In the last sentence of the article, a local official worries that if the gunfire was directed at the church for religious reasons then this attack would indicate a problem of "radicalisation." What kind of "radicalisation"? Of whom?
Despotism, Despair, Degringolade At Al Jazeera America
Al Jazeera America, the English-language propaganda organ of the House of Al Thani, the absolute rulers of little Qatar, where 200,000 Qataris are waited on, hand and foot, by two million foreign wage-slaves, many mistreated with a cruelty that some intrepid Western reporters have managed to describe, is diffferent from the Arabic-language Al Jazeera. That version, in its nastiness, its hysteria, its conspiracy-theory worldview, its use as a mouthpiece for the absolute despots whose entire claim on the world's attention is the result of an accident of geology (Qatar sits on lots of natural gas reserves), despite being deliberately cleaned up from the Arabic-language version (which helped whip up local Arabs against the Americans in Iraq, and is no different from any other appalling Arab station in the hysterical and conspiracy-theory coverage of the world)is what may be called "the real Al Jazeera." Yet even the cleverly cleaned-up version that is presented to the American audience offers a steady diet of anti-Israel, anti-American, and anti-Infidel articles, among other stuff designed to provide camouflage, as if Al Jazeera were a real news network, and not merely an organ of the Qatari rulers.
Nonetheless, the habits of despotism, secrecy, antisemitism, contempt for women are apparently affecting the morale of the staff -- many of whom, in joining Al Jazeera, showed an initial naivete about the operation, or in some cases a deliberate willingness to morally compromise, by joining such an enterprise.
Take a look, at today's tip-of-the-iceberg report, in The New York Times, here.
To our brothers and sisters fighting for the Sake of Allah, we make dua for you and ask Allah to guide your bullets, terrify your enemies, and establish you in the Land. As our noble brother in the Phillipines said in his bayah, “This is the Golden Era, everyone who believes… is running for Shaheed”.
The attack by the Islamic State in America is only the beginning of our efforts to establish a wiliyah in the heart of our enemy. Our aim was the khanzeer Pamela Geller and to show her that we don’t care what land she hides in or what sky shields her; we will send all our Lions to achieve her slaughter. This will heal the hearts of our brothers and disperse the ones behind her. To those who protect her: this will be your only warning of housing this woman and her circus show. Everyone who houses her events, gives her a platform to spill her filth are legitimate targets. We have been watching closely who was present at this event and the shooter of our brothers. We knew that the target was protected. Our intention was to show how easy we give our lives for the Sake of Allah.
We have 71 trained soldiers in 15 different states ready at our word to attack any target we desire. Out of the 71 trained soldiers 23 have signed up for missions like Sunday, We are increasing in number bithnillah. Of the 15 states, 5 we will name… Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, California, and Michigan. The disbelievers who shot our brothers think that you killed someone untrained, nay, they gave you their bodies in plain view because we were watching.
The next six months will be interesting, To our Amir Al Mu’mineen make dua for us and continue your reign, May Allah enoble your face.
May Allah send His peace and blessings upon our Prophet Muhummad and all those who follow until the last Day.
Abu Ibrahim Al Ameriki
[It is regrettable that Hanson, no doubt in haste, chose to use the word "occupied" in a sentence about Israel "occupying land...since 1948." He might have phrased it thus: "since the Jewish state of Israel -- to Muslims an intolerable affront as an Infidel nation-state on what to them is forever 'Muslim land' -- was resurrected in 1948"]
As many commenters note, the building -- in "impoverished Gaza" -- must have cost a pretty penny. Priorities, apparently. The Salafists who bombed the perimeter demand the freeing of their men. Perhaps Hamas will give in. Whether it does or does not, it has trouble on its hands.
Who Stepped In And Took A Table At The PEN Awards Dinner
Neil Gaiman Leads Authors Stepping In To Back Charlie Hebdo PEN Award
Fantasy novelist to act as a host at PEN gala along with Alison Bechdel and Art Spiegelman, following boycott by writers including Peter Carey.
Neil Gaiman, Alison Bechdel and Art Spiegelman have stepped forward to host tables at Tuesday’s PEN gala in New York honouring the work of Charlie Hebdo, after writers including Peter Carey and Michael Ondaatje withdrew last week in protest.
Carey, Ondaatje and the authors Francine Prose, Teju Cole, Rachel Kushner and Taiye Selasi last week made public their concerns over PEN American Center’s decision to present the French satirical magazine with a “Freedom of Expression Courage award”. They had been set to host tables at tonight’s ceremony – which is also due to honour jailed Azerbaijani journalist Khadija Ismayilova with a Freedom to Write award – but pulled out, later adding their names to a letter now signed by more than 204 writers.
The letter, printed in full on The Intercept , says that by selecting Charlie Hebdo, PEN is “valorising selectively offensive material: material that intensifies the anti-Islamic, anti-Maghreb, anti-Arab sentiments already prevalent in the western world”.
