Now that the dust has settled in the aftermath of the San Bernardino massacre we can look back at some of the more bizarre explanations for what exactly triggered this horrific attack. Anything to avoid blaming Islamic terrorism!

1. It's America's fault! According to Hussam Ayloush, the Los Angeles director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the United States is "partially" responsible for the massacre. As he said on CNN's "New Day," "Let's not forget that some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West, have fueled that extremism."

Talk about having a poor sense of timing.

Alyoush claimed that, "When we support coup leaders in Egypt or other places, when we supports dictatorship, oppressive regimes around the world that push people over on the edge, then they become extremists, then they become terrorists. We are partly responsible."

What he failed to mention was that the coup we supported in Egypt helped oust the extremist Muslim Brotherhood government and that the current leader of Egypt has called for major reforms within Islam.

Based on this logic, by supporting more moderate Islam we are pushing Muslims to become extremists.

Not only is this self-contradictory, it is abhorrent to make statements like this while the families of the victims have barely had time to bury their dead.

2. We need to tighten up gun control laws!
I'm not a card-carrying member of the NRA, and I do believe we need to do a better job of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people. And there are times when it is appropriate to discuss gun laws, but this was not one of them.

The young terrorist couple in California also planned to use explosive devices to kill many more people, just as the Boston Marathon bombers murdered their victims with bombs and not with guns, yet President Obama immediately used the San Bernardino killings to advocate once again for stricter gun control laws.

This, too, was out of place and out of line, especially when we consider that the massacre was a classic example of the bad guys getting guns and the good guys not having guns.

3. It's the victim's fault! In one of the most egregious examples of blame shifting, Linda Stasi, writing for the New York Daily News, claimed that provocative social media posts from one of the victims, Nicholas Thalasinos, a zealous Christian who attended a Messianic Jewish congregation, helped push Syed Farook to kill.

She wrote, "They were two hate-filled, bigoted municipal employees interacting in one department. Now 13 innocent people are dead in unspeakable carnage.

"One man spent his free time writing frightening, NRA-loving, hate-filled screeds on Facebook about the other's religion."

Frankly, to put these two men in the same category is outrageous and indefensible, and she should be called to account for comparing the posting of Facebook comments that crossed a line with shooting 14 people in cold blood.

Stasi did say that, "The killers [referring to Farook and his wife] deserve every disgusting adjective thrown at them. And more."

Yet Stasi's whole column is designed to point blame at both the victim and his killer, with the newspaper running this headline: "San Bernardino killers were radical, ISIS-loving monsters – but one of their victims was just as bigoted."

This is a sick comparison.

4. We need to criminalize anti-Islamic speech!
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, a Sikh man was killed by angry New Yorkers who mistook him for a Muslim. (Sikhs, who hail from North India, have their own distinct religion, unrelated to Islam.) So I do understand the need to avoid demonizing all Muslims in America after Islamic terror has reached our shores again.

But just when we needed our leadership to speak out against that terror, the message we heard from Attorney General Loretta Lynch was that the Justice Department was prepared to "take action" when anti-Islamic speech "edges towards violence. ..."

How off target can you get?

Lynch did clarify (or modify) her remarks a few days later, making clear that the government prosecutes actions not words, but the sentiments of the administration were clear: Protecting Muslims seemed to be more important than protecting Americans in general.

5. Islamic terrorism is due to global warming!
Although Bill Nye's comments about the connection between global warming and Islamic terror were not directly related to San Bernardino, they remain no less stunning. (His comments, made in late November, were in reference to the Paris attacks.)

He explained, "You can make a very reasonable argument that climate change is not that indirectly related to terrorism."

How so? Well, water shortages in Syria have driven young men from farms, so they have to look for work in more densely populated cities, which somehow turns them into terrorists.

There you have it.

6. Israel is to blame!
Not surprisingly, Israel had to be linked to the massacre by someone, since whenever there's a tragedy in the world, Jews must somehow be behind it.

In an interview with an Italian newspaper, Farook's father stated that, "My son said that he shared [IS leader Abu Bakr] Al Baghdadi's ideology and supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel."

But not to worry. "I told him he had to stay calm and be patient because in two years Israel will not exist any more. Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China and America don't want Jews there any more. They are going to bring the Jews back to Ukraine. What is the point of fighting?"

It appears that Farook grew tired of waiting and decided to express his hatred toward Israel by killing 14 Americans at a Christmas party. Makes sense, no?

Putting sarcasm aside, I'm fully aware that many Muslims have issues with Israel and with American interventionism in Muslim countries, and I'm aware that interpersonal relationships can trigger workplace violence.

But what we have here is a case of Islamic terrorism, plain and simple, and that's what our leaders and the media needed to emphasize from the start.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/6-bizarre...MHp11sBXRzR.99