Rollin' Like Sisyphus

Supposing You’re Of Two Jihads

Posted in A Chronicle Of Decline by Huckleberry on December 3, 2015

So this shooter case is, as we’d say in the 80s, queer, with seemingly multiple contradictory facts that abrogate every attempted rendering of a clear picture for the motive. Underlying that, I think, is something that points to something quite sinister, so let me tumble around on the Uneven Bars of my mind for a spell and see if I can get where I’m going here.

There were three shooters.

One was a US citizen.

One was the newlywed bride of the US citizen.

The US citizen met the newlywed bride in Saudi Arabia, and brought her back to the US.

The US citizen became “much more devout” as a Muslim upon his return from Saudi Arabia.

The third shooter is suspected of being a Qatar citizen.

In the weeks leading up to the attack, neighbors cowed by PC culture noticed but didn’t report odd gatherings of “many Middle-Eastern” men at the apartment of the US citizen and his newlywed Saudi Arabian bride.

In addition to rifles, handguns and ammunition, the US citizen and his newlywed Saudi Arabian bride had with them “dozens” of improvised explosive devices during their Blaze of Glory shootout with local sheriff’s deputies.

All shooters were wearing GoPro cameras, recording and possibly streaming the attack/shootout as it happened.

As the shooters remained at large, ISIS took to the Internets to cheer their “three lions” with the cute HASHTAGAMERICABURNING.


The US citizen attacked his co-workers at an official work function.

This attack occurred after a reported “incident” between the US citizen and least one person at the work function.

The shooters only targeted those in the room with whom the US citizen actually worked, then promptly left, passing dozens of potential targets both on the way into and out of the room where the shooting took place.

The shooters wore masks and did not flee the area. They went home and stayed there for a few hours.

When you add all of this together and take the result at face value, it doesn’t jibe all that well. Generally speaking, if you as a shooter know your victims both by name and on some more familiar level, you’re shooting them for a reason that goes beyond your desire to paste infidels. To the flip side, generally speaking, you don’t build dozens of pipe bombs, head off to Saudi Arabia to recruit a war bride, and confer with a gaggle of suspicious characters if you have a beef with Chip in Accounts Receivable. Whenever jihadis have specific targets, those are specific targets with a larger political purpose. Twenty generally anonymous people working for a small municipal government agency in a town that is to LA what Tattooine is to Coruscant – on the fringe of nowhere. Not the highest of profile, but not anything in terms of formidable defenses or security.
But what if I suggested that this was 100% pure unadulterated jihad, from the top-down, and signals an interesting and new adaptive strategy by the JV team to strike targets in the United States?
Consider the Paris shootings – the shooters knew that they’d face little resistance and would be able to act freely for a long while before any police response could be mounted. When two jihadis tried something similar in the US last year, they were shot and killed more than 100 yards away from their precious target, unable to shoot or injure anyone.
Perhaps the new US strategy is to recruit those with Muslim backgrounds, sympathies and affiliations, drag them off to marry jihadi war brides, and establish a plan to attack targets intimately familiar to the natural-born Muslim recruit. You still get the terror and mayhem, but you reduce the risk of failure significantly and maybe you’ve packed enough pipe bombs to hit a secondary and maybe even a tertiary target on the way out. Increased familiarity with the target is obviously beneficial for a number of reasons, but most helpful in reasonably determining for sure if there’s anyone else armed in the room or not. In this way you’re not going in blind to what Yamamoto (or maybe it was Hirohito) termed “a gun behind every blade of grass.”
Still, the endless calls for new laws that would have changed nothing – the US citizen purchased the guns legally* — continue, but that doesn’t matter one bit. I do have fun imagining Our Simple Affirmative Action President racing to the podium yesterday soon after news broke to reiterate that “enough is enough” and press for “sensible gun control” until someone stopped him and said the shooter was named Syed Farook. Upon hearing the news, Our Simple Affirmative Action President visibly deflated, turned away slowly and headed off to the putting green.
So yeah, I’m going to say if this isn’t false flag, and I don’t think it is now that I ponder it some, I think this is the first trial of a new strategy for some successful hits in the US. Maybe now would be a good time to mentally review if there are any Muslims at your workplace who’ve suddenly become “much more devout” and, perhaps, who’ve traveled to a Middle-Eastern country and returned with a war bride, a few swarthy new friends, and chip on his shoulder.


4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. El Borak said, on December 3, 2015 at 12:34

    I get the same vibe. 14 dead in a minute and then scoot, in a building with thousands of, um, persons with less than stellar escape skills. Can you imagine how many they could have taken out just walking the halls had they been so inclined? He obviously came there to kill the people he killed and only those people.

    So maybe it’s a new strategy, or maybe he was gearing up for something else, got tired of people at work drawing Mohammed in his hot chocolate foam when he wasn’t looking, and overestimated the disguise value of a ski mask in southern California.

    It’s weird, no doubt. It’s gonna get weirder.

  2. doomdigit said, on December 3, 2015 at 19:26

    Mail order brides these days…

  3. Doom said, on December 4, 2015 at 05:19

    You do provide interesting questions and possibilities. I never saw false flag in there Oddities, sure. Though I think these aren’t exactly top-notch planners. I suspect you are correct, some one(s) said or did something, and it was decided to hit them. I really believe they probably had other targets, but redirected. Though maybe not for the reason we think. Perhaps the other target ended up being far too hardened.

    I am actually a bit torn on whether to have sympathy. Government workers, okay, and who is letting the bastards in? Sure, they don’t have much power. But then the ruled always choose to be ruled or not. These have obviously chosen. They live, and choose to live, in a bad state. *cough* None of them saw fit to know how to defend themselves, probably as you discussed couldn’t have escaped a child shooter. Yeah, mostly not sympathetic. More, they are all probably anti-gun, pro big government, all for tolerance, and such. Yeah, not much sympathy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: