San Bernardino female attacker likely an operator, other details December 10, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Immigration, martyrdom, persecution, secularism, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
I see people crowing about this story, as if “Well this conclusively proves there was no workplace argument and that this attack was planned well in advance.” Duh. It was at least 3 years in the making. For those of us who knew this was an islamic jihadist attack from the get go (as everyone with any sense did), some of the below may be obvious, but there are some interesting details about the couple, including how they went to great lengths to eliminate their entire online history prior to the attack, and just who else was involved, and to what degree (it already seems at least a friend and his parents had to have had prior knowledge of the attack):
The online romance between Southern California terrorists Farook Rizwan Syed and Tashfeen Malik was more a meeting of like minds than lonely hearts, with two radical jihadists forming a bond of hate and bloodlust in the dark recesses of the Internet.
Family members have said Syed, 28, and Malik, 29, met online and embarked on a whirlwind digital relationship capped by their 2014 marriage. But if they did, it was not on any dating site resembling those that bring people together every day in the civilized world. Their meeting brought together two already-radicalized soulmates who would go on to kill 14 people and wound 21 more in last week’s massacre at a San Bernardino social services facility
“They were actually radicalized before they started [dating online],” FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Wednesday. “As early as the end of 2013 they were talking about jihad and martyrdom, before they became engaged.” [No, Farook’s weird Hispanic Muslim hard drinking mental patient friend has said they planned an attack in 2012, but Enrique Marquez chickened out – I hope Marquez knows that even admitting to planning a terror attack is a federal felony with severe penalties, depending on how far one went]
……As for Malik, she was an online ghost, and experts said absent her participation in hardcore jihadist chat forums or use of a pseudonym, it is unlikely that she met Farook innocently. [She was a plant, an operator. She was schooled in islamic terror in Pakistan and then snuck into the US on a fiance’ visa. Aren’t we about 15 years past time to close that loophole from all muslim countries? Heck, I’m mostly with Trump, it was time to ban ALL muslim immigration to this country 20 years ago, and give muslims here a very hard choice: go on “Hajj,” and we may not let you back.]
With authorities trying to uncover the origins of their relationship and trying to trace a digital trail the pair tried to destroy, the FBI has revealed that Farook was at least “in contact” with international terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. Law enforcement authorities told Fox News this week there is a high certainty Malik was “an operative” of some description.
……..[There were 1000 red flags missed regarding this couple……]Malik was born in Pakistan, while Farook was an American citizen of Pakistani descent. Several Pakistani community leaders in Southern California called it “highly unusual and rare” in their culture for a wife to be older than her husband, even if by only a year. Malik, they added, did not fit the typical portrait of a young woman simply seeking a partner. Yet family members and co-workers say Farook traveled to Saudi Arabia in July of 2014 and “returned with a wife” that no U.S. relatives claim to have previously known. Authorities told Fox News it is extremely unusual for a Pakistani woman, especially from a conservative Islamic home, to travel overseas on a fiance visa – unless it was part of a plan.
Ten months after their marriage, the couple welcomed a baby daughter.
Even before they met, Malik was crafting a low-profile, casting further skepticism on the notion she was actively seeking a husband through traditional matchmaking websites, or the pretense in which she was looking for a spouse.
Friends who knew Malik at Bahauddin Zakariya University in Multan, Pakistan, where she studied pharmacology from 2007 to 2012, told the Washington Post that in 2009, she started adopting a militant and strict adherence to religion, refusing to be photographed and deleting existing photographs in the university database.
After coming to the U.S., Malik chose not to drive, kept her face hidden with only eyes exposed, and did not socialize with the larger Muslim community. Citing religious tradition, Farook family lawyers said Syed did “not want others to talk” to Malik, and associates recall Farook clamming up whenever his spouse came up in conversation.
So here’s the broader problem. First of all, muslims in the US are 100 times more likely to engage in this kind of mass slaughter than the remaining 99% of the US population. With that as background, here we have a rapidly growing milieu in this country where it is not thought strange at all that a husband would demand that no one speak to his wife, which wife would refuse to attend a baby shower thrown in her honor, who would not drive, wore a burqa or equivalent, and was completely, totally withdrawn.
There are a goodly number of fairly secularized muslims in this country. It is probably the large majority. But there is a certain subset, consisting of several hundreds of thousands of men and women, who are given over to these same practices. If we take the ratio above (courtesy of the politically correct New York Times, no less), and apply it to this much smaller subset, what we have is a population in our midst that is 300-400 times MORE LIKELY to engage in mass slaughter than anyone else. I bet you could further narrow it down to those who attend a certain kind of mosque, and who adopt really extreme beliefs, and wind up with a cohort of 1-200,000 who are 1000 times more likely to commit this kind of attack. If I do more math on this, given the number of attacks per year, over a 20 year period, someone living in an environment where these extremists are present runs an increasing likelihood of being exposed to attack. The potentiality of being a victim of such an attack in some places is certainly non-trivial. It’s probably approaching 1 in 1000, even 1 in 500 in some locales, depending on the size of the muslim population in a given area, and how radicalized portions of it are.
What is to be done? How much risk are we expected to stand? .01%? .1? 1%? More? The police are useless in cases like this. Sure, they’ll usually always get the perps, but only after any number have been killed. People may scoff, but who would have thought, 30-40 years ago, that the ancient Christian communities of the Mideast would be wiped out almost to a man? Are Christians in this country going to keep going along to get along until we fall under similar threat?
I understand this is dangerous ground in our country to even speak of. The Attorney General of the United States has made plain she has much more fear and loathing of people like me than she does of the muslims in our midst. But with the federal government determined to continue to flood this country with more and more islamists, who are more and more radicalized, these are questions we should all start asking ourselves. And, more importantly, formulating answers. DFW has one of the largest muslim populations in the country. The cold dead eyes of jihad are staring us in the face…….what are we going to do?