SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING: Read it and weep ...

By Patrick BAHZAD

I was working late last night on Syria - new SITREP to follow soon - when I heard about the San Bernardino events. Just like with the recent Paris attacks, that all too familiar sense of eerie 'déjà vu' set in again.

Today, this shooting is being called a case of "domestic terrorism", which it definitely is, in a very specific way. It is also a case of mislabelling the event, not taking it for what it is, probably in the misguided belief this will make it go away. It won't ...

On the other hand of course, we should not get carried away either, start panicking and blame whole communities or see (domestic) Islamic terrorists at every street corner. However, the careful wording used by officials in recent cases where a radical Islamic background was clearly the driving force should have us wonder.

Is there really no difference when a mass-shooting occurs, regardless of the ideology the shooters pretend to serve ? The US, just like France and Europe, might be in for a tough awakening some day, if politically correct narratives prevent us from calling a spade a spade.

The issue of "gun control" will be raised again in relation with this attack, no question. Whether or not new laws should be implemented is up for the American public to decide. Tighter controls and regulations might certainly have prevented other occurrences of mass-shootings in the past, although not all of them.

However, it is highly questionable whether individuals acting out of a political or ideological background would be discouraged by tougher gun laws. That is probably one important difference in the San Bernardino attack. Besides, gun control is much tighter in Europe, but it didn't prevent the Paris attacks. That is not to say the question should not be raised, but there is a separate issue at stake here, which should not be buried under partisan domestic politics.

On that note, I figured I might republish excerpts from the piece I had drafted in the aftermath of the Chattanooga shooting 'The Many Faces of Jihad' (July 17th 2015), and leave it up to the reader to make up his mind:

• The threat awareness in the US and Europe
  
  The US is in no way immune from home-grown Jihadis and the "crowd-sourcing of terrorists" (a phrase coined by James Comey, Director of the FBI) has opened new recruitment opportunities for the Middle-Eastern sponsors of terrorism.
  
  People in the US (law enforcement agencies and anti-terrorism task forces set aside) tend to considerably underestimate the potential threat they are facing in that regard. The general feeling is that the US is not as exposed as European countries and the large pool of European would-be Jihadis joining ranks with ISIS or Al Qaeda gives Americans a bit of a distorted sense of safety.
  
  Over the years (since 9/11), a number of attacks, or attempted attacks, have been foiled by law enforcement agencies on US soil, some of them just recently. There is no doubt in my mind that the officers in charge of fighting and preventing terrorism in the US are very aware that the threat is real and growing.
  
  This awareness however has not been reflected in the public debate about those issues, where ISIS in particular is mostly seen as a barbaric nuisance affecting the good people of Iraq and Syria, while not being a problem at home.

• A mistaken sense of relative safety
  
  One of the misconceptions the US suffers from is related to a belief many Americans have, according to which Muslims in America are not as likely to adhere to an extremist ideology. The often blamed "exclusion" of Muslims in Western Europe is mentioned as a catalyst for radicalization, one that does not exist in the US, where Muslims are supposedly free to practise their religion and stick to any dress-code they see appropriate, unlike countries like France or Belgium.
  
  The social and economic disenfranchisement of European Muslims also is a recurring argument in the rationale for the large recruitment pool these populations constitute for organisations such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. This is true of course and there is a difference in that regard between the US and most of Western Europe. But focusing only on social and economic hardship to explain the rise of Salafism doesn't cut it.
  
  There is another side to that coin, one that observers of Islam in the US are often forgetting. Actually, there are a number of factors that make the US even more likely to see radicalization and jihadization unfold among some of its Muslim populations.
  
  
• Specifics of the Jihadi threat potential in the US
  
  It would be too long to list all those factors here. Some of them are related to American society itself, especially its propensity to produce individuals capable of mass-shootings in the name of a sometimes obscure ideology, or out of a personal grudge.
  