Now award-winning fantasy novelist Gaiman, acclaimed cartoonist Bechdel, Maus creator Spiegelman, Reading Lolita in Tehran author Azar Nafisi and American author and journalist George Packer have been named as new hosts at the event, which PEN confirmed would have heightened security. French-Congolese novelist Alain Mabanckou, meanwhile, will present the award to Jean-Baptiste Thoret, the Charlie Hebdo member of staff who arrived late to work on 7 January, missing the attack that killed 12 people.
Mabanckou told the Guardian he had decided to present the award because “I’m a big reader of Charlie Hebdo, because I know that it’s not a racist magazine. I decided to do it in memory of all journalists and cartoonists who die because they have the courage to pursue their work. Finally, I decided to do it because among the members of Charlie Hebdo who were massacred in January 2015 was a friend of mine, the economist and journalist Bernard Maris, who was an extraordinary man.”
Gaiman tweeted: “I’ll be hosting a table at the PEN event because it’s important.” He told the Associated Press in an email: “I was honoured to be invited to host a table. The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists are getting an award for courage: They continued putting out their magazine after the offices were firebombed, and the survivors have continued following the murders.”
“They died for their beliefs. The award is for courage that transcends our like or dislike of them,” Nafisi tweeted this weekend. She also wrote: “PEN award to CH is recognition of the writers’ artists’ rights to ‘disturb the peace,’ regardless of the price”.
Thoret, the film critic for Charlie Hebdo, told NPR that “if you’re standing for the freedom of expression, you can’t be at one moment for this freedom of expression, and two or three minutes later, against that. You know, you’re honouring a principle. You’re not honouring a specific content in a magazine. Even in Charlie Hebdo, we did not often agree.”
Other writers including Paul Auster, Siri Hustvedt, Simon Schama, Richard Ford and Sara Paretsky have also offered their support to PEN. The novelist Salman Rushdie, meanwhile, has been a particularly outspoken supporter of PEN’s decision to honour Charlie Hebdo, writing in a letter to the free speech organisation that by withdrawing, the six authors had “made themselves the fellow travellers” of “fanatical Islam, which is highly organised, well funded, and which seeks to terrify us all, Muslims as well as non-Muslims, into a cowed silence”.
- The Guardian
William Craig Lane is a Christian philosopher and theologian who has written 30 books and more than 100 scholarly articles. His interests vary widely. He has written on numerous topics and has lectured at some of the most prestigious universities in the world, including Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Oxford,Cambridge and Moscow.
He has especially keen insight into the pseudo-religion of Islam. In an especially revealing quote he writes the following:
“Now how does all this relate to Islamic Jihad ? Islam sees violence as a means of propagating the Muslim faith. Islam divides the world into two camps: the dar al-Islam (House of Submission) and the dar al-Harb (House of War). The former are those lands which have been brought into submission to Islam; the latter are those nations which have not yet been brought into submission. This is how Islam actually views the world !”
“The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims. Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even his own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in his dealing with mankind.”
Shortly after 9/11 I remember attending a board meeting of a seminary upon which I served as a trustee. I made the remark that the central issue of this war forced upon us by the Jihadists was “What is the nature of God?”The learned Divines laughed me out of the room. These Politically Correct multiculturalists believed that all paths lead to God and Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God.
I still stand by my statement. Christianity believes in a God who loves the entire Creation. This is a God who ultimately willingly dies for the unbelievers in an effort to redeem all of humanity. In stark contrast, Allah is pleased when the infidel is destroyed without pity. Allah is a god of hatred and vengeance. He commands the death of the unbelievers. Their deaths are a kind of human sacrifice to the monster god, Allah. The two have nothing in common.
If the Judeo-Christian God is true, then Allah must be false. The path of Allah will ultimately lead Muslims to perdition. The way of divine love leads to salvation.
Physicians heal Thyself and End Your Anti-Israeli Hysteria
Dr. Seuss, the world’s favorite physician, once explained “I like nonsense; it wakes up the brain cells.” Unfortunately, their own nonsensical behavior did not awaken a number of doctors and medical practitioners, mostly in Britain, when they published an immoderate and fallacious political diatribe against Israel in the British medical journal, The Lancet.
To the contrary, they have dishonored their professional code of conduct, betrayed the norms of medical science, and the understood ethics of impartial analysis. Dr. Richard Horton, editor in chief since 1995 of The Lancet, also ignored the code of conduct and the responsibilities of journal editors in publishing the diatribe.
What a difference a day makes! Dr. Horton, confessed his critical opinions of Israel had been shaped by pro-Palestinian friends and by the Western media, but after his one-day tour of the Rambam Medical Center in Haifa on September 29, 2014, he said he had completely changed his view of Israel.
