You Can’t Protect America with a Blindfold on.

Posted on December 6, 2015


 photo Blindfolded Man_zpswxaadidw.jpg

What is it – workplace violence?   Easy access to guns?  I can’t see the Islamic extremist angle, can you?

Editor’s Note:  This is the first of a three part series on domestic terror prompted by the edicts of the “religion of peace”. We will begin with examining what the actual causes are of attacks like the one in San Bernardino, Boston and Garland, Texas, and by contrast, what aspects are merely the effects. The second in the series will investigate the inspiration and stimulation behind the attacks. The third and final report will consider the opportunities for solutions and discard other media narratives that have no impact in solving these security threats.

It would be a mistake

to place Islamist inspired mass shootings in the same frame of reference with most of the other violence we associate with attacks claiming multiple victims, such as the Sandy Hook killings. But, a great deal of the reporting is conflating Jihad attacks, including the most recent incident in San Bernardino, with others that clearly don’t have the religious component of Islam.

Why is this a problem? To begin with, Americans need to accurately understand the nature of the motivations and sentiments behind Islam inspired terror, as opposed to other mass killings that are related to mental health issues. In doing so we can arrive at a unified theory of what is precipitating the attacks and more importantly, what needs to be done to mitigate the threat.

Some in the law enforcement community and in the political world, prefer to channel the discussion of motive in the direction of impulses relative to “conflicts in the workplace”. This steers the conversation away from conclusions involving the inspiration of so called ‘Radical Islam’ – or what I think should be more accurately termed Orthodox or non-reformed Islam.

Workplace violence and the disgruntled employee syndrome can be immediately dismissed here – and should have been, early on in the news cycle. Investigators have learned that there was no festering personal issues or animosity that would explain the nature of the attack by Syed Farook and wife Tashfeen Malik as a disgruntled employee retaliation.

Farook did have heated discussions with a fellow employee about matters involving religion, but co-workers saw nothing that would suggest a reaction of the magnitude of the attack or a retaliation factor.

FBI crime profilers don’t buy the ‘work rage’ scenario. Mary Ellen O’Toole told CTV News that the shooting involved a “tremendous amount of planning” and a “very distinct exit plan” and that she doesn’t believe that something caused Farook to snap and return to the holiday banquet to settle it. The information released by authorities so far suggests that the case is “moving further and further away from workplace violence. The entire crime is extremely callous and it’s very cold-blooded.”

O’Toole believes that the couple “wanted to leave that crime scene” and cause more damage elsewhere. It sounds like the shooters were “cool, calm and collected,” which suggests they had “psychopathic personalities,” without empathy or compassion, O’Toole said.

Yet it was agonizing for local, state and federal officials, hamstrung by an irrational commitment to political correctness, to arrive at the point at which they were forced by the obvious body of evidence and fact pattern, that the killings were a terrorism event. They turned themselves into pretzels to try to forestall or avoid it.

David Bowditch, spokeshole for the FBI, told reporters, “If you look at the amount of obvious pre-planning that went in, the amount of armaments (they) had, the weapons and the ammunition, there was obviously a mission here. We know that. We do not know why. We don’t know if this was the intended target or if there was something that triggered him to do this immediately. We just don’t know.…That is the big question for us: What is the motivation for this?”

This equivocation is absurd. Anyone who cannot unambiguously discern the motive that was involved in the mass execution in San Bernardino is either being deliberately intellectually dishonest or is in need of a check up from the neck up. But Muslims are a politically protected class with the Obama administration, and to a degree with the Bush administration, and so an effort has to be made to attribute anything other than the ideology of the Koran, in a heinous act such as this.

As we have seen with the statements of Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the sensitivities of Muslims take precedence over law enforcement and the Justice Department is even threatening to charge individuals who print or speak overly critical statements against Muslims and their religion. Lynch told attendees at the 10th annual ‘Muslim Advocate’ conference that, “When we talk about the First Amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted.”

In additional support of the FBI’s conclusion that the deadly assault was terror motivated, is the FBI’s definition of terrorism, “The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Which leads us directly to the very piece of evidence that shreds the explanation of anything other than a terror motive. It was discovered by the FBI that Malik pledged allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi on Facebook just prior to the attack at the Inland Regional Center. And in fact, just prior to publication, the Islamic State has announced that Tashfeen Malik was a “soldier” in their Caliphate, not merely a follower.

Further negating the “workplace violence” narrative and placing this attack solidly in the category of religious motivated terror, is the report of the wife of one of the 14 persons killed in the massacre. Jennifer Thalasinos, wife of Nicholas Thalasinos, says that Syed Farook issued a veiled threat to co-worker Thalasinos two weeks prior to the armed assault at the Inland Regional Center. Farook told Thalasinos, a Messianic Jew , that “You will never see Israel.” Sadly, Farook fulfilled that prediction.

Progressives and Democrats will opportunistically attribute the causes of yesterday’s event to the ease of which they claim firearms are obtained in the United States and downplay the component of adherence to fundamental tenets of the Koran and the manner in which it is being taught to many Muslims. Typical of that line is this from the Sacramento Bee editors:

“San Bernardino shooting, shocking yet almost normal.  No matter what you call it, the root of the problem is the same: America allows too many guns to fall into the hands of too many people who should not have them.”

Logic – a commodity in short supply,  would tell us that guns are merely incidental to the carrying out of Islam motivated attacks.

When an individual arrives at the state of mind in which slaughtering infidels or “kaffir” is a duty to be fulfilled, some means will be devised whether firearms are available or not. The root of jihad inspired terror assaults is not the accessibility of a certain weapon, it is instead, the accessibility of a cancerous influence. The influence?  Jihad sermons and related Islamist indoctrination. To illustrate this, I refer you to an exhortation from a Jihad sermon by prominent American Muslim cleric Sirah Wahhaj:

“Those who struggle for Allah, it doesn’t matter what kind of weapons, I’m telling you it doesn’t matter! You don’t need nuclear weapons or even guns! If you have faith in Allah and a knife!! If Allah wants you to win, you will win! Because Allah is the only one who fights. And when his hand is over your hand. whoever is at war against my friends, I declare war on them.”

Guns then, were only a means to an end and no serious observer puts stock in the workplace violence explanation. When we look around the world to places where Islamic violence is unleashed upon its victims, we see that the implements of death are largely irrelevant to the perpetrators. If guns are not accessible then improvised explosive devices are manufactured and resorted to.

If a target of a murderous attack is a random group of people that can most opportunistically  be destroyed by means of a device other than a firearm, then suicide vests are employed. As we’ve seen, many executions by the Islamic State involve bladed weapons of one type or another. If arson is expedient, then arson.  In the case of the Muslim Bonnie and Clyde team in San Bernardino, they had dozens of explosives prepared for use against infidels.

Additionally, as can be amply demonstrated, if the choice of the tools of murder are of negligible consequence to the commission of an act of Jihad, then what is the factor that poses the major risk to our communities?  This leaves only the mentality of terrorism linked to Islamic extremism.

So then, what is the font of this malevolence? The answer is to be found primarily in the place of worship of the Muslim for whom murder proves to have an irresistible attraction – the mosque or masjid.

In tomorrow’s column, we will look at the activities and especially the prime influences at play in Islamist motivated attacks and the manner in which leaders at Islamic centers and mosques pursue an outward facing public relations strategy, while the reality of the teaching within these organizations reveals a much different picture to insiders.