SYDNEY — The search for missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 is closing in on the "most prospective" resting place, the Australian government said Thursday.

Fresh analysis indicated a 44,000 sqm area in the Indian Ocean as a new priority, Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss told reporters in Canberra. The area is located at the southern end of the existing 120,000 sqm search zone.

"We're optimistic and hopeful that that search will result in us locating the aircraft," he said, citing a report on the website of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

Three vessels are now at the site about 1,200 kilometers west of Perth, Australia, searching with deep-water sonar for signs of the plane. A fourth vessel provided by China will join the search in coming months.

Malaysian Airlines Flight MH370 carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew disappeared from air traffic radar on March 8, 2014, after taking off from Kuala Lumpur bound for Beijing.

Analysis of satellite data revealed that the plane turned west and then south and continued to fly for six hours over the remote southern waters of the Indian Ocean before it vanished.

The only part of the plane that has been found was a wing flap that washed up on Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean in July.

Australia is leading the search involving around 20 nations. It has so far cost AUD 180 million ( USD $131 million), with Australia paying 60 million and Malaysia committed to paying the rest.

The search is scheduled to continue until the entire 120,000 sqm zone is investigated, and Truss said that could take until mid-2016.

Story: DPA

LOS ANGELES — A man and a woman suspected in a shooting spree Wednesday were dead after a car chase and shootout with police, according to authorities in San Bernardino, California.

The earlier massacre, which apparently targeted a party held in a rented conference room inside a local government centre, left 14 people dead and 17 wounded, several critically, police said.

FBI Assistant Director David Bowdich refrained from calling the shooting spree terrorism, but said there were "a few potential things" that raise suspicions.

San Bernardino Police Chief Jerrod Burguan said that officers investigating the attack, which occurred at approximately 11:00 local time, were responding to a tip about four hours later in the nearby community of Redlands.

A dark sport-utility vehicle leaving the location matched the description of a car described by witnesses as fleeing the earlier shooting. A chase ensued, leading to a gun battle with police, Burguan said.

The man and woman were each armed with both "assault-style" rifles and handguns, and dressed in what Berguan described as "tactical gear."

"Both of those people are deceased," Burguan said.

They came under fire from "several officers," but he did not know if they died from police rounds. Helicopter news video showed the vehicle riddled with bullet holes and windows shattered.

One officer was treated for minor injuries in the shooting.

A third person seen fleeing the scene of the shootout was detained but might not have been involved, Burguan said.

It was not clear late Wednesday if there was another suspect still at large, after initial reports from the shooting spree described up to three people opening fire and fleeing.

At the massacre scene, the attackers "came in with a purpose," Burguan said. "They came prepared to do what they did, as if they were on a mission."

The chief said that there was at least one apparent explosive device found at the scene of the shooting spree.

"We do not have a motive," Burguan said.

Bowdich called the case "a very fluid, active investigation," and said authorities would "go where the evidence takes us" on terrorism suspicions.

"I am still not willing to say that we know this for sure," he said. "It is a possibility, but we don't know that yet."

The massacre is the second major mass shooting in less than a week in the United States. On Friday, a gunman killed three people and injured nine others at a family planning clinic in the western state of Colorado.

The San Bernardino shooting spree is the deadliest in the United States since December 2012, when 20 children and six educators were slain by a deranged gunman at a school in Newtown, Connecticut.

In the immediate wake of the shooting, U.S. President Barack Obama called for tougher gun laws.

"There are steps we can take to make Americans safer," he told CBS News in an interview. "We should never think this is something that just happens in the normal course of events."

Obama called for Congress to close a loophole that allows people on a federal no-fly security list to purchase guns.

Story: DPA / Valerie Hamilton

LONDON — The British Parliament voted decisively late Wednesday in favor of launching airstrikes against Islamic State forces in Syria.

The 397-223 vote after 10 hours of debate opened the door to British sorties as early as Thursday against Islamic State targets. The Royal Air Force is already taking part in air operations in Iraq against the extremist militia.

Britain faced the "simple question" of whether to launch airstrikes against Islamic State forces in Syria or to wait for the group to attack the country, Prime Minister David Cameron said Wednesday as he pressed for legislative backing for military action.

"I'm not pretending that the answers are simple," he said at the start of the debate. "The situation in Syria is incredibly complex. The question before the house today is how we keep the British people safe from the threat posed by [the Islamic State movement]."

Opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn argued against expanding Britain's military involvement in the region, but told his fellow Labour Party members to follow their own conscience.

In Washington, U.S. President Barack Obama welcomed the vote, calling Britain "one of our most valued partners" in fighting Islamic State forces since the beginning of allied action against the group starting in August 2014 in Iraq.

"The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is rooted in our shared values and mutual commitment to global peace, prosperity and security," he said. "We look forward to having British forces flying with the coalition over Syria and will work to integrate them into our coalition air tasking orders as quickly as possible."