Nevertheless despite his new enlightenment, Horton refused to retract or to apologize for the controversial “Open Letter for the People in Gaza” he had published on July 23, 2014 that rebuked Israel in inflammatory language for its “ruthless assault of unlimited duration, extent, and intensity” on Gaza in the summer conflict in 2014 in the Gaza Strip. The letter concluded, “we as scientists and doctors cannot keep silent while this crime against humanity continues.” They did, however, keep silent about the crimes against humanity, crimes that the United Nations has recently publicly revealed, committed by Palestinians during the conflict in Gaza.
The Open Letter asserted that Israel’s IDF reaction to the incessant rocket attacks by Hamas in Gaza in summer of 2014 was in fact “the creation of an emergency to masquerade a massacre.” The authors charged that only 5% of Israeli academics appealed to the Israel government to stop the military operation. The Open Letter was almost completely devoid of any reference to medical issues, the supposed concern of the practitioners of the medical profession.
Horton considered that the letter, condemning Israel’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza, was a cry of anguish, but also that it did not convey the highly complex reality of Israel’s situation that he now understands, or pretends to understand, is the reality in Israel. He also expressed his realization that what he witnessed during his visit to Israel contradicted some of the claims of the Open Letter. However, he did not retract the letter, as critics suggested, or disparage its extreme egregious nature.
Dr. Horton may be a brilliant scientist, but his actions show he has not been a dispassionate editor nor a political innocent in regard to the Middle East. He has appeared as a speaker at a number of rallies to end Israeli action in Gaza. He was also appeared singularly naïve about his support of a Lancet-Palestine Alliance in the West Bank as well as about the five primary writers of the letter.
The anti-Israeli fulminations of the five authors was well known, and it seems strange that Dr. Horton appeared to be unaware of them. Two of them, Dr. Paola Manduca, a professor of genetics at the University of Genoa, and Dr. Swee Ang Chai, an orthopaedic surgeon, had circulated a video clip featuring the notorious anti-Semite, David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard. In the video, Duke declared that the “Zionist Matrix of Power controls media, politics, and banking.” Duke expressed delight that this “brave group” of medical professionals had joined the ranks of those who had “broken the chains of Zionist censorship.”
The impertinence of this self-styled brave group is extraordinary. Dr. Manduca assured everyone that she was not anti-Semitic. Dr. Ang announced she did not know who David Duke was or that he was connected to the Ku Klux Klan.
Equal in ignorance, Dr. Horton did not know that Dr. Manduca had implicitly suggested Jews were responsible for the Boston marathon bombings: “it was necessary to find the real culprits… instead of buying the Zionist spin.”
Apparently, Dr. Horton also did not know that a third author of the letter, Dr. Mads Gilbert, a member of the Red Norwegian revolutionary party, and a representative of the pro-Palestinian Norwegian Aid Committee, had stated that the 9/11 attacks were justifiable as an answer to United States foreign policy. The oppressed, Gilbert said, “has a moral right to attack the U.S.”
A fourth author, Derek Summerfield, had on July 13, 2006 called for a medical academic boycott of Israel because of its “war crimes.” He viewed the Israeli Medical Association as completely complicit in those war crimes. In an article in the British Medical Journal in 2004, Summerfield stated that the Israeli army had killed more unarmed Palestinian civilians since September 2000 than the number of people who died on September 11, 2011. On a number of occasions Summerfield wrote of the use of consistent torture as state policy in Israel.
The fifth author, Sir Ian Chalmers, who had spent two years as the chief UN medical officer in Gaza, spoke in 2007 of Israel as a country based on “racist nationalism.” Three years later, he declared that in Israel there was “a situation of apartheid at the moment.” He has often slyly referred, in what can be seen as an implicit anti-Semitic remark, to the “six million” non-Jews whose lives Israel controls.”
Horton was surprised by the warm welcome he had received at the Rambam Hospital in Haifa where, contrary to what he had been previously told by his pro-Palestinian associates, over a quarter of the staff are Israeli Arabs and where Palestinian and Syrian patients were being treated. He also visited minority communities in Haifa, Acco, and Tel Aviv.
If they paid attention, the bigots in the United States and in Europe who call for boycotts of Israeli professionals and academics could learn the true reality from the seemingly converted Dr. Horton. He disclosed he had witnessed a group of Israeli health professionals who are devoting themselves to serving their Arab neighbors both inside and outside of Israel. He went so far as to call the academic boycott of Israel a “complete disaster.”
Dr. Horton said he intended to “set the record straight.” He was now aware of the falsehoods of the Open Letter that said that Israel aimed to terrorize, wound the soul and the body of the (Palestinian) people. On the contrary, he now realized that during the fighting in Gaza, Israel took great precautions to prevent civilian casualties. No doubt he will benefit even more from the UN Report of April 2015 which unequivocally proves that bpoint..
