Do You Feel Safe Yet?


DHSA few days after the deadly Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, the Obama Administration vigorously defended its refugee screening process as “rigorous and safe.”

Nothing like this could happen here in the United States, right?

Until it did.

Not even a month later, two terrorists went on a shooting spree in San Bernardino. At the time (and now as well) we blogged that the attack was likely a case of premature detonation – that a bigger attack was planned, and that the two Islamists went on an early shooting spree after the male lost his temper at an office party.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if a bigger attack was planned, although if we were correct, we were lucky in that we avoided a lot more carnage, because Syed Farook couldn’t keep his temper in check. But what does matter is that the Administration’s assertions about its refugee screening process being “rigorous and safe” is apparently nonsense.

On December 16 – a couple of weeks after the San Bernardino attack – the Hill ran a column by a retired Department of Homeland Security explained how that same screening process failed the San Bernardino victims and failed America.

Philip Haney was a targeter at DHS who worked to identify terrorist networks and “connect the dots” between lesser known groups and individuals moving about and operating freely in the United States. He and his colleagues focused on individuals, mosques, Islamic Centers and schools involved in radicalization efforts – mosques such as the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque in San Bernardino where Farook worshiped and was well-known to the congregation and leadership. And probably mosques such as the infamous Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, located just a couple of miles from my house, where the thankfully droned into oblivion Anwar al-Awlaki spewed his poison.

Haney had these types of groups in his sights, including the Islamist group al-Huda.

Another focus of my investigation was the Pakistani women’s Islamist group al-Huda, which counted Farook’s wife, Tashfeen Malik, as a student. While the al-Huda International Welfare Foundation distanced themselves from the actions of their former pupil, Malik’s classmates told the Daily Mail she changed significantly while studying at al-Huda, gradually becoming “more serious and strict.” More ominously, the group’s presence in the U.S. and Canada is not without its other ties to ISIS and terrorism. In 2014, three recent former students at al-Huda’s affiliate school in Canada, aged 15 to 18, left their homes to join the Islamic State in Syria.

Haney says between Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque in San Bernardino and Malik’s involvement with al-Huda, the dots would have been connected, and additional scrutiny would have at the very least been indicated; maybe it would have led to a denial of Malik’s K-1 visa, or even gotten Farook placed on the No Fly list, perhaps in time to stop the attack, but that was not to be.

DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. They claimed that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties.

Islamist groups, who need to be thoroughly investigated before being placed on the list, were barred from investigation because they’re not on the list. Well, that makes all the sense in the world.

Do you feel safe yet?

Worse yet, DHS went back and deleted all the records of Haney’s investigation, and after the latter brought his concern to the Inspector General, as well as several members of Congress, he was subjected to adverse actions and investigations, even though his work was exemplary, as detailed in this letter of commendation he received in June 2012. Thankfully, none of retaliatory investigations found any wrongdoing, and Haney was allowed to honorably retire from government service.

But the story doesn’t end there. Or rather, it doesn’t start there.

Remember the Crotch Bomber? Right before the unhinged jihadist tried to blow up a plane with an explosive packed in his panties, but instead set his own genitals on fire prior to being captured, DHS went on a record and research scrubbing spree.

Just before that Christmas Day attack, in early November 2009, I was ordered by my superiors at the Department of Homeland Security to delete or modify several hundred records of individuals tied to designated Islamist terror groups like Hamas from the important federal database, the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS). These types of records are the basis for any ability to “connect dots.” Every day, DHS Customs and Border Protection officers watch entering and exiting many individuals associated with known terrorist affiliations, then look for patterns. Enforcing a political scrubbing of records of Muslims greatly affected our ability to do that. Even worse, going forward, my colleagues and I were prohibited from entering pertinent information into the database.

A few weeks later, in my office at the Port of Atlanta, the television hummed with the inevitable Congressional hearings that follow any terrorist attack. While members of Congress grilled Obama administration officials, demanding why their subordinates were still failing to understand the intelligence they had gathered, I was being forced to delete and scrub the records. And I was well aware that, as a result, it was going to be vastly more difficult to “connect the dots” in the future—especially before an attack occurs.

Who knows how many attacks could have been prevented had the DHS been allowed to continue its work?

No one does, because political considerations apparently trump national security in our country.

Look, there’s a very fine line between invasion of privacy and infringements on individual rights. The U.S. national security apparatus and the dedicated, committed people who work in our intelligence community and law enforcement walk that line carefully and diligently every day. An untold amount of work is done by the inter-agency before any individual or entity is sanctioned as a terrorist, or gets placed on the Specially Designated Nationals list. Legal review, leadership review, coordination with other agencies in the government. Placing an individual or entity on the SDN list is no joke, unlike some… other lists we’ve seen.