Obama called the Islamic State movement "a global threat that must be defeated by a global response."

Cameron won overwhelming support for his proposal, two years after his previous effort failed to win parliamentary backing for strikes in Syria, a key contributing factor to the decision by Western forces not to launch strikes against Syria's government in response to its use of chemical weapons.

Public opinion in Britain has shifted since 2013, however, especially after the deadly Nov. 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, which prompted France to push for intensified strikes against Islamic State forces.

Cameron used his speech Wednesday to remind Britons of Islamic State backing for June attacks in Tunisia that claimed the lives of numerous British tourists.

"This is not about whether we want to fight terrorism, it's about how best we do that," he said. "We face a fundamental threat."

The premier noted that British security services have foiled seven planned terrorist attacks since November 2014: "The question is this: Do we work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat … or do we sit back and wait for them to attack us?"

Cameron said the decision to send British forces would be about more than just sending moral support. He said British forces have some of the best precision strike aircraft in Europe, meaning a British contribution would make attacks against Islamic State in Syria more effective.

After the vote, Cameron said parliament had made the "right decision to keep the U.K. safe," according to the British-based Press Association.

The proposal enjoyed wide support with backing from Cameron's Conservative Party, as well as members of the Labour, Liberal Democrats and Democratic Unionist parties.

The only controversy was indignation by some pacifist members of the legislature at earlier comments by Cameron in which he denounced opponents of the plan as "terrorist sympathizers."

Parliament voted in 2014 to allow the British Army to attack Islamic State forces in Iraq.

Islamic State forces control large stretches of Iraq and Syria, where they have moved to set up a governing structures adhering to an extreme interpretation of Islamic law.

The organization has been on the back foot militarily at times in recent months, amid attacks from US allied forces, Russian forces, the Syrian government and rival rebel groups on the ground.

To reach us about this article or another matter, please contact us by e-mail at: [email protected].

Follow @KhaosodEnglish

LONDON – Britain faces the "simple question" of whether to launch airstrikes against Islamic State forces in Syria or wait for the group to attack the country, Prime Minister David Cameron said Wednesday as he pressed for legislative backing for military action.

"I'm not pretending that the answers are simple," he said at the start of 10 hours of planned debate on the matter.

"The situation in Syria is incredibly complex. The question before the house today is how we keep the British people safe from the threat posed by ISIL," he said, using an acronym for Islamic State.

Cameron is expected to win overwhelming parliamentary support for his proposal. It comes two years after a previous effort by Cameron to win backing for strikes in Syria failed, a key contributing factor to the decision by Western forces not to launch strikes against Syria's government in response to its use of chemical weapons.

Public opinion in Britain has shifted since 2013, however, especially after the deadly November 13 terrorist attacks in Paris, which prompted France to push for intensified strikes against Islamic State forces.

Cameron also used his speech Wednesday to remind Britons of Islamic State backing for attacks in Tunisia earlier this year that claimed the lives of numerous British tourists.

"This is not about whether we want to fight terrorism, it's about how best we do that," he said. "We face a fundamental threat."

He noted that, since November 2014, British security services have foiled seven terrorist attacks.

"The question is this: Do we work with our allies to degrade and destroy this threat … Or do we sit back and wait for them to attack us?"

He added that the decision to send British forces would be about more than just sending moral support. He said British forces have some of the best precision strike aircraft in Europe, meaning a British contribution would make attacks against Islamic State in Syria more effective.

The proposal enjoys wide support in Parliament, with backing expected not just from Cameron's Conservative Party, but also members of the Labour, Liberal Democrats and Democratic Unionist parties.

The only controversy was indignation by some pacifist members of the legislature at earlier comments by Cameron in which he denounced opponents of the plan as "terrorist sympathizers."

The United Stets said it would welcome additional involvement by the British against Islamic State in Syria, according to the Pentagon.

"We look forward to an expansion of that role should the British parliament decide that's the right thing to do," US military spokesman Colonel Steven Warren says.

He says the US would welcome the additional military capabilities the British could provide to the coalition.

Parliament voted in 2014 to allow the British Army to attack Islamic State forces in Iraq. Assuming Parliament backs Cameron's request, it would join an existing US-led coalition conducting airstrikes in neighbouring Syria designed to impede Islamic State militants.

Islamic State forces control large stretches of Iraq and Syria, where they have moved to set up a separate state adhering to strict Islamic law. However, the group has been on the back foot militarily at times in recent months, thanks to attacks from US allied forces, Russian forces, the Syrian government and other rebel forces on the ground.

The vote is expected to come around 2200 GMT, after about 10 hours of scheduled debate.

Story: Niels C Sorrells / DPA

To reach us about this article or another matter, please contact us by e-mail at: [email protected].