Every objective commentator can see that The Lancet was guilty, at a minimum, of violating editorial policies of objectivity. A group headed by Sir Mark Pepys, professor of medicine at University College, London, expressed criticism of The Lancet. This group, naming itself Concerned Academics, numbering 751 professors and medical specialists, including five Nobel laureates, called for The Lancet to retract the Open Letter and apologize for its publication.
Despite Horton’s own admission of the obvious errors and political basis in the Open Letter he published, a group named Hands off the Lancet, emerged on April 15, 2015 to criticize the Concerned Academics. They called the Pepys complaint “a smear campaign” and a personal attack on Richard Horton. Two leaders of this Hands off the Lancet group were Sir Ian Chalmers and Dr. Mads Gilbert.
Physicians must still heal themselves, at least politically. It is disillusioning that Dr. Horton and The Lancet have been linked with two solely anti-Israeli groups. One called Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP), founded by Dr. Swee Ang Chai, has falsely criticized Israel. The second is the Lancet-Palestinian Health Alliance (LPHA), started in 2009, which includes the MAP and an Institute at Bir Zeit University.
The bias of The Lancet has been astonishing. Since 2009 the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza are referred to by LPHA as “occupied Palestinian territory.” According to NGO Monitor, between 2009 and 2014, The Lancet published 66 items on Palestinian health care, most of them political commentary and only a few of which were concerned with medical issues.
The Hands off the Lancet group asked for determination of who was responsible in Gaza for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. They need look no further. The United Nations report of April 27, 2015 makes clear that the violations were committed by Palestinians, specifically by Hamas that used UN buildings and schools as launching sites to fire rockets at Israeli civilians during the Gaza operation.
Adam Gopnik On Those Who Are Boycotting PEN's Award To Charlie Hebdo
Ever since I read Renata Adler's description of Adam Gopnik as a thrusting young careerist in Here But Not Here, her memoir of the last days, as she saw it, of The New Yorker, I've considered him guilty until proven innocent. It saves time. Reading Paris To The Moon, his book about living in Paris with children who are in elementary school, I noted that the words cahier and cartable and tablier d'ecolier never appear.
But this piece, by Gopnik, about those who, such as Peter Carey (who denounced French "arrogance," and French culture sensu lato) and Deborah Eisenberg (whose self-conscious Declaration of My Grand Refusal to Attend ends with this comical self-description: "Deborah Eisenberg. Jew. Atheist") are boycotting the PEN dinner, is good.
How "deep" a "deep-thinker" is Geert Mak? He's a journalist, a popular writer of popular travelogues whose work has been taken apart by historians (you can imagine what Geyl and Huizinga would have thought of this phenomenon, and of all the other geert-maks of this Internet-addled world). He's a great defender of Muslims; he gives no sign of having become such a defender because of his deep understanding of Islam, or of the minds of those on Islam, whether to the manner born or, as is now so worrisomely common, Western victims of adult-onset Islam.
You can find at Wikipedia a little more about Geert Mak. For example, his reaction to the murder of Theo van Gogh was to describe the movie he and Ayaan Hirsi Ali had made about the mistreatment of women in Islam as worthy of Goebbels:
"In 2005 he wrote a controversial pamphlet in response to the assassination of the filmmaker Theo van Gogh, Gedoemd tot kwetsbaarheid (Doomed to vulnerability) and the culture of fear that he believed had taken root in the Netherlands. The essay caused considerable consternation, partly because Mak compared the propaganda technique of the film Submission – linking the excesses committed by a few ["a few"!] to the religion of an entire minority – to the imagery of Der Ewige Jude by Joseph Goebbels."
Then there isIn Europe.
This -- now let Wikipedia speak -- "was the best-selling book by a Dutch author in the Netherlands in 2004, selling over 400,000 copies. The British reviews were generally enthusiastic, although for the professional historian or political scientist the book has little to offer: “In Europe hardly breaks new ground historically” writes Martin Woollacott in an otherwise positive review in The Guardian (14 July 2007). On the other hand, the Sunday Times wrote that In Europe was ‘undoubtedly a spectacular and beautifully crafted piece of writing’, and the Financial Times praised Mak’s instinct for human stories: ‘Mak is the history teacher everyone should have had’. John Lukacs saw in him ‘Europe’s portrait-painter, its impressionist, its poet-musician, the reader of its peoples’ minds.’ The work should be taken for what it is: something between journalism and travel literature. Publisher’s Weekly asks: “is it a history book, a travelogue, a memoir?”
Mak himself sees his work as journalism. In an interview with a Dutch journalism trade-journal he says: “my approach is journalistic. My books are filled with newspaper tricks”. Historians are generally cautious [no, they are severely critical, but express this in the understated Dutch way]when it comes to judging Mak’s work. Hermann von der Dunk, emeritus professor of history at Utrecht University says about Mak: “it is well written, and historically correct, but it is not what I would call academic history. There is no analysis of historical development” (Academische Boekengids, March 2005).
