San Bernardino Shooting

Terrorism Seeming More and More Likely the Motive for San Bernardino Rampage (UPDATED: FBI Makes It Official)

Inspiration from both al Qaeda and ISIS noted.


Syed Farook

Did the wife push for the attack in San Bernardino? The latest information about the motives for the assault that killed 14 people at a San Bernardino County health employee gathering suggests that Tashfeen Malik, 27, the Pakistani immigrant wife of Syed Farook, 28, an American citizen, was radicalized. From the Washington Post:

One of the two people involved in the San Bernardino attack that killed 14 people pledged allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, the clearest indication yet that this was an act of terrorism, according to two law enforcement officials.

The officials said Tashfeen Malik, 27, the Pakistani wife of the other shooter, made the statement on a Facebook page. It's not immediately clear when she posted the declaration referring to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the emir of the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the terrorist group that says it has established a caliphate in Syria and Iraq.

The two attackers sought to cover their tracks by damaging some personal electronic devices, a senior U.S. law enforcement official said Friday as investigators struggled to learn what prompted the rampage that claimed 14 lives.

There's also information that connects them to al Qaeda. Another unnamed law enforcement source, according to the Los Angeles Times, said that the improvised explosive they attempted (and failed) to use during the attack was based on schematics from Inspire magazine, al Qaeda's propaganda publication. This doesn't necessarily mean they were acting in support of al Qaeda, though.

There will be a whole host of issues coming up over the next few days about this. Federal surveillance has been my beat, so a few observations to keep in mind if we enter another round of arguments that the federal government is not collecting enough private information about us all to keep us safe:

  • The new rules that somewhat restrict the mass collection of phone metadata of American citizens in the USA Freedom Act just came into play at the end of November. Its implementation could not have played any role in any sort of intelligence failure (assuming there even is one) that might have prevented this shooting. Given that we've been told the FBI is looking into communications between Farook and other terrorism suspects, it seems very likely that Farook's phone metadata was indeed already previously collected and stored.
  • Even under the USA Freedom Act's guidelines, our intelligence agencies will still be able to monitor what might be going on with other guys like Farook, Americans who may have been radicalized. Officials can still get metadata information originating from individuals through telecom companies via use of search terms, such as the name of any suspected terrorists the United States is already watching. If Farook's contact information showed up in any of the communications on the other end, feds would be able to request Farook's data. And if there was any suspicion that Farook had been radicalized, targeted surveillance would have been a possibility and not prohibited by the Act.
  • The USA Freedom Act does nothing to restrict the CIA or National Security Agency (NSA) in foreign surveillance. If Farook or Malik spoke to terrorists overseas, the USA Freedom Act does not prevent them from getting access to data from the other end of the conversation. That data could again be used as justification for heightened surveillance that specifically targeted Farook.

UPDATE: The FBI has made it official that they believe it was an act of terrorism:


NEXT: Denmark Voters Reject Referendum to Stay in Europol, Because Parliament Wanted Too Much Power

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Welllll – surprise, surprise, surprise!

    1. So you jumped to conclusions too early?

      1. AGAIN

        1. You thought he was a recent Amish convert?

      2. What good is a


        mat if you’re not going to use it?

  2. Good. Now that that’s nailed down we can move on.

    1. Can we pay more attention to all those damn Christian terrorists?
      “Eat lead, motherfucker” – Jesus

      1. I am more worried about those eco-terrorists, and by eco-terrorists I mean the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil as well as the states of West Virginia and Kentucky.

        1. Nothing to worry about. Soros is buying up coal mines.

  3. I wonder how quickly the Media would report on the motivations if these vermin were not, in fact, a Muslim terrorist.

    1. They’d mumble abt insufficient funding for the insane like they always do.

  4. Another informative post by Shackford that I will choose to ignore.

    I blame Snowden. If law enforcement had the resources they had pre-traitor, this attack probably would not have happened.

    1. If law enforcement had the resources that they had pre-traitor, this attack would get lost in the headlines admid all the other attacks that they missed.

  5. Why is Scott so afraid to post a picture of the killer? What is Scott hiding?

    1. There’s a Mohammed joke in there somewhere. Wait a minute, it will come to me.

      1. You’re thinking of Lawrence of Arabia, and the fear of being photographed.

    2. In most of the Western world, gun homicides are as rare as deaths from falling tree limbs or plane crashes. In the U.S., they are much more common.

      This is posted front and center (in “The Upshot” section) on right now. The headlines below are White House Seeks Way to Tighten Gun Sales and How Australia Put an End to Mass Killings.

      So, you decided to die on that hill, SugarFree?

      1. So they aren’t showing pictures of the killer? Gasp. It’s almost like the media is doing the opposite of what you demand they do.

    3. I’m starting to think the only photos *anyone* has of “the wife” do not show her face.

    4. Why is Sugarfree such a whiny douche?

      Anyone suggesting there’s any bias in media is surely the same as a 9/11 truther.

      1. Or maybe I’m just doing it now to annoy you.

        1. You were actually serious the first time? that’s even sadder

          1. Yes, because I’m the whiny one.

            1. See above?

              1. Making fun of you when you are being a little whiny is me being whiny? Wow. Did John school you in projection personally or just loan you his old textbooks?

                1. Gilmore doesn’t like it when you point out conspiracies are valid when he’s whining about them, but bogus when other people are.
                  Backwoods cabin with no mirrors, and all that.

                  1. That makes a lot of sense and I think we all just learned a lot together.

      2. I’m wondering how a macho islamofascist turned into such a henpecked tool. What do his other wives have to say about this?

  6. “Terrorism Seeming More and More Likely the Motive for San Bernardino Rampage”

    An armed robbery is still an armed robbery–regardless of the motive for the armed robbery.

    Why would terrorism be any different?

    Terrorism is creating a spectacle by specifically attacking civilians–and it doesn’t matter what the motive was. It was terrorism anyway.

    Jesus Christ, what’s the point of a free press if journalists everywhere can’t bring themselves to write the plain truth?

    1. Terrorism is creating a spectacle by specifically attacking civilians–and it doesn’t matter what the motive was. It was terrorism anyway.

      That is not how the FBI defines terrorism, and the media follow their lead.

      1. How does the FBI define it?

        Is it not terrorism unless it’s specifically perpetrated by an organization on their list of terrorists?

        1. No, but it must have a political end.

          1. or a social end – like Episiarch’s crusade against fat chicks.

            1. He seems to have a funny way of showing it seeing how he seems bent on banging everyone’s mom regardless of body type.

              1. That’s just to throw everyone off the scent….

            2. That’s not terrorism. That benefits everyone*

              *Fatties dont count

            3. That crusade is just. I suggest billboards at each entrance to my city that proclaim ‘no fat chicks’.

              1. No mohammedans is where the votes are… enough to make me wonder if Donald put them up to it.

          2. Your talking about intentions, again, which is absurd. Are there any other crimes defined solely by motive?

            An armed robbery is an armed robbery regardless of motive. A murder can be different depending on the motive, but they’re all different kinds of murder or manslaughter.

            I suspect the reason most journalists and government entities are reluctant to use the word “terrorism” because they think terrorism is a justification for war.

            1. “Terrorism” isn’t a crime. It’s a sentencing enhancement.

              1. You mean like a “hate crime”?

                When the Symbionese Liberation Army or the Aryan Brotherhood robs a bank, that ain’t terrorism–even if they have a political motive.

                It’s a bank robbery.

                When an Odinist/Satanist burns down a church in Norway, it isn’t terrorism. It’s arson.

                The FBI is wrong.

                The government wanted to hold the insurgents in Iraq, the fighters in Afghanistan, and potentially American citizens working with Al Qaeda–without much justification and maybe forever. They invented a legal justification for doing that, and they called it “terrorism”. They made that definition as expansive as possible so they wouldn’t have to abide by the Geneva conventions and so they could skip around the Constitution.

                Fuck the FBI, and fuck it’s definition of terrorism. A thing is what it is and not something else–certainly not something else just because the FBI says so.

                1. Are there any other crimes defined solely by motive?

                  Murder and manslaughter.

                2. Speaking of Patty Hearst and Tashfeen Malik, what 72 things do mohammedan lady martyrs get in the afterlife–besides the grateful thanks of Fox telescreen anchors?

            2. Are there any other crimes defined solely by motive?

              Sure, Ken — HATE CRIMES!

