Almost a year ago terrorist Mohammed Saeed Al-Shamrani, an aviation student we armed and brought to our soil to train, murdered three sailors and injured eight and walked around for ten minutes with no resistance from unarmed service members who later begged to be allowed their right of lawful carry (also discussed it here on “Fox and Friends”). From a new investigative report released by the Navy shortly before Thanksgiving (full report here):
The 260 page report found “the self-radicalization of 2nd Lt. Al-Shamrani was the primary cause of this fatal attack. However, his actions and behaviors, along with the organizational environment inherent in the aviation pipeline, likely increased his probability of committing an insider attack.” […]
The investigation found there was “an adverse microclimate for all students as NASC”, and international students were subjected to “derogatory and sometimes abusive comments as well as humiliating public reprimands.” Military and civilian leaders aware of the complaints did not take steps to correct the toxic climate, investigators found.
“In addition, 2nd Lt. Al-Shamrani likely faced additional personal and professional stressors due to a language barrier, cultural differences, and the rigor of high-risk aviation training and academics,” the report states. “Mitigating these individual risk factors may not have stopped 2nd Lt. Al-Shamrani from evolving into a hostile insider threat, yet they may have lessened his cumulative load of stress, pressure and anger.”
What about the “toxic microclimate” in which Mohammad Saeed Al-Shamrani was born, one that fosters murderous clerics like those who radicalized Al-Shamrani long before he ever arrived in Pensacola?
He was online in broad daylight espousing terrorist rhetoric and threatening jihad a full two years before coming to the United States. How, when accepting foreign nationals into the country for flight training (echoing the beginnings of 9/11, did we not learn?) does the government that promises to keep us safe miss so many obvious warning signs? Where was the vetting of this foreign national?
The example of “toxicity” given is that in April 2019 someone called him “pornstache,” because he had one:
Al-Shamrani filed a complaint in April of 2019 after an instructor called him “Pornstache.” The report states there was a negative climate among IMS students assigned to NASC at that time as well.
Many of the complaints were filed properly but were never handled to prevent it from occurring in the future and failed on several training protocols which was also stated in the report.
Anyone that sensitive over a common and innocuous phrase for facial hair has no business in any sort of military program and it’s insulting to suggest, much less claim in a report, that had it not been for innocent ribbing that Pornstachio might not have gone full jihad. Many go through such programs every year without resorting to terrorism as some depraved coping mechanism. It’s more “toxic” to walk on eggshells around unstable (and in this case, murderous) people — they are the driving force behind any “toxicity.” Not fully vetting foreign nationals also creates a “toxic” climate.
Don’t forget — there were some who insinuated that our Second Amendment was the problem, not the terrorist. I said at the time of the whole “loophole” talking point:
Also, credit where due: While some in media crafted narratives suggesting that somehow it was a lack of restrictions that contributed to the terrorist accessing firearms, Jorge Ortiz chose his words carefully to accurately reflect the legal nature of the terrorist’s possession (I have said for years that words matter as the invoke different applications of law based on which words are used and how on this matter) in a well-written piece. He touches on the problem, which is that the exception for foreign nationals under certain conditions is literally written into the law. It isn’t an absence of law that allowed this, but rather the law was written specifically to allow it. Why in the world?
I’m not sure of a more obvious case of common ground here than that of clearly unvetted foreign nationals accessing rights affirmed only for American citizens. Meanwhile, despite growing as targets, our American service members are denied access to equal means of self defense.
The investigatory body compiling the report could have shaved off a lot of time by simply attributing the terrorist act to a terrorist radicalized in his own country.