California Shooting Rampage: Investigators Probe Shooters' Motives
BERMAN: The mass shooting in San Bernardino that left 14 victims dead raises so many questions. The shooters, why did they do it? Were warning signs missed? Was there a larger plan? Correspondent Tom Foreman in the CNN virtual studio walks us through the crime and the questions?</s>TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Let's start at this office gathering where authorities say Farook left angrily after some sort of dispute and returned in the short order with his wife and the shooting began. That's where the first real question arises here and that is what set him off? Was it really an honest dispute or some sort of pretext to start the attack? Were there any warning signs? Was he having some kind of problem that somebody might have been aware of that would have told them this was on the way? And why were the explosives not detonated? Authorities told us they had some bombs of a sort here that could have been set off remotely. They were never set off. Did they get out of range? Did they forget? Did they change their mind? We don't know. Move to their home about a six-minute drive away and we get a whole new set of questions. The first one being, why did they return home? Certainly, Farook had to be aware of the possibility that someone at the office would have recognized him and alerted police. And, indeed, the police were there. They spotted them. The chase followed, the shootout as well. Beyond that when you think about all of the thousands of rounds of ammunition, all the bomb-making equipment authorities have cited in the home, how long were they preparing? That's another important question. And beyond that if you move to the final stage, the shootout in which they lost their lives there, there's a big question in play here. Were they planning something else, either before or after this other event here? Why did they act now? And was someone else involved? Either on the ground or from afar helping them out. These are all the many, many questions out there right now. And there aren't so far many answers.</s>ROMANS: No, and a lot of investigation. Tom Foreman, thank you. So, what is the motive behind the California mass shooting? That is the focus of the investigation at this point. Was it terrorism? Joining us via Skype is an expert on radicalization, Dr. Sajjan Gohel. He's the international security director for the Asia-Pacific Foundation think tank. Good morning. So nice to see you. So many questions. Let's talk a bit about some major differences here we're seeing. This husband and wife team, you know, armed to the hilt. All of these bombs with a six-month-old baby and they leave the scene. It doesn't bear the hallmarks of other recent Paris-style attacks, for example.</s>SAJJAN GOHEL, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTOR, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: Good morning. We are seeing a very different type of strategy in this attack in San Bernardino. The dynamic that's still very important is whether there was an international connection, whether these individuals were being recruited, radicalized from abroad. Potentially, they were self-starters, if there's an important ideological component in this. I think this attack really be seen as something random. This attack seemed premeditated. There may have been a longstanding issue, but something like this required some planning, especially with the type of weapons and explosives that were used, and very disturbing with a woman being involved. We've seen women on the periphery of plots but we've never seen them being directly coordinating an attack before.</s>BERMAN: There are some signs they are trying to cover their tracks. A couple of cell phones destroyed, found at one of the crime scenes. The computer had drive had been removed. Some signs that Rizwan had been deleting files over the last several days. One of the questions, if this was terrorism, was it inspired by or directed by outside groups? For these groups that are operating primarily in the Middle East, whether it'd be ISIS, AQAP, you know, old fashion al Qaeda, do they care? Is it better to have directed terrorist activity or is their goal to have it be self-starters, inspired by al Qaeda rather than directed by?</s>GOHEL: It's a very important point that you raise. It's been established that these individuals were in Saudi Arabia. If we look at that as a clue, the group that tends to be prominent there is al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That's the group that's plotted attacks against the United States before, the underpants bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab being one of them. Then you also have the ink cartridge plot where they tried to detonate a device on board a cargo plane. And the other examples that are important to ascertain is that if this was a self-starter group that is motivated ideologically by the material that's available online, some of the explosives and material was similar to the "Inspire" magazine al Qaeda has created. Potentially they've been directed by extremists but it's something they'll have to see whether there's a larger cell, whether this has been compartmentalized. Unfortunately, this sets a dangerous precedent and the worry could be that will this inspire other potential radicals for plotting several type of incidents.</s>ROMANS: Let's talk about the jihadi narrative resonating in people that are committing acts like this. I mean, this is such an interesting, different, troubling, chilling case because this is a husband and wife team in the suburbs with a baby. That's the part that it really, really is different than what we've seen in other potential terrorists and in other terrorists who have committed crimes like this. Tell us about the jihadi narrative, why it is resonating.</s>GOHEL: It's unfortunately a very simple, basic narrative that yet seems to indoctrinate and influence young impressionable individuals. They buy the half truth of groups like al Qaeda or ISIS. Of course, we still need to wait for this to be confirmed.</s>ROMANS: Of course.</s>GOHEL: That this is connected to international terrorism, but it's becoming far too common that sometimes people are accepting the very simple base narrative of joining a death cult effectively that somehow by being part of this network, it provides greater meaning for one's life. What they end up doing is not only killing innocent people but besmirching. And it feeds into the dark agenda that terrorist groups are trying to purport. And far too often, we're seeing an increase of women getting radicalized, of entire families becoming motivated by this. It's a very different dynamic to the post-9/11 era where it was young men from their late teens, early 20s being radicalized. Now, there's actually no specific group that you can actually pigeonhole.</s>ROMANS: And, of course, one of the dynamics interesting here if it does appear to be linked to international terror is Rizwan Farook, he was born in the United States. He is an American. Born in Illinois. His parents were from Pakistan but he was born in Illinois, raised in California. So, it's happening to people born, could be, in the United States.</s>GOHEL: I'm afraid so. And that's been going on now for a while, the assumption that the United States was immune to home-grown radicalization, I'm afraid no longer there. There are some people in the U.S. that are being recruited, being radicalized. It's also an important reminder it's not just about importing terrorism like it was with the September 11th hijackers. You can recruit from within, host societies, radicalized in front of the computer in your parents' basement. It is more instantaneous, spontaneous, direct. There are different dynamics involved in today's terrorism. The new media platforms have often cut out the need to travel, the need to physically be in contact with people. A lot of it can be done through the virtual world. And that is something that's had a very dangerous consequence in Europe and unfortunately on the United States now, too.</s>BERMAN: Dr. Gohel, just lastly, you know, the people at his office, the family, at least publicly so far, they are saying they never saw any signs that there were any problems. Do you think it's possible that this couple did this in complete privacy with no sort of outward signs that something was amiss with that kind of arsenal, with this kind of plan in the works?</s>GOHEL: On the surface, it is difficult to believe that this was so carefully compartmentalized that there was no leakage of information, that no one else who may have known the couple would be oblivious to it. That's something the authorities are going to have to investigate carefully. Often, people can tell there are tell-tale signs of extremism, of language that is showing violence, that is talking about retribution or wanting to inflict harm on others. But it's dismissed. It's seen as just angry talk by young people. They don't see it as something that could actually be escalated. But then, in hindsight, it's something that, obviously, people can reflect on. That needs to be looked at. Have they been in touch with other people that's share equally disturbing views, especially through the Internet, because very often there's a piece of the puzzle that if put together forms a much wider picture. The U.S., some of the best investigators in the world, and they were hopefully be able to ascertain if this is a bigger cell or not.</s>BERMAN: We appreciate your insight. Dr. Sajjan Gohel, thanks for being with us this morning.</s>ROMANS: All right. A warning that is may be ready to strike again, planning attacks to follow the Paris massacre. We'll tell you what we're learning about where they are planning those attacks, next.