Friday, December 4, 2015

More on the San Bernardino terrorists


Anyone trying to parrot the left-wing progressive "workplace violence" narrative about Wednesday's tragedy won't be able to get around one simple question:

If this is simply "workplace violence", how is it that the terrorists manufactured and accumulated, over a period of months, multiple explosive devices - including pipe bombs, IED's, etc. - plus legally-bought firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition, and equipped themselves with military-style webbing to carry it all, up to and including cameras to photograph the carnage they planned to cause?

There's also the fact that the day before the shootings, the terrorists began to erase their online presence, trying to eliminate clues that might aid those investigating their crimes.  They didn't just "snap" and react violently to an alleged incident at the party.  They planned this operation in cold blood.  No, this wasn't "workplace violence".  It was terrorism.  There's no other possible explanation, and anyone who says there is, is lying to you.

Larry Correia does his usual masterful job in laying out the reality of the situation, and fisking those idiots who are trying to make excuses, or divert attention to their pet talking-points, or make political capital out of the tragedy.  Here's an excerpt.

San Bernardino? Straight up terrorism. Like dictionary definition terrorism. Like the kind that the prog vultures all railed against George Bush for being so naïve and awful with his “fighting them there rather than here” approach. We certainly ended that imperialistic strategy. So how’s that working out for you now, western world? If you think three coordinated, body armor wearing, bomb building, planned in advance, Go-Pro wearing, shooters just suddenly sprung into existence as “workplace violence” because of an argument at a Christmas party, you’re smoking crack.

No amount of gun control matters to a militant jihadist. In the other article I talked about how criminals, by definition, don’t care about the law. Terrorists are criminals on steroids, and militant Islamic death cultists think they’re bringing about the apocalypse and they’re cool with that.  Militant Islamic radical terrorists aren’t going anywhere. They’re in it to win it.

But hey, let’s make even more places gun free zones! That’ll show them.

. . .

California has an assault weapons ban. The terrorists didn’t care. California has high capacity magazine bans. The terrorists didn’t care. They’ve got all sorts of ridiculous rules with registries, approval lists, mandatory locks, safety tests, bullet buttons, and other forms of voodoo completely unintelligible to red state America, but the terrorists still didn’t care.

Of course they don’t. Because when you are planning to go out and commit a couple hundred felonies, including murder, you don’t give a damn about gun control laws. And they love Gun Free Zone signs, because that means before the cops can get there, they’re going to get several uninterrupted minutes of carnage footage on their Go-Pro to upload to ISIS propaganda websites.

. . .

Crime is an extremely complex issue. Anybody who boils it all down to one root is trying to sell you something. In this case, they’re selling gun control. Judging by how Americans purchased enough guns last weekend to arm the Marine Corps, apparently we aren’t buying the narrative.

There's much more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

Finally, don't think the problem is over.  Sure, the San Bernardino terrorists are dead.  Good riddance to them . . . but they have comrades in their warped, twisted version of faith, and comrades in arms.  Right now, elsewhere in the USA, I'll guaran-damn-tee you there are dozens, if not hundreds, of jihadist terrorist wannabe's planning attacks, accumulating weapons and explosives, and having wet dreams about killing infidels for the glory of their false god.  The only thing that will stop them is armed citizens at the scene of their attacks, who can intervene before they've killed too many people.  Nothing else will do so - certainly not the police and emergency services, who can only respond after the fact.

Expect more such attacks, and be prepared for them.  You won't be disappointed.

Peter

15 comments:

Farm.Dad said...

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2015/12/4/atf-says-weapons-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-were-illegal-in-california
The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said.

genericviews said...

Peter,
I am a fan of your work and your website so please don't take this as me looking for a fight. Rather than me reprinting here what I have already written about definitions I would request that you state your definition of "terrorist" and "terrorism".

Of course, you are free to use any definition you wish.
Thanks

JaneofVirginia said...

Thank you, Peter. Always an excellent read.

Timbo said...