Intelligence professionals have to go through massive amounts of training. They have to learn how to safeguard personal information, whom they are allowed to collect on, what to report and how to report violations, and other agency-specific training to ensure that the rights of the people are balanced with the need to protect our nation. Their analyses are constantly challenged. Did you consider alternatives? Was your assessment based on a variety of corroborative sources? Were these sources credible? Given the fiasco that ensued after the now infamous Iraq WMD National Intelligence Estimate was published in 2002, and the subsequent Iraq invasion, it is no surprise that the Intelligence Community is much more cautious about its tradecraft.

This is all necessary, there’s no doubt. The rights of the people have to be protected.

But at the same time, ordering law enforcement and the intelligence community to scrub years of investigative research into violent extremists with obvious links to savage jihadists whose goal is to launch attacks against the United States, because they might somehow disturb a political narrative or result in some nebulous alleged “violations” of someone’s rights, is a dangerous policy. Fact is that researching a mosque’s, a group’s, or an individual’s links to terrorist organizations violates no one’s rights. If law enforcement is not allowed to do said research, or if said research is nixed due to political considerations, this nation is in danger.

Grave danger.

9-11-attackThis is not an exaggeration.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks, a rigorous review by the 9-11 commission revealed that lack of information sharing was partially responsible for our failure to prevent the attacks, as was not watchlisting future hijackers and not trailing them after they traveled to Bangkok, and not informing the FBI about one future hijacker’s U.S. visa.

But that’s not all the report revealed. The commission’s findings also said we did not discover fraudulent statements made on visa applications and failed to detect fake passports.

The work Haney and his colleagues were doing would likely have been helpful in identifying terrorist links, and if shared with other agencies, would have probably helped prevent future attacks. But instead DHS was ordered by the Administration to toss out its research. It will not be shared with anyone, and that could result in disaster.

Apparently, this administration has learned nothing.

Do you feel safe yet?

Originally posted at The Bull Elephant.

Explosion forces Somali plane to make emergency landing


Odds on this being an al Shabaab terrorist attack? I’d say they’re pretty good.

Two were injured after an explosion blew a hole in the side of a commercial plane taking off from Mogadishu.

There was no immediate explanation of the explosion from the airline or Somali government officials.

“Daalo airline was enroute to Djibouti but it landed shortly after it took off. A fire exploded and two passengers were slightly wounded,” Mohamed Hussein, an agent for Daallo Airlines, the operator of the flight, told Reuters.

Aviation website said the explosion occurred on flight D3159, an Airbus A321, adding witnesses heard a loud bang.

Daallo-airlines_mogadishu-2Couple of things that are interesting about this.

Daallo-airlines_mogadishu-1First, from the photos I’m seeing, the explosion took place at a window seat, so I’m thinking a passenger. And unless the passenger spontaneously combusted, he was either wearing or carrying an explosive device.

Second, al Shabaab has been a bit more violent as of late, according to press. There was a beach attack last month in which 17 people were killed. A few days before the beach attack, these turds carried out an assault on a Kenyan military base. Just a few days ago, they raided a village in Kenya, killing three people.

And finally, witnesses report seeing a badly burned body fall from the sky. These reports are unconfirmed, but when examined in the context of what we do know already, I’d be willing to bet this was another terrorist attack.

I will give major kudos to the pilot for landing the plane safely, even thought that aircraft was sporting a large, scary hole in its fuselage!

I’m also amazed at how calm everyone appears as they sport their oxygen masks, while the plane makes its emergency descent!

I admit it. I’d be crying like a little girl and probably soiling myself just a little as the plane made its landing!

That airline had better had a fresh supply of extra panties to hand out to its passengers!

All joking aside, al Shabaab terrorists are quite prolific at killing. There’s a reason they’ve been designated under Executive Order 13224 as a specially designated global terrorist entity, and that reason is… they’re TERRORISTS! They carried out more than 1700 terrorist attacks in 2007 alone, and their kill count is well over 100 in 2016 already. Not a good way to start the year.

But again, you ask, why do we, the United States, care? They’re mainly staging attacks in Africa, so is it a matter of US national security?

I’d say that it could be. As African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) military forces consistently take on al Shabaab and reduce their ability to operate in Somalia, it appears that al Shabaab’s ambitions have expanded somewhat.  The Center for Strategic and International Studies assesses that the group has become more expansionist in its ideology and have committed to establishing an Islamic caliphate in Africa. And it appears they’ll do anything and target anyone to achieve that goal. Will there be a next time? A next plane? With Americans on it? Additionally, they’ve spread their poison into Kenya, and have been wreaking havoc there as well.