              1. Which are also not crimes, but sentencing enhancements.

                1. Then why are they called crimes?

                  Oh, and “crimes of passion”.

                  1. And, of course, Crimea.

                    1. Crimea river, amirite?

            3. Hate crimes.

              1. Thought crime.

          3. “” it must have a political end.””

            Acts of War also have a political end, but arent terrorism

            definitions of terrorism typically require purposely “killing noncombatants”‘ of the enemy

            whether there’s ever very-discrete political goals, compared to a more-general intent to ‘hurt the enemy’, is debatable. Al Q claimed they wanted US forces out of the holy land, etc; but 9/11 wasn’t necessarily intended to achieve that, so much.

            1. Yeah, like I argued below, the civilian status is important to the definition.

              You can call it “guerrilla warfare” against military targets. You can even call it “war crimes”.

              But “terrorism” is about generating fear in civilian populations by targeting civilians specifically.

              1. So it’s more like the IRS and ATF?

            2. Acts of war aren’t terrorism because it’s only terrorism when The Enemy does it, duh.

              Otherwise we might be forced to admit that things like the Mai Lai Massacre, Hiroshima, and the Dresden Firebombing was terrorism, and we can’t very well admit THAT now can we??

              1. Countries we were engaged in long bloody wars with? yes, you’re very clever and clearly have a grip.

    2. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “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.”

      1. I think that’s pretty far off. When a black bloc at an anti-IMF rally antagonizes the police, I guess they consider that terrorism?

        That’s not what people are talking about when they talk about “terrorism”.

        It’s a good thing the FBI isn’t in charge of the English language.

        1. It’s a good thing the FBI isn’t in charge of the English language.

          The English definition for terrorism is pretty close to the FBI’s:


          1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

          2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

          3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

          Terrorism isn’t just causing a public spectacle, but trying to instill terror. The motive is what separates terrorism from other crimes, at least in how the FBI and the dictionary define the term. If you have a different definition for the word, that’s fine, but there are valid reasons for others using it the way they do as well.

          1. “Terrorism isn’t just causing a public spectacle, but trying to instill terror.”

            I didn’t say it was just causing a public spectacle–but if a terrorist tree falls in the middle of a forest and no one is there to see it, then calling it terrorism is a stretch. Hard to spread fear without a spectacle.

            I did say that terrorism is targeting civilians. Terrorism is intended to create and spread fear–in civilians.

            The suicide bombing of our Marines in Lebanon circa 1982 may have been perpetrated by elements that eventually coalesced into Hezbollah, which is a terrorist organization and targets civilians in order to create a spectacle and project fear.

            But when a Native American meteorologist does a rain dance, he is not perpetrating science, and when a terrorist organization uses guerrilla warfare against military targets, it is not terrorism.

            1. So, non-civilians can’t feel terror?

              One of the most basic strategies used by terrorists is making a foe think that they can be hit anytime and anywhere. This works on civilian and non-civilian targets.

              1. +1 grenade through the Saigon bus window.

  7. I understand that Farouk also pledged allegiance to a terrorist organization every day when he was in high school.

    1. We don’t know that for sure yet, Hugh.

      1. Yeah, he could have gone to a private school, or chosen to opt out.

    2. He was a brownie?

  8. Terrorism isn’t a motive, it’s a tactic.

    1. it must’ve been really good.

  9. CNN reporters are currently ransacking the Farook house, you know… the crime scene.

    1. Didn’t they do the same thing at the Benghazi consulate before the FBI showed up?

      1. The FBI showed up days later, I think, but there were news crews inside the consulate before them.

        Also, Benghazi isn’t important and barely happened.

        1. Didn’t Hillary and her minions say Benghazi was just a bunch of Libyans on a rave, and it got out of hand or something? Related to some bad X?

          1. Those poor innocent Muslims.

            1. Hey, I think remember a guy making a video about that very subject.

              What happened to him, again?

      2. Old Fake Scandal!!!!11

    2. have they found “motive” yet everyone seems to be looking for that particular character in vain.

    3. “** flips through Farook’s Qur’an ***

      Wow! Sure has a lot of fingerprints for a Holy Book!

    4. In addition to showing photos on live TV of unidentified children, MSNBC doxxed Farook’s mother by showing her DL including SNN on air, and journalists (and possibly random members of the public) are now eating food out of the terrorists’ fridge.

