peer lending typically offers loans at rates lower than a bank who uses FDIC insured deposits.
Farooq's bank records established the audit trail for the three $5000 transfers to his mother. Such transactions would not have been flagged. Doing so, implicated his mother, regardless of his intent. The actual timing of the loans deposit and subsequent cash withdrawal and transfers have not been made public.
He definitely borrowed the funds, using a peer to peer online lending facility. Such loans are unsecured and based on employment history and established credit. Many use such loans to consolidate debt or buy a car.
Identities of borrowers are not disclosed to investors, not that it would have mattered before the attack. It's all based on a proprietary credit score.
Peer to peer lending typically offers loans at rates lower than a bank who uses FDIC insured deposits.
Farooq's bank records established the audit trail for the three $5000 transfers to his mother. Such transactions would not have been flagged. Doing so, implicated his mother, regardless of his intent. The actual timing of the loans deposit and subsequent cash withdrawal and transfers have not been made public.
One interesting piece of information from that report was right at the end of the video. Apparently, last year, they had one active shooter drill in the convention center and they are not sure if the shooter/s took part in that drill!
Seems that an AR-15, which can fire 45 to 60 shots per minute, is fully capable of assaulting a room full of victims. What is your definition of "assault?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Yep. This happens all the time. Home owner Rambo takes out multiple crooks who broke into his home with 10 round mags each.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
Correct. In fact, the military will be trading in their firearms for assault cars instead.
" What is your definition of "assault?"
you REALLY are grasping at straws now.
NO ONE is denying what the word "assault" means
I know it is hard for you to keep up but, YOU keep going on and on on what an "assault weapon" is.
"Yep. This happens all the time. Home owner Rambo takes out multiple crooks who broke into his home with 10 round mags each."
Once would be enough.
"Correct. In fact, the military will be trading in their firearms for assault cars instead"
If you want to act like a child, will treat you as one.
You have made yourself to look foolish with your constant evading the questions and making false statement.
I suggest you quit before you become the laughing stock on c-D
Whose definition? Automatic does not do it. Some definition include semi-automatics and the classical army definition requires selective fire. They also require an intermediate sized cartridge and a detachable magazine. So anything that can handle full rifle cartridges cannot be an assault rifle to some definitions.
I suggest that the whole thing is a silly semantic defense thrown up by the gunnies to avoid dealing with the issue. The antis need to coin a term for a weapon with high rate of delivery capability. Kid whacker would be good and is nicely pejorative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvoc
Well when it comes to definitions I think Merriam Webster outranks you and the other gunnies. They say semi or auto. Now if you work for the DoD you can probably claim in your domain it is auto only though actually the term of art there is "selective" not auto. But in the wide world Merriam Webster reigns.
"and the classical army definition requires selective fire'" AKA, FULLY AUTOMATIC
BINGO, we have winner.
We are talking about MILITARY weapons and the MILITARY DETERMINES DEFINITIONS.
Not Clinton, NOT Merriam's dictionary, NOT the liberal anti-gunners.
The Clinton admin "stole" the name in order to use emotion to convince the American public that "military" weapons should NOT be available to the general public.
They chose to "decieve" the American public by banning "cosmetic" things on guns to stir up EMOTIONS and the liberal media sucked it right up.
The blind anti-gunners did also and jumped on the band wagon.
Of course statistics show that AFTER the ban was put into place, NO SIGNIFICANT changes occurred as we predicted..
NO SEMI-AUTOMATIC is an "assault" weapon.
All the anti-gunners can twist and turn and come up with ANY ridiculous thing they want and it doesn't mean a thing.
Between 1/2013-9/2015, 5700 illegal gun cases were prosecuted in Chicago and were won about 70% of the time. Most were confiscated in gang infested neighborhoods where guns are often sold out of car trunks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.