A 35-part VPRO television series based on In Europe prompted some historians to point to errors and comment that the makers were ill-informed about current debates in the field of history (Historisch Nieuwsblad, December 2007), criticism that was in turn rebutted by Mak and other historians.
The UNESCO Site In Saudi Arabia From The Time Of Jahiliyya
This Nabataean tomb, its facade hewed out of a massive rock in which, unfinished (possibly deliberately), it still sits, must be a source of pride to some on the Arabian peninsula, and a source of horror to the most fanatical Muslims who, for all i know, might try to destroy it, as they have destroyed so many buildings, sculptures, paintings, artifacts of all kind, that were created in non-Muslim lands, or in the pre-Islamic period of what are now Muslim lands. The Nabataeans get no pass.
Pakistan, leery of the effect on Sunnis and Shia in Pakistan itself, declined to send troops. The Egyptian military rulers have made noises about sending troops -- Saudi Arabia has been sending Egypt billions -- but has not yet done so; the memory of Nasser's Yemen fiasco in the late 1960s may make the Egyptians hesitate. But Senegal is ready, ready to send troops to "defend the holy cities of Mecca and Medina." As if the Houthis could successfully invade Saudi Arabia bristling with Western arms of all kinds, and reach those cities far to the north.
I am grateful for the policman who killed the attackers in Garland Texas. He faced two men in body armor shooting AK-47's and shot them both with a pistol. He was the right man in the right place at the right time. I have no doubt God placed him there.
I am grateful that Pamela Geller is the face of this controversy. She is very unlikely to cave to the pressure which will likely be very great to silence her. I've been listening to people blaming her for this attack all morning and suggesting we should abide by Islamic blasphemy codes in order not to offend our Muslim neighbors (and provoke terrorist attacks).
Muslims are misguided. Islam is a lie. Islam must be confronted and defeated. If we care about our Muslim neighbors as human beings, we should desire to free them from the slavery that is Islam. Islamic blasphemy laws are designed to prevent that freedom. That's why those codes must be violated in America - over and over again.
We are still free people in a free land. For that I am grateful.
A Surprising Visit to London’s Polish Institute & Museum
by S. Joseph Arroyo (May 2015)
My wife and I had to schedule this long-anticipated visit in quite a precise way, since the Institute is only open from 2 to 4 PM on specific days-- staffed as it is by all volunteers. The complete official name for this 4-story museum and archive is The Polish Institute and Sikorski Museum. I had been reading a great deal about the amazing contributions of Polish fighters in WW2 who had escaped from Poland after the sudden and brutal Nazi invasion, in order to join together with Allied forces to attack the Nazis from other lands. more>>>
Dossier on Suspects in Garland, Texas Jihad Attack: Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi
Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi
Perpetrators of Garland, Texas attack
May 3, 2015
Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi, both suspects killed in the Garland, Texas jihad attack have been identified from the Arizona vehicle registrations and driver photo IDs. Simpson, 30, and Soofi, 34 were roommates in a central Phoenix condominium. The Phoenix condominium was the subject of an FBI and police bomb squad investigation early this morning
Simpson was the author of the tweets sent just before the attack. He has been the subject of an FBI terrorism investigation since 2006 and was convicted in a Federal Court trial in 2011 for material support for terrorism, an attempt to travel to Somalia to Join Al Shabaab. One of the two perpetrators is alleged as having connections to CAIR, the self-styled Muslim civil rights group, an affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood.
ISIS in a series of tweets, sent prior to the May 3rd Muhammad Art Contest sponsored by Pam Geller’s American Freedom Defense Initiative, inspired brothers in the US to undertake an attack on the event. ISIS social media claimed responsibility for the attack in which both perpetrators were killed and a security officer slightly injured. The pre-event ISIS tweets doubtless increased the security arrangements at the AFDI event. A purported Muhammad Art contest that featured a speech by Dutch Freedom Party leader, Geert Wilders and appearances by Rep. Louie Gohmert, Geller and Robert Spencer and others. 200 attendees were in lockdown following the attack and vehicles impounded as evidence in the crime scene. The event was webcast yesterday by the team from The United West led by Tom Trento.
Trento will discuss his experience at the Garland, Texas Muhammad Art Contest event today at 4PM (CST) 5PM (EST) with this writer and Mike Bates, co-host of “Your Turn” on 1330amWEBY, Northwest Florida‘s Talk Radio. You may listen live here.
Simpson was “well known” by the FBI and was the subject of a previous terror investigation, ABC News reports. He and Soofi were armed with assault rifles and wearing body protection, police said. They exchanged fire with a Garland police officer armed with handgun.
Simpson’s father, Dunston Simpson, told ABC News, “We are Americans and we believe in America. What my son did reflects very badly on my family,” adding that his son “made a bad choice.”
WFAA reports that FBI agents were searching the gunmen’s Phoenix, Arizona home.
Police also remain at the scene of the shooting, and have been examining the gunmen’s car. They were concerned about explosives being hidden inside it.