So yeah, we should care. We should care that they have decided to diversify and spread their slime. We should care that their goal is to establish a caliphate with their crazy. And if you think they’re going to stop at Africa, I’ve got this bridge… They’ve already called for attacks in the United States. How long before the next US-located crazy takes them up on the challenge?

Deadly Inspiration


starbuxAre they still the JV team?

A series of explosions has rocked the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, with gun battles on the streets.

The blasts were centred around Thamrin Street, a major shopping and business district close to foreign embassies and the United Nations offices.


So-called Islamic State (IS) said it carried out the attacks, a news agency linked to the militant group said.

Apparently the Indonesian police say that a local group that’s allied to IS, but isn’t really directed by the IS is responsible for the bombing that killed seven, including the five attackers.

This brings me to speculate a bit about the nature of what IS. Its terrorist activities appear to be split into two buckets: 1) IS directed and 2) IS inspired.

It’s the “inspired” bucket that worries me more.

I think IS directed attacks are probably easier for the intelligence community to track, since they require coordination and planning. There is always a chance someone will report suspicious activity. There’s the possibility of suspicious financial transfers being caught early. Planning can always be compromised, although it often is not. Directed attacks can be more complex in nature, given the coordination required, judging from the Paris attacks last November, and even though the assailants weren’t caught in time to prevent the attacks, financial intelligence helped map covert networks by tracking financial transactions.

But IS-inspired attacks are different. IS doesn’t direct those. It doesn’t plan them. It doesn’t get involved, and is probably often surprised, albeit delighted, by their occurrence.

When the two scumbags launched an attack on San Bernardino, ISIS praised the two terrorists, but stopped short of claiming responsibility. The female gargoyle pledged her allegiance to ISIS in an online posting, but the attack doesn’t appear to have been directed by them. They simply stockpiled guns, went on a rampage, and tried to get away in a car, which didn’t work out so well for them. I suspected they had been planning a bigger attack, given the number of guns they had collected, and said at the time (and still say) that the murdering swine lost his shit at the party, went back home, grabbed his jihadist whore, and proceeded to take his rage out on his co-workers. The investigation is far from complete in this case, but I do think we averted a larger attack – perhaps even an IS-directed one – due to this douche pickle’s premature detonation.

The Philadelphia swine molester who shot a police officer a few days ago was also “inspired” to murder. There was no planning required, no coordination, and no financial trail. He simply used a stolen police firearm (so those of you screeching about more gun control can STFU – no law could have prevented this), stopped a cop car, and proceeded to shoot.

Yesterday’s attack on the Indonesian capital of Jakarta seems to bear a resemblance to Paris, and the New York Times reports that IS has claimed responsibility for the attack. According to the Times, “[a]t least 16 terrorism suspects have been arrested in Indonesia in the past month alone, and the police said they received information in late November that the Islamic State was planning “a concert” in Indonesia, possibly meaning an attack.” The police in Indonesia appear to have been aware of the attack’s organizer prior to yesterday’s attack.

Mr. Bahrun served a prison sentence in West Java Province in Indonesia in 2012 for illegal possession of firearms and explosives, and he is identified as the author of a recent blog post praising the November terrorist attacks in Paris and their high death toll. The post, titled “Lessons from the Paris Attacks,” urged his fellow Indonesians “to study the planning, targeting, timing, coordination, security and courage of the Paris teams,” …

While there seems to be some conflicting reporting as to whether the attack was IS-directed, or simply the brainchild of an ex-con inspired by the Paris attacks, AFP reports that Bahrun had gone to Syria and joined IS and had directed the attacks from there, and at least the Jakarta police chief Tito Karnavian didn’t seem too shocked, claiming Bahrun “he had been ‘planning attacks such as this.'”

Does knowledge such as this help stop these attacks? Likely not. Reports seem to show that something is coming, but it’s tough to say where, when, or how. Even now-declassified infamous PDB that assessed an attack was coming in the United States prior to September 11, didn’t identify how and when the attacks were coming.

However, given now much organization it took to plan and execute these attacks, we were soon able to hone in on targets, freeze assets, and identify networks.

With these lone-wolf, IS-inspired attacks, there’s little to examine. More likely than not there isn’t a network to target. More likely than not, there’s no financial trail to follow. More likely than not, there is little to no coordination or real plotting. More often than not, these weak-minded jihadist scum are seduced by effective ISIS social media campaigns and professional recruitment videos.

How does one stop that? How does one counter that?

Yes, more due diligence should have been done before allowing Tashfeen Malik to enter this country on a K1 visa. But that would not have stopped natural born radicalized American citizens, such as her husband Syed Farook and Nidal Hasan, the mass murdering yambag who killed our troops at Ft. Hood.

