What we know about the California terrorist attack

This post has been read 1707 times!

Update December 4, 2015- Jake Tapper of CNN is reporting that the female terrorist during San Bernardino shooting pledge allegiance to the ISIS leader. But the state-sponsored propagandists from CBS, etc. are reporting, “Unknown motive”, even as of this morning

December 3rd, 2015- by Steven E. Greer

The national media, now acting simply as an arm of The White House spewing and spinning to fit a narrative, is contorting to avoid calling the San Bernardino, California shootings a “terrorist attack”. Interviewed last night, President Obama wants us all to think that this was another deranged Christian who attacked his workplace, and that we need stronger gun laws. They want this to be lumped in with the other “mass shootings”.

What we know as of now is that the two shooters, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, both killed by police, were a married Muslim couple who met in Saudi Arabia. Importantly, Saudi Arabian wealthy citizens are now also funding ISIS. It is the epicenter for Sunni radicals as they fight the Shiite factions funded by Iran.

The press is emphasizing that no motive is known. However, we also know that the attack took place upon an ongoing Christmas party. This is similar to the ISIS beheadings of large groups of Christians in Egypt and elsewhere.

This entry was posted in - Politics, Crime, Federal government, NYPD First Precinct, State Government. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to What we know about the California terrorist attack

  1. kdlibny says:

    You are the best…agree completely

  2. bhauptm says:

    A primary strategy of ISIS is to propagate their brand thru out the world for the purpose of meeting their existential goal of ruling the world. It’s evident that ISIS believes that sensational terror attacks in densely populated areas, everywhere and anywhere, beheadings on TV, extermination of non-muslins, christians, and kurds, in the city square fulfills their PR strategy. Sad to say, the media attention they get with this PR strategy appears to have worked well for them, so far.

    So, let’s look at San Bernardino. It appears that the husband (employee) went to the conference to “case it out” for a planned terrorist attack. All the evidence points to this. He did not go to the convention innocently and then, all of sudden, decide to launch an attack. Any other reading of this can not be supported by the evidence.

    Unfortunately for ISIS or Al Qaeda or whatever fanatic religious rock they crawled out from under they blew the PR strategy big-time. By attending and then leaving, he left open the option for the media and administration to waffle and delay calling it a terrorist attack. Timing is every thing in war. In the coming weeks and months, the truth of this “terrorist attack” will assuredly come out. But too late to have the timely PR impact desired. ISIS, et al, are most certainly rewriting their playbook to prevent this from happening again.

    As far as the administration not calling it a terrorist attack, it makes perfect sense and is an obvious and excellent strategy. Otherwise, you would have to believe that the administration believes what they are saying (that it might not have been a terrorist attack). Does anyone think we are lessening our resolve to fight this war? Or is it more likely a smart counter-PR move to discount media attention to these attacks which serves to mitigate the full extent of this despicable terrorist strategy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.