Here's the name of the UCLA shooter: Mainek Sarkar. He was a former graduate student at UCLA. According to reports this morning, he is suspected of killing a woman in Minnesota as well as of the UCLA murder in California. Police in LA searched Sarkar's residence and found a document labeled "kill list". As a result of this find, they sent the local police in Brooklyn, Minnesota to check in on a woman whose name was on the kill list. The police in Minnesota found her dead; she had been shot. We don't yet know for certain if there are other names on the kill list or if any others have been found dead. One thing we do know, however, is that Sarkar was Indian (not Native American by with ancestry from India.) It seems also that he was a Moslem, although there is still some confusion about that.
So what does all this tell us about the UCLA shootings? Simple, they were a terror attack. The media story has changed since the incident began. At first, we were told that there were one or two shooters and that the suspect was a tall white male in black clothes. That led to the usual laments about murderous white supremacists or angry Tea Partiers on a rampage. Then it became clear that both a victim and the shooter had died at UCLA. Suddenly the media would not tell us anything about the shooter. We learned that the victim was a UCLA professor, but the name of the shooter was withheld. Of course, we then learned why the name was withheld. Police were busy checking on the other targets on the kill list and they did not want to alert anyone who might be participating in the potential attacks. Oh, and there's also the problem that the press had with identifying yet another shooter who did not fit their favored narrative.
This is a different kind of terror attack, or so it seems. It is not one directed by ISIS or al Qaeda, although we have to wonder still if they were involved. Nevertheless, people have been shot and killed for no reason but after careful planning. What more could one need for a terror attack.
So what does all this tell us about the UCLA shootings? Simple, they were a terror attack. The media story has changed since the incident began. At first, we were told that there were one or two shooters and that the suspect was a tall white male in black clothes. That led to the usual laments about murderous white supremacists or angry Tea Partiers on a rampage. Then it became clear that both a victim and the shooter had died at UCLA. Suddenly the media would not tell us anything about the shooter. We learned that the victim was a UCLA professor, but the name of the shooter was withheld. Of course, we then learned why the name was withheld. Police were busy checking on the other targets on the kill list and they did not want to alert anyone who might be participating in the potential attacks. Oh, and there's also the problem that the press had with identifying yet another shooter who did not fit their favored narrative.
This is a different kind of terror attack, or so it seems. It is not one directed by ISIS or al Qaeda, although we have to wonder still if they were involved. Nevertheless, people have been shot and killed for no reason but after careful planning. What more could one need for a terror attack.
No comments:
Post a Comment