The FBI began investigating Simpson in 2006, when they began recording conversations he was having with an informant. He was arrested in 2010.
According to court records, Simpson received a sentence of three years probation in 2011 after he was found guilty of making a false statement to the FBI.
Simpson told FBI agents he had not talked with others about traveling to Somalia, when he in fact had talked to others about traveling to the African country, according to court documents. Judge Mary H. Murguia found there wasn’t enough evidence to support the FBI’s claim that the travel was related to terrorism. He had elected for a trial by the judge, rather than a jury.
The FBI had claimed that Simpson was traveling to Somalia to engage in “violent jihad.” The FBI claimed he was planning to travel to Africa to join the al-Shabaab terror group, which has since been responsible for the deadly Kenyan terror attacks at the Nairobi mall and Garissa University.
Simpson’s probation ended in 2014.
Read the court order explaining why Simpson was found guilty:
According to court documents, Simpson was born in Illinois and then moved to Phoenix, Arizona, where he “converted to the Muslim religion at a young age.”
His attorney during the 2010 trial, Kristina Sitton, told ABC News that Simpson was on the no-fly list and the FBI had tried to convince him to cooperate with them, including after his conviction. Sitton said she thought Simpson was “harmless,” according to ABC News:
He grew up the most normal guy. Just a normal high school guy… Converting to Islam seemed like a good thing for him. He had been going down a bad path and then he found Islam. He never struck me as someone who would do this sort of thing. I’m not a bleeding heart, I’m a Republican. I’ve seen some pretty bad guys and he seemed pretty normal.
Simpson was working at a dentist’s office in Arizona, but had been on vacation prior to the shooting, his father told ABC News. Dunston Simpson said he last spoke to his son three weeks ago, but they “had not much to talk about, because we had some very serious differences.” Dunston Simpson said Elton was a “good kid.”
According to his Facebook page, Soofi spent a considerable amount of time with his little brother. He’s a graduate of the University of Utah and the International School of Islamabad in Pakistan. His page also shows multiple posts featuring Palestinian and anti-police propaganda. Frequently, he posts the phrase “Eid Mubarak” meaning celebration to the blessed. Soofi was the owner of Effinity Solutions, a carpet cleaning business in Phoenix. In July 2013, he called himself a “newbie to the carpet cleaning industry.”
AZ Family reports that the two gunmen lived at an apartment on 19th Avenue and Thunderbird Road (above) in Phoenix. The day after the shooting, FBI agents, some clad in bomb squad gear, searched the apartment. The car they drove to the attack in Garland was registered in Arizona. The car, a 2008 Chevrolet Cobalt, was owned by Soofi. He tried to sell it back in March 2015 for nearly $9,000.
Police said prior Soofi’s name being released that the two had gone to the event with the intention of killing people. Both were armed with assault rifles. Garland cops stopped short of calling the attack a terrorist incident.
As many of you will have noted from Esme’s report here, earlier today, there is something very rotten in the Labour party in the U.K. today. I’d just like to add my two pennyworth to that report.
Also, many of you will be aware from that same report that the U.K. is going through one of its regular spasms of navel gazing, coupled with the telling of outrageous lies, that is commonly known as a general election. This awful, but entirely necessary, process bores the pants off most sensible people for anything up to a year before the actual event of polling day, which, in this case, is this Thursday, and enthrals the minds of lesser mortals such as the hacks of Fleet Street and the goons of the BBC, mainly because they see it as an excuse to cease reporting real news and as an opportunity to parade their unbiased political commentary – unbiased so long as it’s left of centre, that is; if it’s right of centre then it must be uneducated opinion, or even, heaven help us, fascistic mouthings, and everybody knows that those are ‘bad things’.
Wait a minute, wait a cotton-pickin’ minute. The left surely don’t have a monopoly of all that is good and worthy, do they? Of course they do! They stand for gender equality and women’s rights, which, for example, the main right-wing party can’t possibly stand for despite being the first British political party to elect (yes, elect) a female leader and then go to the polls with that female leader and win not one, not two, but three general elections that made that female leader Britain’s first female Prime Minister (Mrs Thatcher, in case you haven’t followed me).
The left, however, insist that they stand for women’s rights and they clearly demonstrated that this claim was absolutely, one hundred percent true by holding a hustings in a public hall (i.e. a hall available for hire by any group or person who needs a largish public space for a legitimate reason) in Hodge Hill in the English city of Birmingham on Saturday gone where almost equal numbers of men and women attended to listen to the left of centre candidates’ drivel – oops, sorry, enlightened left-wing drivel. The interested, well behaved audience sat, as you would expect, on either side of the central aisle facing the stage – all the women on one side of the hall and all the men on the other. Men and women were obviously present in roughly equal numbers and that was ‘a good thing’ and demonstrated the left’s commitment to gender equality and women’s rights and ......... but hang on a minute, hang on a darned-tootin’ minute, the men and women were segregated by sex, weren’t they? The women were all on one side of the hall and the men were all on the other side of the hall, weren’t they? Yes, dear readers, they were, and that clearly demonstrated the left’s absolute adherence to the principles of gender equality and women’s rights, didn’t it? ......... Didn’t it?
