San Bernardino attack suspects were well armed and carefully planed their attack. AFP.

Police Chief Jarrod Burguan speaks during a press conference about the shooting. AFP

The attackers that shot up a holiday party in San Bernardino attacks were very well armed and carefully planed their attack. AFP. Sayed Farook, along with his wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and wounded 21. The attackers dropped off their 6 month old child with relatives and then fired 75 rounds at the party. More people could have died if the explosives they had brought with them had exploded. The couple used two AR-15 style rifles and two handguns, all of which were purchased legally. The FBI is investigating the suspects to see if they have any connections to terrorist organizations, and may have found those connections already. Farook met his wife in Mecca, presumably during the Hajj. She was a Pakistani citizen and got US citizenship due to marrying Farook, who was a 2nd generation citizen. 

My Comment:

I was going to post about this attack yesterday but I was so disgusted by what I saw on social media that I wasn't able to. Before the bodies were cold, people were blaming this on anything but Islamic terrorism. I did my best to withhold judgment until something solid was released by the news, but nobody else did. So many people were salivating at the thought of blaming this one right wing white people. Even after it was clear that the suspect was of Middle Eastern descent (though you could argue that Islamic terror is right wing and many Muslims are white, that clearly wasn't what they were going for). 

Even worse, people were calling for gun control before they knew anything about the attack. And more gun control would have done nothing. California already has extreme gun control, worse then many countries in Europe and certainly worse then many states in America. But these two were able to purchase all of their weapons legally. It seems the rifles were straw purchases, but we all know that the government does not prosecute people that buy weapons for criminals. Still, even if they did, they wouldn't have case here because nobody knew that these two were terrorists. Farook and Malik were able to pass multiple background checks and nobody caught on that they were radicalized. Indeed, Malik needed to pass background checks just to get into the country. Just goes to show that background checks are pretty damn useless. 

Of course, even if gun control did work, and it's damn clear that it doesn't, there still would have been an attack. Farook was able to find and produce explosives. Though they weren't able to use those explosives effectively, they had little reason too. Had they been unable to purchase firearms, they would have been more focused on making sure their explosives worked. It's possible that their attack would have been even more deadly if they had used explosives instead of firearms.

Make no mistake, this was an act of terrorism, not "workplace violence". Yes, Farook attacked his workplace but he did it for political reasons. He wasn't crazy, and he wasn't emotionally disturbed. He was trying to make political statement. This was obvious almost immediately. Early reports had Farook attacking because he became offended at the holiday party, which made no sense at all. I can buy someone getting mad at a party and then coming back and shooting people. But there was no way that is what happened here. You don't bring explosives and combat clothing during a spur of the moment shooting. 

As for who radicalized these two, it's unclear at this point. People are making a lot out of Farook's trip to Mecca, but I am not sure if that was important. Millions of people go to Saudi Arabia each year for the Hajj, and there aren't that many people there recruiting. Also, there aren't that many terrorist organizations active in Saudi Arabia, though there are certainty a lot of people funding terror there. 

My guess is that Farook and Malik were radicalized via the internet. ISIS has been very active in recruiting people so they are a prime suspect. The tactics used in the attack are similar to other attacks ISIS has used such as the attacks in France and Tunisia. But ISIS is far from the only suspect. The other main suspect is AQAP, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. They did the Charlie Hebdo attack, but one thing points against them. AQAP generally tries to avoid attacking people they consider "civilians". Their definition of civilian is way different then ours, but I don't see them pulling off this attack that was directed at civilians by any definition. 

Finally, this is going to be more fuel for the argument against letting in Syrian refugees. Though neither of the people involved in this attack were refugees, they were Muslims. Malik was a naturalized citizen who was only here because she married a citizen. And Farook is a 2nd generation Pakistani. His parents were immigrants and shows the threat that a 2nd generation group of Muslims could pose. Is it an iron clad argument against taking in refugees? Of course not, but it's part of a circumstantial case.   

I also have to say that it is very unusual for a woman to be involved in a mass shooting. For the most part women do not commit this kind of crime. I won't speculate why that is true in general, but I do think the main reason Malik participated in this attack is due to her religion. Women do seem to be more involved with Islamic terrorism then other kinds of violent crime. No idea why that is, but it does seem to be true.