Sure, one could scour social media or use programs like Carnivore to scour electronic communications, but then you run across very real, very serious privacy issues.

That’s what really makes these lone wolf psychos dangerous. And that’s what makes IS even more so. Planned, coordinated attacks can be prevented, although obviously not even close to always. But it is hard to predict whom the IS social media campaigns have reached, whom they have converted, and what those feeble-minded, easily-influenced monkeys are planning to do once they pledge their heart and soul to IS. Thanks to the Internet IS reach is wide, and even the poorest, slum-dwelling derelict can have access to their message.

And that’s what keeps me up at night.

Obama’s San Bernardino speech: much to agree with, but major issues


The President addressed the nation last night in an effort to not only reassure a nervous populace that the government is working to keep Americans safe, but also to advance some of his more controversial ideas, which will make politicians look like they’re doing “something,” while doing nothing to protect our people. It’s unfortunate, because there’s lots in that speech to agree with, but fundamental problems remain. So I figured I’d take it apart – or fisk it. Feel free to agree/disagree/comment/question as needed.

The full transcript is here. And on a technical note: I use the blockquote function on this blog, which makes it very clear which paragraphs are from the President’s speech and which are mine. However, if you’re viewing the blog on a mobile device, you will not be able to distinguish one from the other. I’d say it’s probably fairly easy to tell the difference between my writing and the President’s speech, but I’m giving you a warning anyway.

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays. They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons. Each of them served their fellow citizens and all of them were part of our American family.

Tonight, I want to talk with you about this tragedy, the broader threat of terrorism, and how we can keep our country safe.

Those are beautiful sentiments, and they’re all true. The murder victims were Americans. They came from all walks of life. Some of them sacrificed themselves to save the lives of their coworkers and friends. Some of them were, in fact, heroes who faced the threat head on.

The FBI is still gathering the facts about what happened in San Bernardino, but here is what we know. The victims were brutally murdered and injured by one of their coworkers and his wife. So far, we have no evidence that the killers were directed by a terrorist organization overseas, or that they were part of a broader conspiracy here at home. But it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West. They had stockpiled assault weapons, ammunition, and pipe bombs. So this was an act of terrorism, designed to kill innocent people.

I will disagree on one of those points. As I pointed out in an earlier essay, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that they were part of a broader conspiracy at home, including the group of Middle Eastern men that had been observed to have been hanging around, and whom no one wanted to report as suspicious, because they feared being accused of racism. And there’s evidence to suggest that maybe, by getting into an altercation at work and going on a hate-fueled rampage, the terrorist may have triggered early, and we may have avoided a more significant massacre.

Also “stockpiled assault weapons”??? Is he for real? Two ARs and 2500 rounds of ammo do not “stockpiling” make. I can go through 500-700 rounds on one trip to the range. It’s not uncommon, nor is it dangerous or indicative of terrorist activity.

Our nation has been at war with terrorists since al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 Americans on 9/11. In the process, we’ve hardened our defenses — from airports to financial centers, to other critical infrastructure. Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe. Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas — disrupting safe havens in several different countries, killing Osama bin Laden, and decimating al Qaeda’s leadership.

 We can debate all day how effective some of those measures have been, but I will agree we’ve made some good strides in targeting terrorists. The problem is terrorism is a wiggly worm, so you’re never really finished with it. It just creeps up in different forms and various countries.

For seven years, I’ve confronted this evolving threat each morning in my intelligence briefing. And since the day I took this office, I’ve authorized U.S. forces to take out terrorists abroad precisely because I know how real the danger is. As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than the security of the American people. As a father to two young daughters who are the most precious part of my life, I know that we see ourselves with friends and coworkers at a holiday party like the one in San Bernardino. I know we see our kids in the faces of the young people killed in Paris. And I know that after so much war, many Americans are asking whether we are confronted by a cancer that has no immediate cure.

Again, note what I’ve said before. I don’t see terrorism going away anytime soon. I don’t see the Islamist extremists going away anytime soon, but let’s focus on the root of the problem and eradicate the jihadists at their core.

Well, here’s what I want you to know: The threat from terrorism is real, but we will overcome it. We will destroy ISIL and any other organization that tries to harm us. Our success won’t depend on tough talk, or abandoning our values, or giving into fear. That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for. Instead, we will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless, and by drawing upon every aspect of American power.

OK… tell me more! I want details!

Here’s how. First, our military will continue to hunt down terrorist plotters in any country where it is necessary. In Iraq and Syria, airstrikes are taking out ISIL leaders, heavy weapons, oil tankers, infrastructure. And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.