The members of the platform party – the anointed ones presenting themselves for the approval of the electorate – seemed perfectly happy with this wonderful demonstration of their deeply held convictions about gender equality and women’s rights. So happy were they, in fact, that not one of them, not a single one, said anything at all about it – and that was clearly ‘a good thing’ and ‘wise’ because not one of them would want to be seen to be against women’s rights and gender equality in the twenty-first century in the U.K, would they? ......... Would they?
Well, here’s the awkward thing, the thing about the left in Britain that they’d rather you forgot. The fact of the matter is that the audience at the Labour party hustings in Hodge Hill was almost entirely comprised of Mohammedans and they simply can’t be held to the same high standards as everybody else because that would ......... that would ......... that would ......... that would what, I wonder? Oh yes, of course, that would break the unwritten, stealthy and covert contract between the Mohammedans that previous Labour governments have deliberately let into Britain in their droves, and the very Labour party itself, the contract that silently says that the Mohammedans will always vote Labour and help the left to quash the right because the British political right-wing stands in the way of the left’s wanton destruction of British culture and society that must proceed so that Britain can be rebuilt as a grand socialist Utopia.
The self-same contract that led the leader of the Labour party to say, quite plainly, that if elected he would make ‘Islamophobia’ a criminal offence with appropriate punishments.
The self-same contract that saw the Labour party’s much vaunted support for gay rights revealed as just so much hot air when the last Labour government had to be dragged through the courts, kicking and screaming all the way, both in the U.K. and in Europe, by gay people in order for any equality before the law to be wrung from that unsavoury government’s reluctant grasp.
The self-same contract that saw the last Labour government enact laws about education that led to a proliferation of publicly funded so-called ‘faith’ schools that in reality were nothing more than madrassas indoctrinating Mohammedan youngsters with all the evils of virulent Wahhabism.
The self-same contract that led to fanatical Mohammedans of the most extreme kind believing that they would actually be allowed to get away with taking over state schools and turning them into madrassa-style institutions because the last Labour government made it plain that it would challenge any negative reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Schools about any institution in which Mohammedan pupils comprised a large percentage of the student body.
The self-same contract that browbeat social work departments, and the perniciously left wing people who staff them and who are easily swayed by the latest politically correct lefty lunacy, into refusing to acknowledge that organised gangs of Mohammedans were, and still are, at work in Britain sexually assaulting vulnerable young girls and, in some much rarer cases, boys, because to admit the existence of these crimes would be ‘racist’. That this attitude also spread to the police forces of Britain is both shocking and shameful and a clear indication of the moral bankruptcy that eats into the heart of a country whenever the leftwing gains any sort of foothold.
The self-same contract that underpinned the last Labour governments attempts to enact a law closely enough written so as to prohibit any criticism of Mohammedanism – the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, but that did no more than make assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 hate crimes only if it could be proved that such crimes were seriously aggravated by hatred of any victim’s religion, or lack of religion or beliefs. It was the Labour government’s inability to get anything stronger past the upper house of Parliament that was the final straw that persuaded that government to attempt to either reform or abolish the House of Lords. After having rammed the House of Lords Act 1999 through Parliament the Labour government then set out to remedy the defects, as it perceived them, of the Crime and Disorder Act by passing the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which requires any court to consider whether or not a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is, nonetheless, racially or religiously aggravated and to adjust sentencing accordingly. This has led to the ridiculous situation that if one is violently assaulted and robbed, but there is no suggestion that this crime against one was in any sense motivated by one’s race or religion, then one’s attacker is more than likely going to get a much lighter sentence than a non-violent robbery that was motivated by racial or religious ‘hatred’. In other words, the perpetrator’s punishment no longer depends solely on the severity of the crime he or she commits (indeed in practice its severity has turned out to be of minor importance) but on whether or not one was attacked by someone who ‘hated’ ones race or beliefs. This is, of course, good socialism and so it’s a ‘good thing’.
I could go on and on and cite instance after instance wherein the left’s evil compact with the Mohammedans who invaded Britain at the behest of the last Labour government has produced immoral, depraved, villainous, malevolent and degenerate results – think of the London borough of Tower Hamlets, for instance, where the vote rigging still goes on despite a (very reluctant) police investigation and a prolonged and revealing court case (oh, and the police attempted to arrest the complainants not the perpetrators, and they are, apparently, still trying to do so in what is seen by many as an attempt at revenge for showing up the shortcomings of the Metropolitan Police that were so ably enumerated by the judge, Richard Mawrey QC, who lambasted the Force in his statement – bear in mind that the criminal standard of proof, namely proof beyond reasonable doubt, is applied in the election court over which Judge Mawrey presides).
