Mahablog: It's okay for terrorists to target those that make them mad

Is that going too far?  You decide:

Righties are apoplectic about this Daily News article which presents a hypothesis about the San Bernadino mass shooting.  Apparently one of Tashfeen Malik’s co-workers was a five-alarm loudmouth wingnut bagger who wanted Ann Coulter to be named head of Homeland Security. The Daily News writer called him a radical Born Again Christian/Messianic Jew.” Might explain why the shooters went after the workplace, which otherwise made no sense as a terrorism target.  Mahablog

If the so-called right is apoplectic about anything it's that the notion that anybody has any business going on a shooting spree just because they are offended by what someone says.  Notice that she takes the side of the terrorist when she calls the citizen a bunch of insulting names, which makes it more understandable to have such rage that they would start killing people.  The author seems to think that this is justifiable homicide?

If you are angry about this rationalization for terror, she seems to be saying, you are the one with the problem.  She seems to be saying that the "loudmouth wingnut bagger" needed to be silenced.

Update:

I checked out the article linked to by the Mahablogger.  She says the following, which may be considered libelous:

The other man quietly stewed and brewed his bigotry, collecting the kind of arsenal that the Facebook poster would have envied.

How does the author know that the man ( who was murdered for simply exercising his First Amendment rights) would have envied the murderers' arsenal?  The murdered man may not have had much of an arsenal himself.  If he did, how does she know that he would have wanted anything comparable?

The author tries to make these men out to be the same, but does this woman have any evidence whatsoever that this man was planning the type of violence that was visited upon him and others at his place of employment?

But if you point out the differences, according to the Mahablogger, there's something wrong with you.

Uh-huh.

Update:

I also checked for the murdered man's Facebook page ( and didn't find it but found this), which has gotten the attention of this author of the piece that Mahablogger was writing about.  He did write some things that were intemperate, but to use that as an excuse for mass murder?  It seemed to make the point of this man that this so-called religion is as violent as he outspokenly said it was.  The mass murderer got into an argument with this man, it is said, and the murderer said Americans don't understand Islam.  What is there to understand?  Is this how they make us understand?  Are Americans supposed to cower in the face of outrages such as this?  Evidently so, says these two authors.  Just shut up and be good dhimmis.

Update:

One more thing before I leave this post.  There are reports that the murderous couple were visited by Middle Eastern men prior to their rampage.  People did not speak up in fear of being accused of "profiling".  Now, if these people who saw these suspicious people were as outspoken as this murdered man was, they would have said something and these killers could have been stopped.

What I'm getting at is that people like the Mahablogger want you to shut up, but this is part of the problem, not the solution.  More speaking out, not less.  The murdered man is a hero, but the Mahablog has him as a villain.