Last nigh,t after the identities of the two San Bernardino killers was revealed, I switched back and forth among Fox News, CNN and MSNBC to see how they were speculating about the motive. Only Fox gave proper coverage to the idea that this might be an act of terror. CNN and MSNBC were clinging to the possibility (hope) that it was an act of angry retaliation for some slight that Syed Farook might have suffered at an office party he was attending. In other words, an act of (gasp) workplace violence, an idea long discredited by anyone outside the Obama administration.
It may well be that there was an angry moment that caused Farook to leave the party, but so what? When you come back with your wife, Tashfeen Malik, both dressed up in combat gear with automatic weapons, extra rounds of ammo, IEDs, pipe bombs, and GoPro cameras attached to your clothing to record the event for posterity, and kill 14 people, is that a case of workplace violence? We know now that their apartment in Redlands was described by police as "an IED factory".
Clearly, these two were preparing for their act of jihad. It may be possible that an angry exchange at the party led Farook to decide that this would be the time and place, but if not then, it would have been later at another place. I would compare it to last month's attack at UC Merced.
We will still learn more about Farook in the coming days, but to attribute this to workplace violence is outrageous.