Tuesday, May 05, 2015

ISIS Claims Responsibility For Garland, TX Shooting; Liberal Media Show Double Standard In Attacking Event

Breaking news this morning. ISIS is now claming responsibility for the attempted attack on Pamela Geller's event in Garland, TX held on Sunday evening (CNN).
In a broadcast on its official radio channel Tuesday, the group said two Al Khilafa soldiers opened fire outside the event in Garland, a suburb of Dallas. Al Khilafa is how ISIS refers to its soldiers.
The gunmen, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, wounded a security guard before police shot and killed them.
The ISIS radio announcer also referred to Simpson and Soofi as the terror group's "brothers." The announcement ended with this warning:
"We say to the defenders of the cross, the U.S., that future attacks are going to be harsher and worse. The Islamic State soldiers will inflict harm on you with the grace of God. The future is just around the corner."
While ISIS claimed responsibility two days after the attack, there was no immediate indication that the terror group in Iraq and Syria actually had contact with Simpson or Soofi, who both lived in Phoenix.
U.S. authorities have said they are investigating whether Sunday's shooting had any link to international terrorism. But there are clues that one of the gunmen was an ISIS sympathizer.
Moments before the attack, Simpson posted an ominous tweet with the hashtag #texasattack: "May Allah accept us as mujahideen."
Here is another terrorist attack on American soil, from what I heard on the radio yesterday, the 68th one since 9/11. Yet the liberals who make up the so-called "mainstream media" in America are attacking Geller for holding the event. Other's like the old Democrat hack drunk Chris Matthews, used the equivalent of the "if you hadn't worn that short skirt" excuse to a rape victim.

Here's CNN:



Even worse and more hypocritical was the notorious racist bombthrower on CNN Marc Lamont Hill, who, while claiming to condemn the violence, used the same "blame the victim" attack card on Geller.
Let's go back to last Monday night and the Baltimore riots, shall we Marc?


No, there shouldn’t be calm tonight. Black people are dying in the streets. They’ve been dying in the streets for months, years, decades, centuries. I think there can be resistance to oppression and when resistance occurs, you can't circumscribe resistance. You can’t schedule a planned resistance. You can't tell people where to die in, where to resist, how to resist and how to protest. Now, I think there should be an ethics attached to this, but we have to watch our own ethics and be careful not to get more upset about the destruction of property than the destruction of black bodies and that seems to be to me – to me what's happening over the last few hours and that’s very troublesome to me. We also have to be very careful about the language we use to talk about this. I'm not calling these people rioters. I'm calling these uprisings and I think it's an important distinction to make. This is not a riot. There have been uprisings in major cities and smaller cities around this country for the last year because of the violence against black female and male bodies forever and I think that’s what important here. I agree with you, Don. We can't ignore the fact that the city is burning, but we need to be talking about why it's burning and not romanticize peace and not romanticize marching as the only way to function. I'm not saying we should be hurting, I’m not saying we should be killing people, but we do have to understand that resistance looks different ways to different people and part of what it means to say black lives matter, is to assert our right to have rage – righteous rage, righteous indignation in the face of state violence and extrajudicial killing. Freddie Gray is dead. That's why the city is burning and let’s make that clear. It's not burning because of these protesters. The city is burning because the police killed Freddie Gray and that’s a distinction we have to make.
Spewing hate and justifying violence in Baltimore, and you want to lecture about "hate speech," Marc?

Also, consider how when there is "art" that is mocking or insulting to Christians (ie "Piss Christ"), these same liberals who attack Pamela Geller will lecture Christians out the other side of their mouth about "free speech."  The same goes with forcing Christian business owners to bake cakes or provide services to same-sex "weddings."

When you are willing to surrender free speech to threats of violence, all you're showing is your willingness to surrender. It appears to me all these hypocritical liberals are so afraid of Islamofascist terrorists they are willing to surrender the freedoms to Shariah law that so many Americans have bled and sacrificed for.

No comments: