Mountain of evidence points to terror as law enforcement searches for motive
The day after the San Bernardino terror attack, law enforcement started down the same path of needless confusion we have seen before with reports that "officials called the case perplexing" with "no clear evidence of terrorism" and a general lack of clarity about "what set off the attack."
All of that despite the fact that, as reported by the NY Times and Business Insider, on Thursday the FBI said they were treating the investigation as counter-terrorism based on: (1) materials the suspects stockpiled (including sophisticated explosive devices, pipe bombs, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and hundreds of tools to construct IEDs); (2) male suspect Syed Rizwan Farook's travel to Pakistan; and (3) Farook's contact with Islamic extremists over a period of several years. (An additional point of note is that Farook's wife and fellow jihadist was in the United States on a K-1 Pakistani passport.)
The FBI stated that the shooting does not fit the mold for workplace violence and the idea now seems "far-fetched" in light of evidence that shows that the shooting was premeditated and the equipment the attackers possessed indicated they were poised to commit violence on a large scale.
Yet confusion reigns as law enforcement remains unclear about what set off the attack, particularly in light of the (irrelevant) fact that Farook targeted his co-workers. Officials also stated that Farook "could have been radicalized, ready to go with some type of attack, and then had a dispute at work and decided to do something." As the investigation continues, law enforcement is committed to delving deeper into "whether [Farook] had connections to militants or extremist ideology."
In sum, the FBI is treating this as a counter-terrorism investigation while puzzling over motive. The contradictory statements they have put out are troubling. They've said work-related violence is "far-fetched" while they continue to pursue this line of thinking. They've verified that at least one of the suspects was in contact with Islamic extremists over a period of many years, yet the agency plans "to look deeper into whether he had any connections to militants or extremist ideology." Anyconnections? Have not such connections just been confirmed?
Maybe. Maybe not. CNN reports that one law enforcement official said Farook's communications with Islamic extremists were "soft connections" in that they weren't frequent and therefore not a high priority. "Soft." Kind of like Obama easingrestrictions on asylum-seekers who have "loose" ties to terror.
Oh, what a needlessly tangled and dangerous web they weave.
This is what happens when the government strips FBI training materials of any reference to Islam while America sinks further into a mire of politically correct "thinking." If the FBI want to delve deeper into terror ties, all they need do is read the Quran or go to just about any mosque, and there they will find all they need to sort things out. In light of the number of ordinary Americans who have educated themselves on the teachings of the Quran and made it a point to learn about those who have waged war against us, there is no excuse for any member of law enforcement (and God bless them all) not to take it upon himself to do the same.
What's going on is absolutely dangerous. It's beyond PC. It's an intentional dumbing down of an issue central to our national security.
Meanwhile, the left is in full throttle to keep the confusion going as long as possible, as Business Insider, CNN, and NBC report the now predictable statements about one of the jihadists: "He was quiet but always polite." "[N]ever struck me as a fanatic. He never struck me as suspicious." "I would say hi and bye. But we never engaged him in conversation. He didn't say much at all." He had no "obvious grudges." He and his wife seemed to be "living the American dream." Farook's brother-in-law said he was "in shock" and had "no idea" why Farook would do what he did. And, for what it's worth, members of the mosques Farook attended used words like mild, calm, peaceful, well-mannered, and decent to describe him. All in all, a "very nice guy."
Play, rewind, repeat. The lines, as if from a screenplay, write themselves over and over again. Would that it were just a movie.
And, to add just one more thing from the Business Insider piece, here is the photograph they chose to feature in the article:
Would that someone would feature a picture of the Quran along with damning text. But no. We get guns, because the leftist agenda is on the march, and the media is front and center in the attack.
Enough of this madness! Will someone finally just say what needs to be said instead of the audio loop about jihadists being quiet, polite, nice folks who keep to themselves and show no sign of anything being wrong? Will someone finally speak the truth (and sooner rather than later) instead of the now familiar sleuthing around for motive when Muslims come down with sudden (or not so sudden) jihad syndrome?
There is only one motive, and it can be found in the Quran. Whatever events may have occurred prior to an act of terror are irrelevant. A large number of Muslims are primed. Nothing is needed to set them off. As they say in science, correlation is not causation. So let's stop trying to correlate two disconnected things in search of motive or cause, such as a disgruntled employee and a subsequent act of terror. If someone said he came down with the flu after looking at a crow and claimed the sight of the crow gave him the flu, his thinking would be labeled misguided (at best).
Same deal here. Let's stop linking two things that are unrelated when it comes to jihad.
The United States must find its way back to truth, sanity, and that core drive all humans are blessed with called the survival instinct.
Instead, we have a president making one obnoxious and intentionally misleading statement after another, such as when, on Thursday, he said it was possible the attacks were terrorist-related, but it was also possible they were work-related. Not to worry. In Barry's world, he can mash the two together and ensure that the final result is, ding-ding-ding, work-related! Or perhaps something new. A hybrid is being floated. CNN reports that "the radicalization wasn't necessarily the only driver behind the carnage, as workplace grievances might have also played a role. President Barack Obama hinted as much Thursday when he said that the attackers may have had 'mixed motives.'"
Ah. I see. Mixed motives. We must never let the truth of Islamic terror stand alone. There must always be an accompanying story of Muslim victimization legitimized by the media who report it all with a straight face.
Lunatics running the asylum.
And if all of this abject and dangerous insanity isn't enough to make your brain shatter, fellow leftist what-difference-does-it-make Hillary Clinton is setting the stage for an encore of her mentally deranged Benghazi thought process. On Thursday, she stated: "No matter what motivation these shooters had, we can say one thing for certain – they shouldn't have been able to do this" (referring, of course, to their ability to purchase guns).
The day prior, Comrade Pelosi stated with faux outrage and political motivation bleeding from her tweet: "Enough is enough!"
I could not agree more. Enough is enough!
Hat tip: Weasel Zippers (for Clinton and Pelosi tweets)
No comments:
Post a Comment