UPDATE: A picture is emerging that suggests that Farook was “radicalized,” perhaps in Pakistan (where authorities know he traveled in addition to his travel to Saudi Arabia), and had ties to people overseas who are known to US counter-terrorism officials. No idea who those people are, but if you’re picking between the Terrorism Big Two, Pakistan suggests al-Qaeda more than ISIS. That jibes with the fact that yesterday’s violence, while horrific, doesn’t seem to have been as indiscriminate as it could have been. On the other hand, the target doesn’t make much sense from the perspective of al-Qaeda, which still tends to prefer symbolic targets as opposed to pure soft targets. That, I think, is why investigators still seem to be pursuing the idea of a workplace beef, at least as a secondary motive. Farook and Malik were clearly planning something, but they may not have been planning this–something specific may have set Farook off to go after this particular target. Or they may have received inspiration/guidance from al-Qaeda (or whomever), but chose the target themselves for personal reasons.
It occurs to me that this raises an interesting question. Farook and Malik seem to fit a certain definition (stereotype?) of terrorists, but was this act terrorism? “Terrorism” has to have a political component to it, or else any act of violence could be called “terrorism,” and in that case the word ceases to have any meaning. If Farook and Malik were planning a true terrorist act but got diverted toward shooting up Farook’s workplace holiday party because he got mad at his co-workers or something like that, then is that still terrorism? Does it even matter?
The LA Times is still liveblogging the investigation, so for regular updates you might want to check there.
The identities of the two (not three, apparently) people allegedly (presumption of innocence!) responsible for yesterday’s shooting in San Bernardino are Syed Farook (no, not that Syed Farook, Daily Beast) and his wife, Tashfeen Malik. Both are now dead. They reportedly met in Saudi Arabia (Malik was originally from Pakistan, Farook was born in the US), had been married for two years, and had a 6 month old child. Farook worked for the county health board whose holiday party he and Malik shot up, and it appears that he had been at the party, left, and came back guns blazing. He allegedly left the party “angry,” but I’m not sure that has been (or can be) confirmed.
The motive is still up in the air. As I wrote last night, people are inevitably going to make assumptions (lots of them) about motive based on the names, religions, and backstories of the (alleged) shooters, and while I disagree with making those kinds of assumptions, that doesn’t mean they won’t eventually be proven correct. The fact that Syed traveled to Saudi Arabia, which is where he met Malik, is getting a lot of attention online (on Twitter, at least), and it’s certainly something that investigators should explore, but in and of itself a Muslim man traveling to Saudi Arabia indicates almost nothing–every practicing, able-bodied Muslim goes to Saudi Arabia at least once in his or her life, you know.
But these are still assumptions, until more evidence comes in. Slate’s Josh Keating, who is always worth reading, argued this morning that this shooting makes for a “strange” terrorist attack:
Rita Katz, director of the SITE Intelligence Group, which tracks online extremist activity, noted on Twitter that the Jihadist Internet has been “mostly quiet,” in contrast to the chatter after most explicitly jihadist attacks, which have been celebrated by supporters online. U.S. officials also noted to Reuters that the attack “differed in key ways from attacks like those perpetrated by the group known as Islamic State or other Jihadists.” Generally those attacks target symbolically significant locations—Times Square, Fort Hood, a Muhammad cartoon contest—rather than a little-known location like the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino. And while it is still early in the investigation, Farook and Malik also don’t appear to have left any statement or clue as to their motivation, also unusual for an ideologically motivated terrorist attack. Farook, who worked at the county health department, had reportedly angrily left a holiday party after an altercation before returning with weapons and tactical gear, but it’s also not clear if or how that was connected to the shooting.
Yeah, I just don’t know. These two were carrying assault weapons with expanded magazines and semiautomatic pistols. Now sure, this is America, and you can get those things at Walmart or whatever, but to me it indicates that they were planning something. Add in the tactical gear and explosive devices, and I think the evidence of forethought is pretty clear. That doesn’t mean it was jihadi terrorism, but it also argues against a spur of the moment workplace incident. Maybe Farook really hated his job and was planning to massacre his co-workers over it, but so far there’s been no real indication of that as far as I’ve seen. There’s a press conference coming up in San Bernardino, where hopefully issues of motive will be addressed. I’ll update after that or not; they really didn’t say much that wasn’t already known.
Hey, thanks for reading! If you come here often, and you like what I do, would you please consider contributing something (sorry, that page is a work in progress) to keeping this place running and me out of debtor’s prison? Also, while you’re out there on the internet tubes, please consider liking this blog’s Facebook page and following me on Twitter! Thank you!
The Foreign Exchanges Companion 