  Others are linked specifically to the structure of the still small but growing Muslim population in the US, in particular the countries of origin of more recent Muslim immigrants. This aspect has gone largely unnoticed, but it is of real significance.
  
  Contrary to Europe, which often has a second or third generation Muslim population coming from former colonies or areas of influence, i.e. countries that are not part of the "heartland" of the current Jihadi organisations, there is a much higher proportion of Muslims in the US who actually come from countries where the Salafi creed that Al Qaeda is preaching, or even the Takfiri version of ISIS, are much more present.
  
  Looking at a break-down by country of origin, the difference between Muslim immigrants in France for example (or French citizens of Muslim/Arabic extraction) and their counterparts in the US is quite obvious: Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Jordan, Yemen, Iraq, Gulf States and others feature prominently among US immigrants, but they are totally absent from the figures regarding France.
  
  All too often also, the large number of European Muslims doing their "Hijra" and joining the "Islamic State" is seen as a benchmark for the domestic threat in European countries, while the US are considered more immune – although not exempt – from such "migrations". This is however a dangerously misguided line of thought.
  
  
• The number of Westeners joining ISIS as a misleading indicator
  
  Obviously, it is not reassuring to know there are hundreds of young Frenchmen, Germans or Brits somewhere in Iraq or Syria, doing who knows what. In the case of France however, and with one notable exception, none of the terrorists who planned or carried out attacks in recent years had fought their Jihad in the Middle East or Afghanistan. None of them, bare one, had ever left the country, but they still managed to enter the famous process of "pre-radicalization, self-identification, radicalization, jihadization".
  
  This may change now, in light of the latest Paris attacks and France's retaliation against ISIS in the Middle-East, but it should not lead us into believing the threat is foreign or external to our own societies.
  
  This also goes for the US, which has a significant number of nationals or legal residents somewhere between Raqqa and Mosul, or in Somalia (around 250 in total). That figure is less worrying than the number of Europeans present in those areas, but it is far from being insignificant.
  
  Combined with today's methods of "crowdsourcing" that social media provide for, an area where ISIS has become more and more proficient, this should certainly be a concern for anyone dealing with such issues.
  
  Another often overlooked factor that makes the US vulnerable is the fact that America is a country where religion is more present in daily life, and is seen as a normal personal feature. The number of Americans who claim adherence to one religious group or another is much higher than in secularized Europe.
  
  
• Conversion and converts, an upcoming trend in America
  
  This sociological pattern results in a higher "turnover" of conversions, with a significant number of US citizens and residents switching to at least one or two other religious beliefs in the course of their lives.
  
  With Islam's growing presence on US soil, the number of Muslim converts is bound to increase as well. Knowing there's always a small fraction of slightly "off balance" people who pick a religion for all the wrong reasons, there is a case to be made here for particular caution when it comes to converts.
  
  As I mentioned above, there are a number of factors that are more specific to the US and plead for a more careful approach to the risk of the home-grown Jihadis. However, the aim of this piece is not to give an complete list of profile features one should be looking for in a prospective Jihadi, but merely to reflect upon certain general considerations related to the latest attack.
  

In San Bernardino last night, police chief Jarrod Burguan said: “We do not have a motive […] They came in with a purpose [...] but we have no information to indicate that this is terrorism in the traditional sense.”

What is terrorism "in the traditional sense" though ? Does it even make sense to talk about terrorism in these terms ? By the same rationale, walking into a concert hall packed with people and shooting indiscriminately into the crowd is not terrorism in the traditional sense either. But it is definitely terrorism.

The simple truth is, terrorism in the traditional sense - if it ever existed - can no longer be used as the benchmark for what might be coming our way. Instead, we need to brace ourselves for the new world of entrepreuneurial terrorism 2.0 ...

 

Note: There seems to have been a problem with some of the fonts used in this piece. Thx to Russell for pointing it out. Hope it has been fixed and the whole piece can now be read by everyone. If not, just drop a line as a comment.

