The reality, as I see it, and given what we know now, is this: San Bernardino was an act of terrorism that may or may not have been directed from overseas. The implications of that are very grave for those of us who oppose our crazed foreign policy of perpetual war, and the relentless assault on our civil liberties on the home front.

The pressure to “destroy them over there before they strike us over here” is going to increase a hundred-fold. The advocates of universal surveillance are going to be empowered as never before. That these tactics haven’t worked in the past – and, indeed, have backfired badly – won’t deter the usual suspects from insisting that war and repression are the answers to the problem of terrorism.

Our answer to the War Party must be that their strategy has failed: the terrorists couldn’t recruit anyone if we weren’t over there bombing what remains of their cities and seeking to impose our will on a populace that will never accept our domination, no matter how many soldiers we send and bombing sorties we launch.

The false flag concept has been brought up before.  It's pretty easy to push a highly passionate self-righteous hotheaded individual into action with a hint here, an agreement there, and a little positive reinforcement over there.

But the actors who do this kind of subtle pushing on the targeted individuals have easy deniability, so it's hard to prove.  And they are prone to drop the "paranoia" card to stifle discussion of the possibility.

I note that even the OP felt it necessary to give a disclaimer that he was not a conspiracy theorist.  See how that works?

Nevertheless, false flag operations have been done by smart generals, and the dumb generals fall for them.

Terry, 230RN