A few observations on the murder of 14 people in San Bernadino and the wounding of many more seem in order.
Firstly, it has been reported that one of those murdered was a Messianic Jew--that is, one who believes Yeshua was and is the Jewish Messiah. In other words, he was a Christian. This implies there were martyrs amongst the slain.
According to the pastor of one of the victims of the San Bernardino terror attack, just weeks prior to the deadly shooting, Sayed Farook told Nicholas Thalasinos—a devout Messianic Jew and fellow health inspector—“You will never see Israel.” Pastor Bruce Dowell of the Shiloh Messianic Congregation in California told Sean Hannity on Friday’s radio show, “[Thalasino’s] wife told my wife… [Farook] said to Nick ‘you will never see Israel.’ That’s according to his wife, Jennifer and that comes straight from my wife. She was with her for the last two days.” The pastor said Farook told that to his congregant “face-to-face” approximately two weeks before the attack.Secondly, it is being claimed that the two murderers had no formal affiliation to any terrorist cell or group, although Malik is said to have declared her support for ISIS on Facebook at the time of the attack. Thus, they are to be compared to the Tsarnaevs of the Boston Marathon bombing infamy.
Those two took it upon themselves to plan and execute murder of innocents in the name of Allah. This is far more sinister than the alternative of being formally involved with a terrorist cell. It implies that every Islamic believer may be a closet terrorist in the planning phase.
Thirdly, it is being consistently reported that Farouk and Malik were "devout" Muslims. Lawyers for the extended family made the following observations:
A second attorney, Mohammad Abuershaid, described Farook and Malik’s home life as a “traditional” Muslim household. “The women would sit with the women, men with the men. Men did not interact with her,” Abuershaid said. “Brothers have never seen her face. She was totally covered. They just knew her as ‘Syed’s wife.' "Devotion to Islam opens up the possibility of murder because of the teachings of the Koran, the hadith, and Sharia Law. The more devout, the more seriously the doctrines of the religion are taken, the more likely devotees will be open to radical action that involves murdering kaffirs and less-devout Muslims. Until Western authorities take Islam seriously, on its own terms and in accordance with its own teaching and doctrines, their efforts to combat Islamic terrorism will remain ineffectual.
Malik was a “typical housewife” taking care of the couple’s 6-month old daughter while Farook worked, Chesley said. She spoke broken English and fluent Urdu, he said. “She did maintain certain traditions. Fasting and prayer. She chose not to drive voluntarily. But these are all benign; these are things that many Muslims do and it doesn’t mean anything necessarily,” Chesley said.
One of the most ignorant and inane claims of Western politicians and Islamic apologetes is that Islam is a religion of peace. Therefore, according to Western pseudo-intellectuals, those who commit murder in the name of Islam are apostates from the true religion of Islam. Inane because this self-comforting mantra relies on a misinterpretation of the word "peace". In Islam, peace means submission to Allah. It does not mean non-violence. Far more accurate to say, Islam is a religion of submission--either willing or involuntary submission. Being killed is the ultimate, extreme form of submission.
Malik's fasting and prayer, and refusal to drive are indeed benign. But her undoubted belief that all the world must be brought into submission to Allah--as all devout Muslims hold--is of a very different stripe and character. Add the example of Muhammad exterminating his opponents when he became powerful enough to do so, and things take a decidedly different turn. Malik and Farouk, being devout, were reasoned and sane people, following the example and command of Allah and his prophet.
Finally, full marks to the "head-in-the-sand" New York Times for its blazing front-page editorial on the San Bernadino shootings. As reported in The Guardian, the editorial said:
So, we know--and the NY Times acknowledges--that laws restricting guns do not work. They have not worked anywhere it would seem. But at least other nations are trying. The US is sanctioned because it is not trying. What was that pop definition of insanity again? "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." On this basis, the NY Times is calling for the US to adopt a form of mental derangement.Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did. But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.
And one other consideration for the worldly wise at the NY Times: it seems that the San Bernadino murderers had far more in their arsenal than a couple of rifles. They had been assiduously making bombs. Some were set to go off remotely at the scene of their attack. They happened to fail, but if successful, would have likely caused far more carnage and deaths than those resulting from death by gun. Has the New York Times forgotten what weapons Timothy McVeigh and the Tsarnaev brothers employed?
What about calling for a ban on pipes and cooking pots, detonators, remote control triggering devices, drums, and agricultural fertilizer--anything and everything that may be used in Improvised Explosive Device construction.
"Ah", the good scribes at the NY Times would doubtless retort, "such materials are commonplace. We would never succeed in removing access to all of them. We need a different strategy." Mmmmmm.
How stupidly misplaced and misdirected, then, to focus upon ever more (ineffective) restrictions upon firearms as if they would be a reasonable and prudent step to take.