ISIL will be replaced by other groups. You’re not eradicating fundamentalist Islam, but rather a group that exercises it. Fundamentalist extremist Muslims (y’all will be amused to know that I initially and very much unintentionally mistyped the word “extremist,” and it came out “excremist,” which is probably more accurate anyway) exist, and anyone who walks that walk needs to be eradicated. That said, I’m all about kicking some ISIL ass, so let’s do it!

Second, we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens. In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive. We’ve stepped up this effort since the attacks in Paris, and we’ll continue to invest more in approaches that are working on the ground.

This concerns me a bit, because invariably a number of those arms and munitions wind up in ISIL hands.

The rest of the strategy focuses on using the resources we have – financial intelligence, intelligence sharing with our allies, etc., as well as examining the visa program that allowed the female terrorist sow to enter this country in the wrong place. He did refer to it as a “visa waiver” program, but that’s not accurate. She came here on a K1 – fiance visa.

There are a number of strategies that can be utilized to fight jihadists, but first we need to acknowledge that fundamentalist Islam exists, and that these jihadi assholes are a threat to everything good and decent in this world.

The real problem with his speech comes toward the middle, where he informs us what Congress should do to prevent such attacks from happening in the future.

To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun. What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon? This is a matter of national security.

There are so many things wrong with this suggestion, I don’t even know where to start! The people on this list literally don’t know they’re on it until they try to board a plane. There is no due process, and according to leaked documents, nearly 40 percent of the people on the list have no affiliation with any terrorist group. None. There are people on the list who are affiliated to several known and designated terrorist groups, but according to the government’s watchlisting guidelines, officials don’t need “concrete facts” or “irrefutable evidence” to secretly place someone on the list. Their standard is “reasonable suspicion,” and the inclusion on the list is nearly automatic.

And based on this vague and arbitrary standard, the President wants to relieve hundreds of thousands of people of their rights?


Oh, and by the way, neither Farook nor that pig humping whore he brought home from Saudi Arabia and married were on the list. So tell us again, how this list will help prevent attacks such as San Bernardino?

And then he goes full turnip.

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino. I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures. But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology. What we can do — and must do — is make it harder for them to kill.

Is this where we point out that the .223 cartridge is essentially a varmint rifle? Is this where we point out that California has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the nation, garnering an “A-” from the Brady Center, to which the more tyrannical the gun control laws, the better? Is this where we note that France has very strict gun control laws, and yet several terrorists went on a rampage, killing 130 people, and despite those facts, he claimed that these massacres don’t happen? Is this where we note that banning scary, black guns didn’t make us any safer in 1994 and that after the ban’s sunset in 2004, violence writ large continued to decline?

The rest is irrelevant. It’s more “inspirational” pablum about standing together to fight ISIL. I will note, however, that he stressed we weren’t at war with Islam, and that we need the help and participation of Muslims around the world and here in the United States if we are to win the war against ISIL.

I will remark once again, that while our war is not with Islam writ large, it is with extremist, fundamentalist Islam. It’s not ISIL per se that we need to get rid of, but rather any jihadist loons who are looking to destroy us. ISIL is a leaf on the same poisonous bush that spawned al Qaida, al Nusra Front, the Taliban and other psychotics. If we are to win this war, we need to recognize this and encourage and protect those Muslims who take the bold steps of standing up and condemning the radicals in their midst – at great risk to them and their families, by the way. And there are quite a few of them.

In Washington DC. In Massachusetts. In Missouri. In Michigan. In Europe and India. And on social media.

So let’s keep our eye on the ball and our focus on protecting our lives and our rights.

Dear Hashem, here’s a bit of news for you…


We don’t give a rat’s flying fuck if posting a photo of that Jihadist sow Tafsheen Malik without the veil over her face is disrespectful.

The Al Jazeera America producer Hashem Said tweeted exactly this at ABC news when they ran a photo of the murdering helltwat and showed her face. Trust me, Sparky – most of us wish that fugly pig left her foul grill covered, but that said, respect toward a murdering hog is the last thing on our minds.

Said then proceeded, in true SJW form, to berate Twitter users who called him out on his lunacy by accusing them of racism ht_tashfeen_malik_float_jc_151204_12x5_1600and bigotry, because apparently they didn’t know the difference between disrespect of the culture and disrespect of the individual. He claimed that showing that filthy swine’s face was disrespectful to her family.

Guess what!

Nope. Still don’t care.

When a filthy troglodyte launches a terrorist attack against my fellow Americans, giving a crap about her or her family’s alleged “dignity” is the furthest from my mind.

You know what’s disrespectful? Killing a bunch of civilians at a holiday party.

