Dad: San Bernardino shooter agreed with ISIL, ‘obsessed with Israel’ Oren Dorell, USA TODAY 6:02 p.m. EST December 6, 2015Charlie Chan was always referring to Number One Son and Number Two Son. That would be helpful with the Farook Family.
The father of San Bernardino suspect Syed Rizwan Farook told an Italian newspaper that his son expressed support for the Islamic State group and was obsessed with Israel.
The father, who is also named Syed Farook, told La Stampa that his son took on an overly conservative outlook on Islam and at least once expressed support for ideas promoted by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State militant group, also known as ISIL or ISIS.
“He said he shared the ideology of al-Baghdadi to create an Islamic state, and he was obsessed with Israel,” the father told a reporter in an interview outside the home of this other son, Syed Raheel Farook, in Corona, Calif.
The father said he counseled his son to be patient because, he said, in time political changes in the Middle East will accomplish his desires.Well, that’s pretty darn moderate of Syed Sr.
“I kept telling him always: stay calm, be patient, in two years Israel will no longer exist,” the elder Farook told the newspaper. “Geopolitics is changing: Russia, China, America too, nobody wants the Jews there.”
But Syed Rizwan Farook was not dissuaded, the father said.Okay …
The father said his family was destroyed when his son sided against him with his equally religious mother.
“Rizwan was the mama’s boy, and she is very religious like him,” he said. “Once we had a dispute about the historical figure of Jesus, my son yelled that I was an unbeliever and decided that marriage with my wife had to end.”
For once, there has been some journalistic interest in how an immigrant who runs amok became an immigrant — in this case, the bizarre figure of the young mother / suburban terrorist who recently got a visa.
But I’m still wondering how the first generation of Farooks got into the U.S. What exactly did Farook Sr., a member of the long term unemployed, bring to the table that made it desirable for America to let him in? Did he promise to not do the jobs that Americans wanted to do? Maybe the deal clincher was his taste for goat fetuses?
Or does merely asking these questions violate the presumptive civil right of everybody on earth to move to America as long as they are not currently plotting terrorism? Trying to discriminate among who would be beneficial immigrants and who would be detrimental immigrants would be intelligent, but it’s still discriminating. In fact, intelligence largely is discrimination, so intelligence is racist.