The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Syed Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, Named in #SanBernardino Massacre

Posted on | December 3, 2015 | 79 Comments

The Los Angeles Times reports:

The suspects in the shooting rampage were a married couple who had just dropped off their 6-month-old daughter with a grandmother, family representatives said.
Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, were married two years ago, according to Malik’s brother, Farhan Khan . . .
On Wednesday morning, Farook and his wife dropped their daughter off with Farook’s mother in Redlands, saying they had a doctor’s appointment, said Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Los Angeles office.
The grandmother grew worried when she heard of the shooting attack in San Bernardino, and “she started calling. No answer,” Ayloush said.
The family was worried the couple were shot in the attacks, but then they started receiving calls from media outlets indicating Farook was a person of interest.
Farook was born in Illinois, and his parents immigrated to the U.S. from Southeast Asia, Ayloush said.

UPDATE: More from the Los Angeles Times:

As the holiday gathering got underway Wednesday morning, Syed Rizwan Farook joined dozens of his colleagues from San Bernardino County’s public health department. Farook, an inspector, seemed quiet during the early hours of the event, then vanished just as a group photo was about to be taken.
Shortly afterward, gunfire erupted at the Inland Regional Center where the employees filled a conference room. By the end of the day, police had identified Farook, 28, as a suspect in the massacre and said he was one of two people shot to death in a gun battle with officers. The other was 27-year-old Tashfeen Malik, who a family member said was Farook’s wife. . . .
Co-workers told The Times they were shocked to hear Farook’s name linked to the shooting. . . .
They said Farook recently traveled to Saudi Arabia and returned with a new wife he had met online. The couple had a baby and appeared to be “living the American dream,” said Patrick Baccari, a fellow health inspector who shared a cubicle with Farook.
Baccari and Christian Nwadike said Farook, who worked with them for several years, rarely started a conversation. But the tall, thin young man with a full beard was well liked and spent much of his time out in the field.
They and other colleagues said Farook was a devout Muslim, but rarely discussed religion at work.
“He never struck me as a fanatic, he never struck me as suspicious,” said Griselda Reisinger, who worked with Farook before leaving the agency in May.

(Via Memeorandum.) The talking heads on TV are asking, “Was this terrorism?” As if the word “terrorism” requires an official designation to fit the definition. Given the apparently meticulous planning that went into this attack, and considering that it was committed by devout Muslims, all we need is common sense to say that this was Islamic terrorism. Is there any indication it was anything else?

UPDATE II: Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit reports:

San Bernardino police announced [Wednesday night] that the Islamic killers who slaughtered 14 people at a community social services building were wearing GoPro cameras.
The male and female were wearing protective vests and carrying several firearms when they were gunned down by police after the massacre. . . .
Local officials reported the name of the female suspect in San Bernardino shooting as – Tashfeen Malik.
They were wearing GoPro cameras when they were killed. The couple were at home when officers arrived and then took off and were followed by police when they were shot dead. . . .
Several jihadists in Europe have worn cameras during their bloody attacks in the past year.

UPDATE III: While it appears the attack in San Bernardino had a religious motive, other attacks had a political motive:

Left Spends Day In Coordinated Attack on
Saying “Thoughts and Prayers” For the Victims

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) So, while Islam is at war with America, the Democrat Party is at war with Christianity.



79 Responses to “Syed Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, Named in #SanBernardino Massacre”

  1. NeoWayland
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 9:10 pm

    Ok, fair enough.

    Mala in se means “bad in and of itself.” Something is mala in se if and only if it threatens or results in measurable damage to life, liberty, and property. Murder, violent attacks, rape, kidnapping, and theft are included. The key concept here is “measurable damage.”

    Mala prohibita means “bad because it is prohibited.” Something is mala prohibita if and only if the state has forbidden it. I would add regulation as well. Driving without a license or insurance, unusual sex, public nudity, profanity, recreational drug use, opening a small business without the “proper” permit, all these are included. The key concept here is “forbidden.”

    Here is the fundamental difference.

    Mala prohibita means that the government will impose morality and ethics by force.

    Some laws against mala in se are good ideas. Mala prohibita laws always cause far more problems than they solve.

  2. NeoWayland
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 9:17 pm

    The above is an almost complete quote of Roots of government power which I wrote in 2006.