You know what’s disrespectful? Coming to this country, enjoying our rights and freedoms, being afforded opportunities you couldn’t even begin to have in that shithole you left, and repaying said debt with murder.

You know what else is disrespectful? Demanding any kind of consideration for that vile, murdering whore’s family, dog, culture, or anything else after she murdered – MURDERED – 14 innocent people along with that impotent neckbeard she married.

A couple of days later, after being hammered on Twitter by people with a sense of human decency and decorum, and after whining about feeling all victimized, he finally issued an apology.

TAFmPn48pAssGwLfCpxkGtKoPPGboIs5fFke1fxqkEdvRR1RV2-aStkpaCHdsf8zwfoc1gBvUp52jbaJPdCWRLbbDgr8=s2048hat was the last thing he tweeted out before slinking away in shame. Oh, he also deleted the original tweet, but the Internet does not forget.


So what do we know? It appears to be a case of premature detonation.


Note to some readers, whose attention span is that of gnats on meth: I wrote this piece as events were unfolding. I also tried to take everything we knew then and know now into account when examining the events in San Bernardino. There are some strange details about this attack that make it seem like it was a bit more spontaneous than a normal jihadist attack. And if you actually read to the end, my assessment is that there may have been a bigger attack planned, but Farook probably lost his temper at the party and launched an unplanned, spontaneous attack on his coworkers, rather than waiting to execute a bigger event elsewhere that he and Malik probably planned. In essence, this is my attempt to analyze the actual details of the event and provide a deeper analysis than just “OMG JIHAD!”


Yesterday’s shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, CA remains full of questions. We now know both shooters were Muslims, and they’re currently warming a slab at the morgue. The nauseating rampage led to the parade of the usual suspects calling for more gun control on the left, and more Muslim control on the right. What I’d like to do is step back and examine what we do know as objectively as I can. According to NPR, this is what we know:

Syed Farook, an environmental specialist who was born in the U.S., has worked for the San Bernardino County health department for five years.

Tashfeen Malik was Farook’s wife, says Hussam Ayloush of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Malik was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia before she married Farook about two years ago, according to Ayloush.

The couple had a 6-month-old daughter, whom they left with Farook’s mother on the morning of the attack, Ayloush says.

Say "hi" to the murderous bag of shit.

Say “hi” to the murderous bag of shit.

The shooting was concentrated at an office party at the Inland Regional Center – a place that provides social services to people with developmental disabilities. We know that Farook attended the party as a county employee and left in anger at some point during the event, according to police.

We also know that the firearms used in the shooting were purchased legally. That means neither Farook nor his wife were prohibited from owning them, law enforcement officials told NPR. We also know now that police believe there was no third shooter.

And we know that police have not ruled out traditional Islamic terrorism, and one coworker described Farook as pretty quiet and reserved, but did note that he had recently begun to grow a beard. He did visit Saudi Arabia for about a month, and brought back Malik.

Farook’s father also told press that his son was “very religious,” and an individual who had been working in the area noted a half a dozen Middle Eastern men hanging around, but didn’t want to say anything, because he didn’t want to appear racist.

And there’s another weird component to this – mental issues. The Telegraph reports that Farook’s mother filed for divorce from his father in 2006, nothing multiple instances of physical abuse. It sounds like daddy dearest was a wife-beating fuckstain, which would also explain the hate-filled bloodlust.

She enumerated multiple instances of domestic abuse in the legal filing, and said her husband “threatens to kill himself on a daily basis”. During one incident, she said in a court filing, her son came between them “to save me.”

Those are the facts, and so far, as I see it, the evidence points to either traditional Islamic terrorism, or workplace violence. I wouldn’t rule out gang-related activity either, to be frank. I’m not ready to pass judgment on which yet.

That said, I’d like to note a few things.

There doesn’t seem to be any attached symbolism to this attack. I can’t imagine that a terrorist gets pissed off at work and decides to launch a terror attack. It’s weird. It was a center for disabled people, not anything symbolic of Western culture or military might. Terrorist attacks are meant as symbols to both cause fear and communicate.

… [T]he terrorist needs to publicize his attack. If no one knows about it, it will not produce fear. The need for publicity often drives target selection; the greater the symbolic value of the target, the more publicity the attack brings to the terrorists and the more fear it generates.

We all know the symbolism behind attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. It’s possible that the November 13 attacks in Paris were significant because of the date. Educational institutions – children – are powerful symbolic targets that evoke an emotional response. Beslan, Peshawar, Toulouse, Garissa… Where’s the symbolism in attacking a bunch of adults at a holiday party who work with disabled kids?

