"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Thursday, December 03, 2015

The Guardian and San Bernardino

Rory Carroll et al., San Bernardino shooting suspects raised few red flags before ‘horrendous’ crime, The Guardian, Dec. 3, 2015, 20:08 GMT

"The motives of anyone who plans a mass shooting are necessarily murky and complex. But the actions of Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik seem more incomprehensible still."

"In one of the most jarring details to emerge in the aftermath of the shooting, it is now known that the couple, who died in a gunfight with police, began their day by leaving their six-month-old daughter with Farook’s mother."

Id. (emphasis added).

Why would anyone believe that the motives of those who “plan ... mass shootings are necessarily murky and complex? Are not such persons’ motives all too frequently simple and plain?

In what way are Farook and Malik’s actions “incomprehensible”? Precisely what is it that the writers are unable to comprehend?

How is it “jarring” that the killers sought to look after the welfare of their child before killing other peoples’ children?

Don’t you just love The Guardian.


Seth

PS: Here is my prior post: Seth Barrett Tillman, The Tale of the Swedish Prosecutor, the Citizen, and the Human Being, The New Reform Club (Dec. 3, 2015, 8:52 AM), http://reformclub.blogspot.ie/2015/12/the-tale-of-swedish-prosecutor-citizen.html 

Twitter: https://twitter.com/SethBTillman  ( @SethBTillman )


2 comments:

Mike said...

No, I do not just love the Guardian, which is why I haven't bothered to look at for 10 years. And the motives are only incomprehensible to those who are willfully deaf and blind to reality.

Gringo said...

While Rory Carroll is clueless here, he wrote a pretty good book about Hugo Chavez :Comandante: Hugo Chávez's Venezuela. The difference is that he spent a lot of time in Venezuela, so he wasn't writing off the top of his head, as he did with this article.