  3. NeoWayland
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 9:19 pm

    You can find more examples on the subject at my politics blog.

  4. Ronald J. Ward
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 9:30 pm

    And all of that is really cool knowledge.

    But you are trying to make a binary conclusion which in itself is inconclusive.

    I was having a discussion some time ago about a local government regulating new home owners and forcing them to install rather expensive septic systems if they owned a limited amount of acreage. A rebuttal I got was something like “look RJ, I want government out of my life, off of my property, and you out of my bathroom”. My response was “no, I want your bathroom off of my property”.

    So again, these “government regulations” are so easily dismissed as unquestionably bad when there’s a logical counter argument. It isn’t binary. And you can’t just “end it” or rid it. That doesn’t make sense and it isn’t healthy. They are not all bad in every aspect.

    The mass slaughtering we’re seeing today should not be considered a healthy norm and should not be downplayed by the gun-advocate owned politicians.

  5. EchoBuster
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 9:36 pm

    It seems you aren’t a fan of cable news (or least certain stations). I’m curious, why spend time watching it? We live in an era where there is such unprecedented access to different people and institutions. I don’t watch cable news, am I missing out?

  6. EchoBuster
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 9:41 pm

    Any thoughts on how we reduce the number of mass shootings in America?

  7. John Rose
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 9:47 pm

    More like personalities. I think Smith is a whack job. I still recall his meltdown during Katrina. The only reason I know anything about Smith regarding the shooting was because the radio station JIPed into FNC Radio, and he was going nuts.

    I do miss FNC a bit since we cut the cord, but not for Smith. I miss the morning show, and the news updates through the day as background noise. I also liked the occasional Outnumbered, and the Saturday business block, but it’s definitely a ‘nice to,’ not a ‘need to.’

    Frankly, I doubt you’re missing much. Radio seems to get the job done.

  8. Daniel Freeman
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 10:57 pm

    They need to be shamed for it. I’m thinking something along the lines of “ghouls pouncing on fresh corpses.”

  9. Daniel Freeman
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 11:02 pm

    Raze the mosques, and make everyone draw Mohammed if they want to stay. Perhaps even an annual event, “Everyone Draws Mohammed Day.”

  10. Finrod Felagund
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 11:36 pm

    The list of victims has just recently been released:

  11. EchoBuster
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 11:38 pm

    Canada has three times as many Muslims as America (3.2% of population versus our 0.9%), yet they have far less mass shootings per capita than we do.

  12. Finrod Felagund
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 11:44 pm

    More people with guns to return fire.

  13. EchoBuster
    December 3rd, 2015 @ 11:48 pm

    If more guns meant less mass shootings, why does America (with the highest number of guns per capita in the developed world) have far more mass shootings than other developed countries?

  14. Finrod Felagund
    December 4th, 2015 @ 12:04 am

    1) we’re the biggest target.

    2) per capita, I doubt that’s true. I’d like to see your evidence for that statement, which I strongly suspect came from a place that’s brown and smelly.

  15. Daniel Freeman
    December 4th, 2015 @ 12:23 am

    I recently read that we’re 8th in mass shooting deaths per capita. I think Norway was tops. Can’t vouch for the accuracy, but it’s at minimum cause for skepticism of the knee-jerk America bashing.

  16. EchoBuster
    December 4th, 2015 @ 12:26 am

    Luckily you don’t have to take the word of a stranger on the internet when it comes to claims about data.

  17. EchoBuster
    December 4th, 2015 @ 12:33 am

    There is a chart from a defunct website that purports that – but there’s no author, no methodology listed, no definition of what counts as ‘mass shooting’, no one willing to defend the chart. If you accept anonymous charts with no credibility at face value, then you’ll be okay with it, but if those were my standards, I’d believe just about everything on the internet.

  18. Fail Burton
    December 4th, 2015 @ 6:51 am

    Convert to Islam and give criminal thugs a fixed salary of 100 grand a year.

  19. Finrod Felagund
    December 4th, 2015 @ 11:02 am

    Articles hidden behind a paywall do not convince me, sorry.

  20. Ilion
    December 4th, 2015 @ 12:47 pm

    … hold (preferably, uncooked) bacon directly in your hands

  21. NeoWayland
    December 4th, 2015 @ 1:26 pm

    It’s not a binary solution. Or as I prefer, either/or.

    Imagine for a moment that you have an incredibly potent, occasionally useful, and terribly corrosive something. You know that in 4 of 5 times, it will either corrupt, damage, or destroy what it touches. You know that once you used it, the taint is almost impossible to get rid of.

    Would it still be your first choice? Or your third?

    Before you think I am exaggerating, how many bad laws and regulations are repealed every year?

  22. NeoWayland
    December 4th, 2015 @ 1:32 pm

    Thank you. I’ve family business today and probably tonight, I will get those up as soon as I can.

  23. The next turn is here and is violent… Post number lost count. | Dark Brightness
    December 4th, 2015 @ 4:32 pm

    […] we do not allow people to talk about why people such as Farooq and his wife became radicalized — and why the majority of those who do this are Islamic — if we regulate our speech via […]

  24. Ronald J. Ward
    December 5th, 2015 @ 11:44 am

    Your arguments are pretty much all the same while ignoring the ramifications of which you advocate.

    This country cannot survive in a lawless and ungoverned state. It just can’t. We cannot have a military without a tax collection agency. We cannot have infrastructure without an organized body. We cannot maintain a society of any civil matter without “regulation”. We will be governed, either by an elected body, a foreign takeover, or by a plutocratic mafia/cartel seizing power from our lawless state but we will ultimately be governed.

    Your pity party list of all the evils that you continue to use to validate your argument rings hollow.

  25. NeoWayland
    December 5th, 2015 @ 1:57 pm

    I’m not ignoring the ramifications.

    I’m embracing the possibilities.

    From The Original Pagan Vigil FAQ

    Individual freedom or personal responsibility?

    You really can’t have one without the other. Each one alone is limited. I think that is the mistake that both modern liberals and conservatives make.

    Many promote their own freedom, but only at the expense of someone else. Others don’t want to face the consequences of the things that they have done.

    You should be free to choose as long as your choice doesn’t interfere with another, BUT you should accept responsibility for your actions and words.

    Put individual freedom and personal responsibility together and the result is an incredibly potent catalyst that has been known to shake nations.

    But doesn’t everyone do that already?

    Not by a long shot.

    Take out the people who are convinced they have the only method to utopia while destroying everything else in the process, the people who are only looking to scam a better angle on the game, and the people “beaten down by the system,” and there is only a remarkably small portion of the population left.

    The people “in charge” don’t want anyone else to know about freedom joined with responsibility because the combination is “too dangerous” and could threaten their personal power base.

    Aren’t you overreacting and exaggerating?

    *shrugs* Suit yourself.

    But you might want to ask why so many of the present laws and regulations in the U.S. and worldwide protect either individual freedom or promote personal responsibility, but seldom do both at the same time. And why does the cost to one usually more than offset the benefits to the other?

  26. NeoWayland
    December 5th, 2015 @ 2:01 pm

    There is a simple question.

    Do the benefits of government control outweigh the compliance cost, the regulatory cost, and the cost to liberty?

    I say that it usually does not.

    People can make their own choices if they have to live with the consequences. They don’t need a government doing it for their own good.

  27. Finrod Felagund
    December 5th, 2015 @ 8:57 pm

    Your Law Of The Excluded Middle fallacy is childish. There are other options besides totalitarianism or anarchy.

  28. NeoWayland
    December 6th, 2015 @ 8:42 am

    Take retirement planning. Social Security was designed to appear like it would help, but from the start it was really a no-interest loan to the government. The payments are set by law, not need and certainly not in response to inflation.

    Every other retirement option legally allowed was soon modified so that more money would go to the government than to the citizens. Programs were trotted out as THE Solution only to be modified into uselessness. Today the only ways to keep retirement money ahead of inflation are extremely risky. Some things like stock and derivative investing are just another form of crony capitalism where cash and assets are transferred to selected companies.

    All made possible and required by government intervention.

  29. FMJRA 2.0: Day Late & A Dollar Short : The Other McCain
    December 6th, 2015 @ 6:13 pm

    […] Syed Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik, 27, Named in #SanBernardino Massacre The Camp of the Saints Dark Brightness A View from the Beach Batshit Crazy News […]