There doesn’t seem to be any symbolic value in what Farook and his whore have done. That makes me think that either they had been planning an attack at another site on another date, and just got so angry, that they decided, “Oh what the fuck! We’ll just make a go of it early,” or it really was a workplace incident.

It’s also curious that Daeshbags didn’t take credit for this. They celebrated all over social media, sure, but they’re normally pretty quick to claim the murdering shitstains as their own, and they haven’t claimed credit for this, which is weird.

I also don’t know if the police found anything that confirms a motive and are keeping it quiet, or whether there really was nothing. If it’s the latter, that’s kind of surprising. Generally jihadists like to leave declarations, letters, videos… something, anything that confirms the violent jihad. They don’t like to leave doubt as to their mission. As far as I know there is nothing. That may change in the future, but the fact that there was no note, no declaration, no video, or anything else that celebrates the glory of murdering infidels and giving themselves to their god is a bit odd.

And San Bernardino is home to some pretty severe gang violence. I keep wondering if that’s why this bag of rancid effluvia and his cuntastic whore had all that gear ready to go.

That said, a CNN update today says:

Syed Rizwan Farook — one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre — was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.

Farook’s apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.

At this point I’m thinking the theory that they were, in fact, Islamic jihadists who were planning an attack at another time and place seems pretty correct. Police found more pipe bombs, materials to make IEDs, and a lot of ammunition at the home of these apparently jihadist fucks. This certainly makes it seem like there was another – much bigger, more significant – attack planned, and that for some reason Farook lost his shit and decided to shoot up his co-workers in a fit of rage. That also makes it believable that this was a case of premature detonation.

Social Justice Morons Blame Income Inequality for the Rise of Daesh


Once again I have to ask: Have you ever seen something so stupid that it leaves you not only scratching your head until your scalp bleeds, but wondering if we’re at a point where the Sweet Meteor of Death (SMOD) would be the only remedy for the vast amounts of retardery put out into the world by the self-loathing social justice warrior set?

I know I’ve asked this question a lot, and sometimes I’m encouraged by what I read on the Internet. Today is not one of those days.

Yesterday, the Washington (Com)Post plucked a rumination out of its belly button lint examining whether Western nations are to blame for the rise of Daeshbag violence, because… Ready for this?


The (Com)Post admits that the idea is “controversial” and that this is a debate that’s “just beginning” even as it examines the brain droppings of one Thomas Piketty, whose entire academic existence revolves around proving how evil and horrible capitalism is and how its very nature will result in the growth the dreaded “wealth inequality” that will ostensibly create “a permanent, dynastic, global aristocracy, or an ‘endless inegalitarian spiral,’” according to Forbes. As an aside, Forbes also details how a grad student from MIT basically kicks Piketty in his shriveled, barely operational raisins by challenging the very premise of his poorly-reasoned “Capitalism is Teh Source of All Ebil™” mantra.

For the record, the debate is not just beginning. In my “Roots of Terrorism” Master’s level class in 2008 we explored (and tossed) the claim that poor people join terrorist groups en masse due to income inequality. The National Bureau of Economic Research published a working paper in 2004 that looked at the determinants of terrorism at the country level. The paper showed that “terrorist risk is not significantly higher for poorer countries, once the effects of other country-specific characteristics such as the level of political freedom are taken into account.”

Princeton economics professor Alan Krueger, who has also advised the National Counterterrorism Center on the subject, also disagrees with this poverty = terrorism nonsense.

Why are better educated, more advan­taged individuals more likely than others to join terrorist groups? I think of terrorism as a market, with a supply side and a demand side. Individuals, either in small groups or on their own, supply their services to terrorist organizations.

But… but… but… Piketty will whine, it’s ECONOMIC INEQUALITY!

If you look at the region between Egypt and Iran — which includes Syria — you find several oil monarchies controlling between 60 and 70 percent of wealth, while housing just a bit more than 10 percent of the 300 million people living in that area.


Within those monarchies, he continues, a small slice of people controls most of the wealth, while a large — including women and refugees — are kept in a state of “semi-slavery.” Those economic conditions, he says, have become justifications for jihadists, along with the casualties of a series of wars in the region perpetuated by Western powers.

Hey, look at us! We're so indigent!

Hey, look at us! We’re so indigent!

The only problem is that the jihadists themselves have actually caused economic problems! They shut down businesses. They destroy livelihoods, leaving those who actually contribute to the economy with little choice but to join them, and leaving them with no economic options if they don’t. In addition, not a single sane investor in the world would put money into a shithole where Islamic terrorists are beheading people in the streets. Essentially, they have turned the economy into a recruiting tool, and by taking full control of the economy, they have wrested any ability to make a livelihood from merchants and businesspeople.

Before Islamic State militants overran her hometown of Mosul, Iraq, in June 2014, Fahima Omar ran a hairdressing salon. But ISIS gunmen made Omar close her business—and lose her only source of income. Salons like hers encouraged “debauchery,” the militants said.

Omar is one of many business owners—male and female—who say ISIS has forced them to shut up shop and lose their livelihoods in the process. The extremist group has also prevented those who refuse to join it from finding jobs, and has imposed heavy taxes on civilians.

Additionally, Daesh is the spawn of al Q’aida, which wasn’t exactly started by poor jihadists disillusioned with not getting their share of the economic pie.

The World Bank is trying to figure out the level of income inequality in the Middle East, and claims that due to lack of transparency, it’s extremely hard to gauge who has squirreled wealth away where and how much. The world’s understanding of income inequality in the Middle East until now has been pretty limited, and we actually thought that income inequality in the region was relatively low. World Bank economist Irina Ianchovichina says looking just at household income is insufficient (Piketty claims to rely on income tax information from those countries, but Ianchovichina says the World Bank hasn’t even been able to get that info).

Measuring wealth is much more complex than calculating income, so any one source gives us only a partial picture. The Forbes database of billionaires gives us information on the wealth and nationalities of billionaires, most of who either inherited their wealth or earned it themselves. This database suggests this sort of wealth in the region is not very high, except in Lebanon.

So what might we be missing? In many cases, it appears the amount of wealth accumulated by heads of state in the region is not trivial: information on this can be obtained from various sources, including Forbes. When we include the wealth of heads of state we find that wealth concentration increases in a number of countries, although in some of the wealthiest countries like Qatar and even Kuwait, this particular adjustment doesn’t make much difference.

Other recent evidence suggests that the nationals of many countries hide their wealth in bank accounts in tax havens and that, cumulatively, these accounts show up as a sizable share of a country’s Gross Domestic Product. Niels Johannesen and co-authors show that autocracies rich in resources like oil—many of them countries in the Arab world—account globally for a much larger share of hidden wealth than other types of countries. And now, data from the HSBC on such bank deposits by nationality shows that most Arab countries are among the top one third of countries ranked by the amount of money in their HSBC accounts.

In other words, that’s quite the assertion there, Sparky! Information on real wealth concentration is limited due to the lack of transparency in those nations, studies over the years have shown that economic factors have only limited impact on the rise in terrorism, and yet Piketty puts forth this claim.


I would guess it’s because it’s his bread and butter. He’s been harping on this income inequality thing for years. He promotes wealth redistribution through a progressive progtarded global tax on wealth. While he claimed to have been converted to the virtues of capitalism and the free market after a 1991 trip to the USSR, it apparently didn’t stick. As a matter of fact he served as an economic adviser to Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal during the French presidential campaign, so I don’t know how anyone can claim with any seriousness that this guy is in any way objective or a reliable source of economic assessment. And yet, you can expect the usual prog suspects will glom on to this as an anchor for their feelings of Western guilt and their insistence that everyone who is rich be punished for it.

Oh, but the oil revenues of rich Arabic countries are not going to education, Piketty claims (link is in French)! Oil money is supposed to go to regional development, he claims! Well, I’m so glad he seems to consider himself the arbiter of how other nations should spend their money! Sure, every nosy socialist on the planet wants to tell others how to spend their wealth, because obviously their feminist studies degrees make them qualified adjudicators of allocation of revenues. And while spending on education is nice to have, there’s no indication that education, or lack thereof, is contributing to Daesh recruitment efforts. As a matter of fact, according to Dr. Krueger’s research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the exact opposite is true.

Not only that, but Daesh scumbags are incredibly rich. They’ve stolen oil and taken over its production, and they apparently have a waiting list of would-be terrorist assholes waiting to blow themselves up for Allah! Worse yet, rich Saudis are allowed to jump the queue, causing quite a bit of jealous discontent among the other murderous freaks. AH! Maybe that’s what Piketty means? They’re just jealous because the rich are being allowed to blow themselves quicker than they are! Yeah… that certainly sounds like supporting evidence for Piketty’s idiotic theory… NOT!

Here’s the thing. Terrorism is the buzzword of the decade. If you can link your claims to terrorism, you are almost sure to get a captive audience for even the most defective of claims. Piketty has been promoting his income inequality views for years, and even though the evidence done over the past decade shows no correlation between poverty, a lack of education, and a desire to become a terrorist or even support for terrorist views (quite the opposite appears to be true), he probably sees this as an opportunity to advance his redistributionist agenda.

So watch out, people! “Global warming” and “income inequality” will be the two catch phrases that will become the prog siren call as causes of terrorism. Just know it’s all a puerile scheme to relieve people of their earnings.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: