You are here

Follow-up considerations on Terrorism & Gun Control

Couple of thoughts: (edited from text written Dec 3rd)

  • Initial narratives tossed out that the lead actor in the killings was responding to some insult / slight / inflammatory comment. There are still (to this day) suppositions that he might have been offended by the "holiday party". Would these same talking heads ask what a sexual assault victim was wearing? How did the initial response become to blame the victims for something (that has not yet been proven was done)? As in other cases, it is an attempt to excuse or deflect responsibility where it solely belongs - the perpetrator & his own motives. (Note: Some are doing it in this case because analysis of his motives is uncomfortable. Others because this event does not mesh with their preconceived biases and false narratives.)
  • For Liberals identifying this as evidence of the need for more gun control laws, the responsible parties who committed these acts were already guilty of over 50 felonies (including murder, assault w/ deadly weapon, possession of at least one of the weapons illegally, manufacture & transportation of explosive devices, etc). What new laws would these Leftists institute that would have had any chance of preventing this massacre when they wantonly and without regard violated so many of them already?

I am neither former military nor law enforcement, but w/ a background in engineering & systems architecture, I do look at events and patterns and make observations. The odds that Syed Farook got into an argument and returned home to gather weapons, equipment, & reinforcements for the massacre is ludicrous on its face. It was total and complete BS as the talking heads were trying to shill it.

Assuming that.....

  • Farook has worked w/ this group for 5 years.
  • He had been gathering the guns and equipment for some time in advance of this event.
  • He had been manufacturing the explosive devices in advance of the event.
  • He attended the event earlier, left, and returned to carry it out.

The more plausible narrative is that Syed Farook was actually a member of a Jhadist group / organization. He was more likely an infiltrator into the government office where he worked. He (and / or his wife) have had some level of tactical training based on the way it was carried out. He had been planning this action for quite some time and recognized the "holiday party" as a much more impactful target than their offices would have been (less security, more people, fewer walls & obstructions).

It is also more plausible that (a) there are other co-conspirators directly involved w/ this event who are yet unidentified and (b) this is the first of what could be multiple cells planning to carry out similar actions in other population centers.

Both of these are more plausible than last night's claim by the brother-in-law in the CAIR presser that he was "completely surprised by this" or the Left's blathering about this being "workplace violence" or having anything whatsoever to do with gun control laws.

By ignoring or actively undermining the Truth, we make these kinds of tragedies all the more likely to repeat!