There was a third person initially mentioned, " Our three lions". What happened to him?

Anonymous said...

I have a problem with the governments "legally bought" firearms meme as the weapons and magazines in the photos released by law enforcement are all illegal for "civilians" to own in the state of Cal. and COULD NOT have been purchased in ANY gun store in that state. The story that the AR-15's and pictured 100 round drum mag's found at the shootout, were bought in Cal.is a "false flag" in and of itself. So where did weapons that are illegal to buy ,sell, or own in Cal. come from, and why lie about the origin of the weapons involved? Who stands to benefit from this lie, and why falsify the narrative in the first place?---Ray

undomesticatedfeline said...

Genericviews: "definition of "terrorist" and "terrorism".

What is there to define? I think most of us know the meaning of those words.

Terrorism: the use of violence, or the threat of violence to achieve a goal.

Terrorist: one who uses terrorism in the pursuit of a goal.

The goal, be it personal, political or religious is not important. Gangs and Drug cartels use terrorism to control their territories. It is the use, or threat of, violence that matters. The idea is to create fear - aka terror - in the populace.

genericviews said...

Undo,
That is the point. By your definition, every violent criminal is also a terrorist, thus the term itself loses all meaning. Every petty thief. Every strong arm thug, every grade school bully is a terrorist. And so is every person who uses violence to fight back against any of the above. Every police officer is also a terrorist. Indeed, every person who calls 911 is a terrorist because they are employing violence or the threat of it (sending armed men) to achieve a goal (make the neighbors turn that crap down).

That is the point of having useful definitions. You can create them by watching people you judge are terrorists and observing their defining features, or you can start with a useful definition and accept that some people you would like to call terrorists simply are not.

Example: Pluto was a planet, because it sort of acted like what we thought a planet looked like. But when compared to the actual definition of a planet, it failed. So. Change the definition to include your preconceived idea, or change your preconceived idea to conform to the hard definition. Take your pick.

I would propose to you that the simple ability to create a body count is insufficient. Having a goal is insufficient.

m4 said...

As I pointed out to someone questioning the use of the words "shooting" to describe the incident by the news, It's terrorism when you need to go to war with someone, it's a shooting when you need to take guns away from your own people.

m4 said...

Holy shit! The FBI's calling it terrorism!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35006404

CarlS said...

More on the San Bernardino "Employees Who Went Postal"

Note the quotes around the words I used to send a link to my correspondents - as I told them: If I used the original subject; if I called it, them, what they were in an email to a listserv, you addressees likely would never get the email and thus never read the article and the one it references. Euphemism is necessary so the liberal left-leaning politically-correct-above-all-else idiots won't block this message (and the truths it exposes) at the expense of lives. Not theirs, mind you, because they are entitled to have bodyguards paid for by us, and guns of their own. Us, though, we're not important enough, nor, in their opinion, smart enough to know that letting criminals go free can be used to advance political (fiscal) agendas, whose goals are much more important than the lives of you and yours. Myself, I've seen terrorists and their after-effects up close and personal. My rule is that catching them is good because it leads you to others, but at some point the law of diminishing returns says kill them and be done with it. "Do unto others what they've done to you, and do it quickly and thoroughly before they can do it again." My buds in GSG9 taught that lesson well. It's instructive, too, to consider that many of the American Left are enabling the continuation of terrorist activities. That makes them accomplices, doesn't it? And they can no longer say, in this day and age of instant comms, that they didn't know . . .

m4 said...

@CarlS: Aren't GSG9 the guys who have a reputation specifically for not shooting an awful lot of people?

Anonymous said...

I am afraid that it is just starting.

Knolli said...

@m4: Yes, that would be why SWAT- or HRT-Teams want to be like them when they have grown up....

:)

Will said...

Found this at The Silicon Greybeard:


http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/2015/12/ag-lynch-san-bernardino-terror-attack.html

"...it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change."

m4 said...

@Knolli: That was what I thought. Hence my perception of a disconnect between that and the comment it was attached to.