      1. Wow. It makes a pack of hyenas look civilized.

      2. One hopes the terrorists had the foresight to poison their food before going jihad.

        1. From David Burge’s twitter “It would be a shame if the apartment was booby trapped. A reaaal shame”

      3. The media really is a fucking embarrassment to this country.

      4. They have zero shame.

    5. They’re ransacking it in hopes of finding Teabagger pamphlets.

    6. How did they get in? I can understand Benghazi, but that place should have a police car parked out front until their investigation is done. The people were making bombs for Christ’s sake!

      1. I dunno, if a house has possibly been booby trapped, letting journalists in before counter-terrorist forces makes sense from a humane perspective.

  10. Inspiration from both al Qaeda and ISIS noted.

    You mean [redacted]?

    1. Christmas dinners must have been awkward.

      1. But not as awkward as Easter dinners.

        1. Just like Mohammed and Jesus, battling throughout time and space

      2. So it is not [redacted] after all, but plain old familial jealousy that drove Syed to shoot up some people.

    2. Damn. At least they weren’t identical twins or some shit.

      1. One goes on Mavy Patrol, and the other, a Koran makes him lose control?

        1. One says “Cock-a-doodle-doo”, and ….

    3. Did they really need to list the guy’s name? Don’t call out the older brother by name if all clues point to him being against what his brother did.

      1. Media outlets quickly began identifying the brother by name specifically because he shares the same first and last name with the terrorist; only their middle names differed. If the media did not name him and explain that, everyone would assume they were the same person. Initial reports already featured the wrong brother’s photo for that reason.

        1. Sounds like Pete and Pete.

          Little Pete would probably be considered an anarchist terrorist by today’s school system.

          1. And Artie would have been locked up in his first episode for all the time he spent around Pete.

            Then Salon would have written a sympathetic article about him.

        2. Alright, that’s okay then. I was worried they were dragging this guy out of the shadows. Poor fucker, this has got to be a nightmare for him.

    4. If we had banned immigration from Muslim countries his parents never would have come here, allowing to be born here and join the military.

    5. What does “honored for his role in the fight against terrorism” mean?

      1. “These are my medals, Mother. From Army. The seal is for marksmanship, and the gorilla is for sand racing.”

        1. You win. Just laughed out loud in middle of teleconference.

      2. Served on the Big E when they were involved in OIF and OEF, bombing people, some of whom were terrorists. Probably refers to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary or Service Medal or one of the OIF or OEF versions.

        1. Agreed – a lot of MUC’s and similar awarded.

          I was corpsman at Little Creek during Gulf 1, and always enjoyed seeing the Big E in-port at Norfolk – awe-inspiring!

          1. I think you mean “corpse-man”.

  11. sorry if someone already mentioned this… Loretta Lynch on the San Bernardino shootings:
    it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change

    1. I never pay attention to what musicians think about politics. Wait..whut?

      1. Her squaw is on the warpath

      2. She’s actually the daughter of David Lynch, and in fact had a brief appearance in Mulholland Drive.

        Look it up if you don’t believe me.

        1. is gullible in your version of the dictionary?

        2. You mean “Muhamed Drive”?

    2. Wonderful.

    3. She is just excited that she gets seize Farook’s assets.

      1. Damn you.

      2. I really thought there would be some twerking involved.

        1. Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.

      3. That’s great. I like how seriously the singer’s taking it.

    4. There was a player for the Aztecs at SDSU after 9/11. Their plane to the game was grounded because of 9/11, and the game had to be rescheduled. He was quoted on TV as saying that 9/11 was “a blessing in disguise” because their starting QB was injured at the time–and he was going to be available the next week.

      Remember that time Tom Cruise fired his long time publicist, and then he started jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch, railing against Brooke Shields on the Today Show, and generally making himself look like a lunatic?

      I think professional publicists may be the must underpaid people in the whole wide world. Celebrities are idiotic lunatics. They should never say anything that wasn’t written for them.

      1. Except Loretta Lynch is the Attorney General

        1. Yeah, well she shouldn’t say anything that wasn’t written for her either.

        2. Politics is Hollywood for ugly people. That is, ugly on the outside too.

    5. She’s making the mistake of stating what a lot of people feel. Some guys really do feel empathy for everyone that dies on the news. Some folks feel empathy for certain people who die on the news and remind them of themselves or their family members. Most people really don’t care about the people who die on the news.