Yes, the Mohammedan vote rigging still goes on:
“Postal ballot papers for Thursday’s general election have been sent out to a block of flats in Tower Hamlets which has been a building site for months, council records seen by the Telegraph confirm.
The property – owned by Tower Hamlets council – is completely boarded up, surrounded by hoardings and without any sign of habitation. However, letters can still be delivered there. None of the people who supposedly applied for the votes lives at the property and at least one is dead.” (From Andrew Gilligan in 'The Telegraph')
The left’s prolonged love affair with primitive and evil Mohammedanism is obvious to anyone who cares to look. It hasn’t gone away and it shows no signs of doing so. The Labour party candidates who contentedly sat on that platform in Hodge Hill in front of a gender-segregated audience prove that.
Those candidates, those zealots for human rights and the equality of all peoples, deserve to be named and shamed. They were:
1) Liam Byrne, the last Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who acknowledged Labour’s irresponsible and spendthrift ways by leaving the infamous and silly note revealing “there’s no money left” when Labour were forced out of office, which turned out to be horrifically true and has led to the last five years of austerity in Britain;
2) Tom Watson (a close ally of Len McCluskey, the unsavoury supporter of Lutfur Rahman the now dismissed and discredited mayor of Tower Hamlets, and the general secretary of the Unite union, which has given Labour £14m since the last election) who claims to support equal rights for everyone;
3) Jack Dromey, the defending Labour candidate from Birmingham Erdington, better known as the husband of Harriet Harman the Labour party’s point person of political correctness and the party’s deputy leader, who has always supported gender equality and women’s rights and has even gone around the country in a pink omnibus in a desperate attempt to win the female vote for the loony left;
4) Kahlid Mahmood, the sitting MP for Birmingham Perry Bar and the man who claimed well over a thousand pounds to stay at a five-star hotel in London with his girlfriend and charged the taxpayer for this (see here), as well as being the man with some highly dubious connections in Pakistan-administered Kashmir;
5) and lastly Sion Simon MEP who in the British parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009 had to repay approximately £21,000 that he had claimed to pay rent on a flat that was actually owned by his sister, and who supports the Labour party’s policy of no referendum being offered to the people on the subject of Britain’s membership of the EU in case we collectively make the “wrong decision” (so much for democracy, then), and who has represented a Birmingham constituency before moving on to the European parliament (where expenses are much more generous than at Westminster and claims are not so rigorously looked at).
Heaven defend us all from that motley crew of unwholesome, diehard, leftwing lunatics, but most of all, pray that Heaven defends all the women of Britain from their only-when-it-suits-them and distastefully opportunistic support for gender equality and women’s rights.
A traffic officer working off-duty security fatally shot two men wearing body armor and armed with assault rifles who began shooting outside a Prophet Muhammad cartoon art contest in Garland Sunday, "saving lives," police say.
Officer Joe Harn, with the Garland Police Department, said the officer and an unarmed security guard were sitting in a patrol car blocking an entrance to the Curtis Culwell Center when two men pulled up in a dark-colored sedan Sunday night at about 7 p.m.
As the officer and guard exited the patrol car, two men exited the dark-colored sedan, got behind their vehicle and opened fire on the officers, police said.
The police officer, Harn said, began shooting back with his duty pistol, killing both of the armed men.
"He did what he was trained to do and under the fire he was put under, he did a very good job and probably saved lives," said Harn, who has not yet released the officer's name. "His reaction, and his shooting with a pistol, he did a good job."
The unarmed security guard, 58-year-old Bruce Joiner, was shot in the lower leg as he exited the vehicle, Harn said. He was treated at a hospital and released Sunday night.
There were no other injuries reported in the attack.
During a news conference Monday Harn couldn't confirm if shooting qualified as a terrorist attack. He said the men, whose names are not yet being confirmed by police, were obviously there to shoot people and that the officer saved a number of lives.
Police added that plans put in place months ago allowed the department to stop the men before they were able to shoot anyone else.
Harn added that off-duty officers work events at the Culwell Center every weekend but that organizers paid the department around $10,000 for additional security that included agents with the ATF and FBI, security officers from the school district, off-duty police officers as well as SWAT officers and the bomb squad.
With the image of an all-seeing eye, Google puts a question under its search box:
"What kind of information do you think the United States government should collect about you?"
I'm not as worried about the government collecting information, for the purposes of protecting its citizens, as I am about Google, and Facebook, and similar data-collection, data-mining, and advertising companies, pretending to be something else, something much greater and more wonderful (and its young employees fool themselves into thinking that), while their sole purpose in piling up these himalayas of information about me and about you is to make money.
How dare Google ask such a question, and attempt to deflect attention and anger onto the government, and have us ignore what Google does, every day in every way.