US intelligence missed the first ISIS terror attack in the United States

[Christians4LessGvt]

US intelligence missed the first
ISIS terror attack in the United States

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis December 4, 2015

Step by step, US federal agencies are being forced to admit that Wednesday, Dec. 2, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik perpetrated the first Islamic State terror attack in America. They shot 14 people dead and injured 21 at the San Bernardino social center in California, before dying themselves in a shootout with the police.

Straight after the attack, on Dec. 3, when the two shooters were still unidentified and on the run, DEBKAfile's counterterrorism sources inferred from the comment by an anonymous  federal officer that "one of the shooters is an American citizen whose identity is known" that US intelligence had been onto Farook.

Another comment made at the time, "Links to international terrorism are still on the table as the assailants could have been encouraged by a foreign terror group," also betrayed official knowledge of the suspects/ background and motives.

However, it was only on Friday, Dec. 4, that a number of "revelations" came spilling out.
David Bowdich, Assistant Director of the FBI Los Angeles field office, confirmed for the first time that the bureau was investigating the San Bernardino attack as an "act of terrorism."

Tashfeen Malik using an alias was also found to have pledged loyalty to ISIS leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi on Facebook.

 It was not disclosed how she came to be identified by the investigators. DEBKAfile's intelligence sources report that the use of a false name for messages on the social media may fool the regular user, but not intelligence and anti-terrorist agencies, which are able to uncover a real identity in no time.

Phone calls from a blocked number are traced with equal ease. The couple was reported to have tried to destroy the phones and hard drives of their computers, indicating they knew that they were "blown."

The "revelation" by the FBI of Malik's pledge to the ISIS leader by Facebook was in fact a bit of misdirection to conceal the fact that her husband and partner Farook had been on the radar of US anti-terror agencies before their murderous rampage at San Bernadino, and not just after the fact through his "soft connections."

Another comment by an FBI official was also indicative.

He said: "investigators are exploring Farook's communications with at least one person who was being investigated for possible terror connections? Some were by phone, some on social media."

How and when were those communications discovered? And who is this person? The only answer given to those questions from reporters was that this individual is in America.

It stands to reason that the reference is to a secret terrorist cell operating in America whose leader was most likely Farouk's controller. His communications would have marked him for inclusion on the list of Americans with known terrorist contacts, not just the wider circle of suspects, but the short list of activists placed under 24/7 watch as a preventive measure.

The most suggestive comment by the FBI official Friday night was this: "Farouk's last communications with the contacts was months ago."

This comment may be interpreted in three ways:

1. The intelligence watch over his movements was discontinued during the months that the shooter was not in communication with his "terrorist contact."

2.  Farouk and Malik used those months of freedom from surveillance to amass a war arsenal of guns, rifles, tens of thousands of rounds of ammo, at least 15 pipe bombs and materials for building additional devices including road bombs.

3.  This was not discovered because it did not occur to the counter-terror agencies that Farouk and his presumed controller had decided to break of contact in the months leading up to the attack in order in to lower Farouk's profile and catch the surveillance off guard.

http://www.debka.com/article/25063/US-intelligence-missed-the-first-ISIS-terror-attack-in-the-United-States-

[Xavier_Onassis]

I think that it would be just common sense to destroy all communications and computer links prior to assassinating a bunch of people.
It would have been wiser to remove the chip from the cellphone first (and to use a GMA phone that has a removable chip), then throw the chip out while driving on the freeway, or burning it up, then flinging it out the wondow. Making a getaway in the same vehicle used to leave the scene of the crime does not strike me as an act of genius, either. Using a rental car is none too bright.

I would expect trained terrorists to have thought things out better than I can do in ten minutes. Apparently, this was not in=tended to be a suicide mission, and with a bit more thought they might have done a better job of escaping.

I am glad they didn't, but still, this plan was only half-baked.

[Plane]

Yes , even if a genius is involved , being a stranger to our culture is a handicap to them.

Unfortunately their attitude twards their soldiers seems to be that there are plenty more where these came from.

  Outsmarting nine of ten plots is not enough to do

[Xavier_Onassis]

I submit that to be a stranger to American culture should not prevent a Pakistani from knowing that all the data that could be useful to the FBI is contained on a small chip under the battery of a GSM cellphone. Smashing the phone itself is dramatic, and follows the procedure seen on cop shows, but it probably would not destroy that small chip, about the size of a thumbnail. The best way to prevent them from getting data would be to flush the chip down the toilet.

It might even be amusing to make the FBI  believe that you flushed it down a DIFFERENT toilet.

The people these terrorists killed were not people that had any strategic value. It was an agency that dealt mostly with disabled  people, not a military base or a police station or a communications center.

Their escape was very poorly thought out. To be really successful (and I am glad they were not), they spent too much time amassing weapons (which they did not use) and not enough in planning how to stay alive.
 They could have bought an assortment of getaway vehicles and spaced them out in various locations.

[Plane]

  As I understand the reports so far, we had a little bit of good luck.

     There was a Swat team in practice not far away.

        That large arsenal may have been intended for more targets.

            If they were not computer savvy enough to clean up their records beyond FBI retrieval , this could be another good luck, and all of their contacts and suppliers will be found.

[Xavier_Onassis]

This was not an attack by Isis. It was an attack by two people who admired Isis.
Isis did not plan. or finance, or direct, or have any real part in this.

[Plane]

Encouragement and instruction don't count?

[Xavier_Onassis]

They were provided no instructions to do what they did.
Encouragement could be watching any violent movie.

This was not an Isis attack.