      People die in horrific ways every single day in the thousands. The only relevance of these deaths for a good chunk of the population is how it affects the political landscape. Saying it is gauche and will draw outrage form the group that happens to feel empathy for these particular people that died, but it’s not a bad point of view not to really care about those who died. The only problem comes from trying to manipulate the guys feeling empathy.

      1. It’s worse than simply not feeling empathy though. It’s feeling happy that it happened because of the political opportunity. That’s evil.

        1. You mean like the orgy of shameful joy we saw in the comments when the Paris attacks happened?

          1. I don’t recall anyone saying it was “wonderful”, no.

            1. But they sure were happy to have their bias confirmed. And more than just a few wallowed in the news like pigs in shit.

              1. Is it still ‘bias’ if it’s confirmed?

                1. I know. I’m such a buzzkill, what with you still riding high on the tasty new murders.

    6. Loretta Lynch on the San Bernardino shootings:
      “it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change”

      Yup, never let a crisis go to waste and never miss a chance to take up slack in the noose.

  12. was radicalized

    Am I the only one that hates this phrase? It seems passive and implies someone did something to her.

    She was a radical.

    1. Yeah, I think it might be more fitting to say her victims were radicalized

      1. And ‘radical’ isn’t necessarily bad.

        They were violent.

  13. /cue These Eyes by The Guess Who.

    Dude looks off.

    1. It’s a driver’s license photo. I realize that things are different in Canada, where drivers licenses are just strips of birchbark with beavers and moose crudely sketched on them, but down here in real America they are bits of plastic containing a photo of the bearer looking, inevitably, as if they’d spent the last 72 hours freebasing meth and eating their family.

      1. (quickly looks at own drivers license photo)


        1. Seriously. If i saw the guy from my license photo hanging around my neighborhood, i’d move.

      2. Good description, and bonus points if it looks like you enjoyed it.

        1. I believe most state DMVs actually have rules against smiling for the photo, so even that’s out.

          1. huh, never heard of that before. From what I could find, a few states do that…..nses_N.htm along with NJ
            But I’ve never heard of that in the midwest

            1. Not that too many people are even capable of smiling after a couple hours in a DMV waiting room…

            2. I was told it is to make it easier for facial recognition software…

      3. My wife’s license looks like a Faces of Meth all-star.

        I look 40lbs heavier.

        And those are the first photos the media will distribute when we turn fugitive.

  14. Given the pipe bombs and the amount of ammunition the couple had, it’s pretty clear that they had plans for something bigger than an office party. This looks like a premature detonation. Perhaps.

    (1) Something somebody did at the party infuriated the guy, he snapped and went off early.

    (2) He or the missus got word that the authorities were on to them and they’d better do something before getting caught.

    1. Or they were almost as incompetent as the guys in Four Lions.

      1. That is a possibility. We don’t know if he brought the bomb when he first arrived at the party.

        1. …meant to reply to Drake

      2. Incompetence is another possibility.

    2. I thought he left a bomb at the party and it failed to detonate – so he had to kill them manually.

  15. Also, what does terrorism mean anymore? I’m not questioning whether they were radical violent Muslims. But if she hadn’t posted something to facebook that was favorable to ISIS, would that change the definition of the attack?

    1. Yes, damn it! Social media makes all the difference!

  16. And this is what happens when mom is more interested in having a grandkid than teaching her own child right and wrong. These 2nd generationals are easy to manipulate because they were raised in a society that discredited any religious basis for morality they might have had: if you do evil, it is because you were on drugs, have a ‘mental illness’, or were ‘radicalized’ by a ‘fake wife counterops from ISIS’.

    1. Your eye-patch is slipping.

  17. The scumbags at New York Daily News have decided there’s nothing to distinguish Islamic terrorism with domestic shooting sprees and the NRA. I’m sure the Islamists are pleased because they don’t want no Hillbilly hogging any of their attention.

    1. Not just the NYDN, but pretty much every proggie out there is now demanding a more inclusive definition of terrorism, specifically so they can include Lanza, Roof, and Dear. Got to keep the narrative of the dangerous white male pumped up.

      1. Yeah. That’s not good.

      2. God forbid they face reality.

        1. Pretty sure reality was hanged by the neck until dead.

      3. I don’t think I’ve been more disgusted by a media outlet’s behavior than that of the Daily News lately.

    2. “The scumbags at New York Daily News have decided there’s nothing to distinguish Islamic terrorism with domestic shooting sprees and the NRA”

      And there seems to be no shortage of people on social media agree with it. That concerns me. Could we be devolving to the point where political disagreement equals enmity?

      1. i think we are. facebook et al make it too easy to express strong opinions without having to deal with the consequences that might accompany calling someone a racist to their face. also you get to be part of a really big group

  18. they had a 6 month old baby, I think we need to investigate the postpartum depression motive

    1. I think we need to investigate the baby for an embedded IED. 8-(

    2. This never would have happened if we had mandatory parental leave!

    3. To get her green card back in July the couple had to prove their marriage was legit. Hence, the baby.
      Thats my theory

    4. I guess I should pray for the baby. That can’t be an easy way to grow up.

      “So, I heard your parents were terrorists…”

      1. Yeah, I suspect granny and the baby are going to relocate and change their names. Perhaps even self-deport which would be the best thing.

        1. Back to somewhere in the Middle East where they will be celebrities.

      2. Better than growing up with psychopaths for parents.

    5. Deport the little bitch.

      1. Hi, John.

        1. Deport you too.

          1. Hey, Tulpa!

          2. YOU get deported, and YOU get deported, and YOU get deported…!

            1. Deportations for some, tiny American flags for others!

              1. Deportations for some, tiny American flags for others!

                NOW you’ve described John’s fantasies.

                I wonder if he’d let the fat Muslim women stay…

            2. They should deport both of you as well.

    6. These people are seriously whacked. They’d rather die for a stupid religion and leave their child without a family?


      Yeah. And I’m supposed to believe because somehow it’s all because of occupations and imperialism? They’re soooo desperate as to want to commit suicide? Please.


      1. Yeah seriously. What a noble belief system

      2. Well, to be fair, plenty of father’s (and some mother’s) have gone to war knowing they may not come back to their children.

        1. something something Chris Kyle Adam Lanza

      3. When people talk about islamism semi-sympathetically as though it is, at least to some extent, another fight against western imperialism or corrupt Arab despots, I feel like the kid from The Ring.

        Kid: “What happened to the girl?”
        Mom: “Samarra?”
        Kid: “Is that her name?”
        Mom: “Mm-hmmm”
        Kid: “Is she still in the dark place?”
        Mom: “No, we set her free.”
        Kid: “You helped her?”
        Mom: “Yeah.”
        Kid: “Why did you do that?”
        Mom: “What’s wrong honey?”
        Kid: “You weren’t supposed to help her.”

      4. No, no. Of course that would a silly thing to expect of you.

        You’re supposed to believe it happened because of climate change.

  19. “Terrorism” in this case is a euphemism for Religious War.

    1. It is a traditional tactic in religious war.

    2. Maybe we should skip the semantic hairsplitting about “terrorism” and start talking about “radical Islamist murder sprees”.

      1. I’d actually be in favor of that.

      2. Or just cut to the chase and call it “jihad”.

        1. Marines in the Middle East call the ones who really want to fight “Hajji’s” – pretty accurate too.

          1. Drake12.4.15 @ 2:21PM

            So it is a religious war?

            1. Once we took out the secular strong-men like Saddam it became a religion motivated war. The stuff in San Bernardino and Paris is right out of Mohammed’s playbook.

  20. That a non-anglo woman was one of the perpetrators is going to spectacularly outrage the proggies. That’s why they’re all clamoring about redefining Lanza as a terrorist. They are scared shitless of data that contradicts their narrative.

  21. Thanks, Captain Obvious.

  22. Uh-oh.
    This will bring all the crypto-rightie immigrant-fearing war-mongoloids out of the cousin-marrying, gun-fellating woodwork.
    Can you weirdos hang on just a moment will I prepare some popcorn?

    1. Crypto?

      Also, if you are going to fellate your gun, make damn sure it is unloaded, for God’s sake!


