Thoughts on the San Bernardino Murders

It’s indeed too early to tell what the attackers motives were, although Syed Farook’s father said he was a muslim, or whether or not there’s an ISIS connection or some sort of other terrorist cell involved. However, something like this is what’s been warned about for years now on Global Geopolitics. If it were islamic terrorism, they hit exactly as predicted. That’s to say they will be attacking hospitals, kindergartens, universities, concerts, theaters, events, open markets, etc… They will ruthlessly and without remorse hit where it hurts America’s heart the most. In this case, a rehabilitation center for handicapped people.

The following previous posts are examples of warnings of what lies ahead:

If you’d like to further explore the threat, search under the terrorist cell tag.

 

* Syed Farook. That is the name of one of the suspects in the San Bernardino attack, the only name that has been released so far. So most people conclude that it is another case of Islamic terrorism. Based on what we know now, that is probably right. But it is a strange incident: why the Inland Regional Center? And the terrorist group, two men and a woman, may be consistent with a Muslim terror ring, but until now, haven’t female terrorists–suicide bombers or knife attackers, pretty much always–acted alone? Is there precedent for mixed gender Islamic terrorist teams? Maybe there is, but I can’t think of one.

* This case reportedly was broken because of a “tip.” That tip sent police officers to an address in Redlands where, shortly thereafter, the SUV that was being sought turned up. That led to the chase that culminated in the shootout between police and terrorists. Where did the tip come from? Maybe it was just a concerned citizen. Or else–this is pure speculation–maybe one or more of the perpetrators was already under some sort of surveillance as a potential terrorist. Maybe the tip came from the FBI or another law enforcement agency. Maybe there were actually a number of tips–the addresses of suspected terror sympathizers in the area–and this is the one that panned out.

* A sign of the times: when one of these homicidal incidents occurs, those who are involved in politics on any side hope the perpetrators are not from the ranks of their allies. You can see this most clearly on Twitter, where way too many people fail to exercise self-restraint.

For several hours this afternoon, liberals were tweeting their conviction–most likely wrong, based on what we know now–that the “shooters” were right-wingers. ISIS had a better read on events; their hashtag was #America_burning. But being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry. The same people will be hopeful once again, next time a high-profile violent incident occurs.

* The most contemptible pronouncement on today’s murders came from Barack Obama. Within minutes after the shootings, before anyone knew who the perpetrators were, Obama was already riding his favorite hobby horse–gun control:

Speaking to CBS News moments after news broke of the shooting, Obama called for “common sense gun safety laws” and urged lawmakers to pass a law to prevent individuals on the “No Fly List” who are barred from boarding commercial flights from legally purchasing firearms.

Plus, it is stupid. We need more gun control because terrorists always have so much trouble obtaining weapons? Please. France, to take one of many examples, has stringent gun control laws, far more so than would be constitutional here. But did those gun control laws prevent the Charlie Hebdo attack, or the Jewish deli slaughter, or the murder of more than 120 innocents in Paris a few weeks ago? Of course not. Suggesting gun control as an antidote to terrorism is worse than useless, and typifies the Obama administration’s pathetic approach to the number one issue of our time.

Full article: Thoughts on the San Bernardino Murders (Powerline)

Comments are closed.