 

Comments

[Fred]

glupi,

I wouldn't have been any use as I live 3,000 miles away from there. Citizen United is an issue of campaign finance reform and frankly not much of an impact to the driving forces of this type of terrorism.

[Tyler]

Glupi,

Give it time.

[Tyler]

Kyle,

Ahahaha you can't be serious. "Hopeless" - guy was a civil servant making 70k-80k and just had a kid. You're out of your effing tree.

[rjj]

Denial of what? Our predicament, i.e., deep shit? CorpsMedia agitprop and disinformation?

[Babak Makkinejad]

Brookings Institution's analysts (as well as those of Carnegie Foundation for International War) have been consistently wrong on Russia, Iran, Iraq, War in Palestine.

Every course of action that they had recommended (or opposed) when adopted has led to more catastrophes.

And yet they can neither be held accountable nor do they issue a public apology.

At a minimum, I would hope that they could refrain from making any more policy recommendations.

Maximally, may be they can be send to upper Midwest in US to learn from farmers how to milk cows and plant potatoes.

[Patrick Bahzad]

I'll second that, and would suggest we start this new policy with Brookings' Doha Center and their so-called experts, like that Charles Lister fellow, author of a comprehensive book about ISIS, but unable to speak a single word of Arabic ! Go figure ...

[glupi]

Call me paranoid, but the increasing number of "mass murders" on US soil seems to me an attempt to push through gun control. Can't believe the surveillance state is so helpless to prevent them

The 1% do not want armed plebs

[glupi]

Tyler,

Just try the moves. Very effective and protective of the joints

i chose this video just to demonstrate that isometrics is not girlie

[confusedponderer]

David,
you have a lot of these folks kidding themselves.

With all that swaggering about my enemy’s enemy being my friend when he targets the "near nemy" – incidentally some dude I want to see killed/regime changed – unlike that other enemy of my enemy who is also my enemy because he sees me as the "far enemy", unless of course he’s distracted by Assad and 9000km away so I can pretend I won’t see him, which means he is moderate …

If one thinks such contortions are satirical just take this pice by the irrepressible Tom Friedman:

"Now I despise ISIS as much as anyone, but let me just toss out a different question: Should we be arming ISIS? Or let me ask that differently: Why are we, for the third time since 9/11, fighting a war on behalf of Iran?
...
In 2002, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in Afghanistan (the Taliban regime). In 2003, we destroyed Iran’s main Sunni foe in the Arab world (Saddam Hussein). But because we failed to erect a self-sustaining pluralistic order, which could have been a durable counterbalance to Iran, we created a vacuum in both Iraq and the wider Sunni Arab world. That is why Tehran’s proxies now indirectly dominate four Arab capitals: Beirut, Damascus, Sana and Baghdad.

ISIS, with all its awfulness, emerged as the homegrown Sunni Arab response to this crushing defeat of Sunni Arabism — mixing old pro-Saddam Baathists with medieval Sunni religious fanatics with a collection of ideologues, misfits and adventure-seekers from around the Sunni Muslim world. Obviously, I abhor ISIS and don’t want to see it spread or take over Iraq. I simply raise this question rhetorically because no one else is: Why is it in our interest to destroy the last Sunni bulwark to a total Iranian takeover of Iraq? Because the Shiite militias now leading the fight against ISIS will rule better? Really?"

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2015/03/tom-friedmann-finds-isis-awful-and-useful-by-cp.html

It’s worth recalling that for a Salafist – irrespective of him fighting for IS, Al Nusra or Ansar al-Sham or whatever other group – HOSTILITY towards ALL unbelievers (yes that includes Americans and, yes, it includes Israelis) is seen as a religious command and one which is by all accounts being followed with zeal. With the Tafkiri flavour that expressly includes all Muslims who don’t share their particular persuasion.

It doesn’t get much more overtly hostile towards outsiders than that.

In that context, a Jihadi’s decision of whether to attack in some place in the Middle East or in Europe or the US of attacks is a mere question of opportunity and momentary utility.

Ah, but why bother. They're so useful as a crowbar to break Assad, Ghaddafi, Russia, Iran etc pp!

It is always that sort of momentary expediency trumping these concerns for some too-clever-by-half with ambition and delusions of being the next Macchiavelli.

[Joe100]

I have not touched a gun since 1972 when I left the USMC after spending two years as a weapons instructor at Marine Officer's Basic School. Taking your post more seriously, I am now thinking about re-aquainting myself with a hand gun and wonder if Tyler, etc. have suggestions. I was a pretty good shot with the M1911, but am clueless about today's evolution of such.

[Macgupta123]

A country where a mass shooting "might not be terrorism" (and is clearly not a shoot-out between criminal gangs) is in a really sorry state, even if its citizens determinedly try not to acknowledge this. The San Bernardino shooting might turn out to be terrorist; but the other 354 cases in 2015 in the US of gun incidents with 4+ casualties were not terrorist attacks. These are so routine that only the very worst of them makes the national news.

But we should admit that if God did not want us to have guns, He wouldn't have let them been invented; if God did not want people to be injured by firearms, He would have made people bullet-proof; and if God wanted people to be sensible, He would not have made them stupid.

[Babak Makkinejad]

I wonder what the impact of such reports as the one in Independent are on the Foreign Ministries of Iran, Iraq, and Syria.

Would the Iranian Ambassador to UK send a memorandum to Tehran that UK press were openly reporting on collusion between NATO states and Gulfies to destroy the Shia?

Would the Syrian and Iraqi Ambassadors also draft similar memoranda?

Because if that were to be the case, government leaders across 3 countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria) and Shia politico-religious leaders across 11 additional countries (Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, India, Bangladesh, Turkey and Yemen) might conclude that they are facing a serious threat of extinction and thus react accordingly.

(There was an attack against the Shia in Bangladesh claimed by ISIS yesterday.)

[Will Reks]

Everyone ignores gang-related killings because its mostly black/Hispanics killing each other. These are mostly a series of one-off killings, not typically multiple homicides in a single event. The media speculation was driven by early reports, as usual, that the shooters where white. If they had been reported to be dark, swarthy Middle Eastern types then the media would have run with that too.

[sillybill]

I agree with Tyler about the 'hopeless' comment and Patrick about not knowing whats in the families minds.

The guy had a good job, all of his surviving coworkers who were publicly interviewed said he didn't appear to have problems, they even threw him and his wife a baby shower not long ago.

we don't know the nature of the 'dispute' or 'argument' that was alleged to have occured earlier that morning at the party, but it's not reasonable to think that someone gets mad, goes home, whips up a few pipe bombs, grabs the guns and just says 'hey honey, that jerk at the office was a jerk again, let's go shoot the place up!'
There must be a powerful motivating reason, even if it's stupid - maybe the guy was secretly nuts, but how many women abandon their new baby to join their husbands nuttery?

[Macgupta123]

"On Wednesday morning, a group of doctors in white coats arrived on Capitol Hill to deliver a petition to Congress. Signed by more than 2,000 physicians around the country, it pleads with lawmakers to lift a restriction that for nearly two decades has essentially blocked the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from conducting research on gun violence."

God forbid that the CDC find something useful about how to reduce gun violence!
This much we know:

USA: Deaths from firearms injuries - Percentage that were homicides - derived # of homicides

1997 - 32,436 - 41.7% - 13,526 [1]
1998 - 30,708 - 39.4% - 12,099 [2]
1999 - 28,874 - 37.5% - 10,828 [3]
2000 - 28,663 - 37.7% - 10,806 [4]
2001 - 29,573 - 38.4% - 11,356 [5]
2002 - 30,242 - 39.1% - 11,825 [6]
2003 - 30,136 - 39.6% - 11,934 [7]
2004 - 29,569 - 39.3% - 11,621 [8]
2005 - 30,694 - 40.2% - 12,339 [9]
2006 - 30,896 - 41.4% - 12,791 [10]
2007 - 31,224 - 40.5% - 12,646 [11]
2008 - 31,593 - 38.5% - 12,163 [12]
2009 - 31,347 - 36.7% - 11,504 [13]
2010 - 31,672 - 35.0% - 11,805 [14]
2011 - 32,351 - 34.2% - 11,064 [15]
2012 - 33,563 - 34.6% - 11,613 [16]
2013 - forthcoming

Each of the reports below is titled "Deaths: Final Data for YYYY" (YYYY = year)
The main page is here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm
[1] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 47, Number 19
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr47/nvs47_19.pdf
[2] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 48, Number 11
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_11.pdf
[3] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 49, Number 8
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr49/nvsr49_08.pdf
[4] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 50, Number 15
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_15.pdf
[5] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 53, Number 3
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03.pdf
[6] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 53, Number 5
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_05acc.pdf
[7] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 54, Number 13
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_13.pdf
[8] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 55, Number 19
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf
[9] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 56, Number 10
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
[10] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 57, Number 14
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf
[11] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 58, Number 19
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf
[12] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 59, Number 10
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr59/nvsr59_10.pdf
[13] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 60, Number 3
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdf
[14] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 61, Number 4
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf
[15] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 63, Number 3
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_03.pdf
[16] CDC National Vital Statistics Reports, Volume 63, Number 9
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_09.pdf

[turcopolier]

Joe100

For concealed carry or home defense? I have some for each role plus a .20 gauge coach gun. pl

[Will Reks]

Patrick,

Good stuff as always. I've bought into your analysis on this from the beginning. This was always the nightmare scenario compared to the refugee situation as these folks are already here.

The weapons in the Paris attacks were smuggled from the Balkans, if I'm correct. They don't need the black market here in the US to have access to some potent firepower.

[Fred]

Kyle,

"Couple who massacred 14 at San Bernardino holiday party seemed to be living the 'American Dream'"
So said the LA Times in the "jump to conclusions" printing (around 2 am) - well before the facts come in tradition. Because young married couples "living the American dream" all go to Saudi Arabia on vacation. It's the new millennial generation vacation mecca.

[Will Reks]

Sir,

I would appreciate some suggestions for a good concealed carry piece. I've carried a knife for some years but that's not not enough these days.

[John Minnerath]

All.
Just caught a truncated press meeting of POTUS.
He allows it's "possible" there was a terrorist connection.
Then in the same breath says maybe a case of "work place violence"!
Look for another press conference later today to put the spin on tighter gun control as the answer!

[Patrick Bahzad]

WR,

That's correct yes. Smuggled in from the Balkans and bought on the black market, in Belgium mostly.

The European example also shows that any tightening of gun legislation in the US, which is claimed to be the answer to all Evil, would not be sufficient to prevent mass-shootings, especially not of this kind.

There are already millions of illegal guns in the US and, with Mexico South of the border, arms dealers and smugglers (linked to drug cartels) would make even more money selling their gear.

I'm not saying gun legislation should or should not be tightened, but the political debate about this issue needs to be honest and transparent.

[Joe100]

Probably home defense, might graduate later to concealed carry

[Cee]

Glupi,

You may be right. I don't want ANY armed jihadists...Muslim, Christian, amoral gangbangers, enough!
I'm sick to death of any fanatics destroying this planet. Thoughts and prayers my ass!! Something has to be done curtail this violence. Who on here at SST things that someone on the Terrorist Watchlist should be able to purchase a weapon?
If anyone has anything info about the wife of this recent terrorist, please share.

[Swampy]

No deaths, but plenty of trauma - and hardly a peep in the news.
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/11/new_orleans_playground_shootin_4.html

[LZA]

The President has now said that the shooting "may be terror-related.

https://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/california-shooting-motive-not-yet-known-terror-possible-162022516.html