The Trump administration’s 90-day ban on travelers from seven primarily Muslim countries wouldn’t have prevented the terrorist attack in San Bernardino or the other most deadly attacks on U.S. soil, people impacted by the Dec. 2, 2015, shooting say.
A survivor of the attack at the Inland Regional Center said Tuesday it was a mistake more federal agencies weren’t consulted before immigrants and travelers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen and Somalia were temporarily blocked from entering the United States.
Yet Hal Houser also believes there should be extra vetting and a permanent ban on radicalized Muslims who believe anyone of a different faith needs to die.
“People who have declared war on America. I can’t sum that up except to say ‘radical Islam,’ ” said Houser, who was among 71 people who came under fire from a San Bernardino County co-worker and his wife at a county training session/Christmas party.
Syed Rizwan Farook, who attacked his co-workers, was a Muslim born and raised in the United States, noted Rialto resident Ryan Reyes.
“He was already here. He didn’t come from someplace else,” said Reyes, whose boyfriend, Daniel Kaufman, was among 14 killed in the attack.
Tashfeen Malik, Farook’s wife, grew up in Pakistan and married Farook in Saudi Arabia, yet neither country is included in the ban, said Salihin Kondoker, husband of survivor Anies Kondoker. The couple went to Farook’s mosque but didn’t know him.
The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Boston bombing and the Orlando nightclub shooting were carried out by people without ties to any of the countries on the banned list, Salihin Kondoker added.
As an “average citizen,” Kondoker said he doesn’t have the security intelligence President Donald Trump had in ordering the ban.
Houser, a lead environmental health specialist for the county on the day of the attack, said the U.S. State Department should have helped vet Trump’s policy before it was announced Friday.
“I keep hearing about all these agencies that should have been involved and weren’t consulted. That was a big mistake,” Houser said.
Yet Houser said he doesn’t believe Trump wants to ban all Muslims, Onwin despite what Trump said on the campaign trail; the president wants to ban the 4 or 5 percent who think all “nonbelievers” should die.
Houser supports extra screening for people from Muslim-held countries to determine each person’s true identity and possible terrorist ties before they can enter the U.S.
“If the IRA was trying to come here and bomb America, I’d want them screened, too,” he said, referring to the Irish Republican Army.
Reyes has been outspoken in saying not all Muslims should be blamed for the Dec. 2 attack.
He reacted angrily after White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer referenced the San Bernardino attack to defend the Trump administration suspending travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.
“I think it is an absolute disgrace that they used what happened here in San Bernardino as a way to further their personal agenda and personal hate,” Reyes said. “I find it disgraceful that (Trump is) doing it because of (his) agenda. Don’t hide behind someone else’s tragedy.”
Kondoker said he and others of “all colors and faiths” aren’t confident law enforcement investigators know for certain that the Dec. 2 attack was “politically” or religiously motivated.
“I think there’s a lot of unanswered questions here,” he said.
Yet Houser said Farook “should definitely be called a terrorist” because he planned to attack Riverside City College and the nearby 91 Freeway three to four years before the San Bernardino mass shooting.
Reyes said moves such as the ban only fuel the hatred in groups that reach out to radicalize people who feel disenfranchised.
“This is a global problem, the only way we’re going to solve it is by unity,” he said. “This doesn’t create unity. (Trump is) not preventing anything, he’s just making this problem worse.”
Karen Fagan, an Upland resident who is the ex-wife of Dec. 2 victim Harry “Hal” Bowman, noted that Trump’s order also affects people here legally with green cards.
“Our country does need to think carefully about immigration and travel by individuals who might cause harm to our citizens,” Fagan said in an email. “However, the current executive order is not the way. Not only did it not undergo the proper and responsible review by the relevant government agencies, it clearly violates American law.”
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