      Jebediah Springfield: People, our search is over! On this site we shall build a new town where we can worship freely, govern justly, and grow vast fields of hemp for making rope and blankets.

      Shelbyville Manhattan: Yes! And marry our cousins.

      Jebediah Springfield: I was- wha… what are you talking about, Shelbyville? Why would we want to marry our cousins?

      Shelbyville Manhattan: Because they’re so attractive. I… I thought that was the whole point of this journey.

      Jebediah Springfield: Absolutely not!

      Shelbyville Manhattan: I tell you, I won’t live in a town that robs men of the right to marry their cousins!

      1. In this case I’d be fine with him ignoring gun safety protocol, if you catch my drift.

  23. It can’t be terrorism.

    Obama just got done telling us that ISIS was not a threat to the US.

    And we all know he never tells a lie.

    1. ISIS isn’t a threat to the US.

      1. That depends on how you define threat.

        For purposes of validating what Obama said, it means that not a single person within the territory of the United States will ever be harmed in any way, shape form of fashion, by anyone who ever expressed even the slightest support for ISIS either verbally or in writing.

        1. It’s a threat, but not an existential threat.

        2. It be a threat to individual U.S. citizens without being a threat to “the U.S.” in a existential/collective/abstract sense.

        3. That’s a pretty lofty position for Obama to commit to. I’m surprised he would say such a thing publicly, and so explicitly too.

          1. It doesn’t matter whether he explicitly said that or not.

            His uttered words become a living document subject to creative interpretation – just like the Constitution.

    1. Mistakes were made. Lessons were learned. Procedures will be revised in time to vet the 10,000 or so Syrians, wherever they’re from.

    2. More veterinarians required.

  24. The new attack vector: Unlike many relationship sites, membership is free for males.

    1. Go ahead, stick it in the crazy – you know you want to.

      1. Marriage and a commitment to “faith-based activism” is required. This is way beyond Bill Clinton/Charlie Sheen territory.

        1. You are underestimating the appeal of hot, young, crazy has for young men.

          1. Indeed, as in the Parisian Cowgirl.

            Still, my hunch is these Bride of Isis Frankensteins are enveiled past the point of no return. The groom-to-be may suspect crazy, but hot and young are t.b.d.

  25. By “radicalized” I take it Scott is struggling to evade “brainwashed”–which describes islamofascists and christianofascists everywhere. Nothing could be clearer than that these mystical memes are head viruses operated by professional Comprachicos that turn people into mindless berserkers, regardless of where they were born. Both variants of superstition are anti-reason, hence anti-life, and a Reason staffer might look into ways to deprogram Manchurian Candidate victims of organized murder cults instead of panty-twisting and bemoaning. For THAT we have republicans, democrats, econazis and communists already…

    1. Wait, are you actually saying that anyone who is a Christian has been brainwashed into being “mindless berserkers”?

      1. Are you not familiar with his particular brand of insane? In a nutshell all roads lead to christians being [choose epithet here].

  26. the improvised explosive they attempted (and failed) to use during the attack was based on schematics from Inspire magazine, al Qaeda’s propaganda publication. This doesn’t necessarily mean they were acting in support of al Qaeda, though.

    No, I am sure there are perfectly legitimate reasons to read Inspire, like their halal fajita recipes.

    1. Hala fajita recipes?

      Gotta get me some of those.

      1. If you get the December issue, the recipe is right next to the article for “Hottest ankle lingerie to drive your husband/master wild!”

    2. Our 3-letter agencies will be happy to hear their publication is still so popular.

  27. Minus 10 points for Pres. Obama for suggesting that jobs would prevent terrorism.

    Is there a moment of introspection for the left and the SJW? Even a little bit? They were running their mouths about campus oppression run amok, and then the Paris attack happened. Not a month after they jumped at the PP shooting (the shooter said a lot rambling things that just happened to include “baby parts”) to build their “christian terrorist and violent rhetoric” narrative, a terrorist couple killed 14 people.

    The pair killed people who threw them a baby shower. You need to subhuman at a special level to do something like this.

    “Dur, but where did they get the guns.” Well in places like France they obviously bought it in the European black market, where they sell AKs that aren’t even available here. In the US you can do that or buy them yourselves if you’re legal. That’s the reality – Once they’re radicalized, a bunch of future victim’s fates are already sealed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.