UPDATED 1339 hrs.: An Arizona man with links to Islamic jihad and his Phoenix roommate were identified Monday as the attackers killed outside a Texas art show featuring cartoon depictions of the prophet Mohammed.
“The two gunmen who were involved in the shooting in Dallas… were determined to be from Phoenix,” Assistant Special Agent in Charge John Lannarelli said Monday as federal investigators searched the pair’s north Phoenix apartment.
Federal authorities who declined to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the case identified the suspects as Elton Simpson (see left) and Nadir Soofi, both Muslims.
GARLAND, TEXAS – Yesterday two, yet to be named terrorists, attacked a free speech rally at a public school in Garland, a Dallas suburb. The two gunmen used automatic weapons, but instead of mowing down unarmed victims as is usually the case, the assailants were met with hail of bullets in return fire. Each terrorist was shot multiple times by one brave police officer with a handgun - he dropped both terrorist who had him outgunned, but not outfought.
One security person suffered a minor ankle wound during the exchange of gunfire, but he is expected to make a full recovery.
Just minutes before the attack took place, a Twitter account with the username “Shariah is Light” posted a message saying “may Allah accept us as mujahideen” and ending “#texasattack”. The account was suspended soon after. (See more details on this from The Guardian shown below)
The sponsor of the event, Pam Geller, said, “This is a war. This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters? Two men with rifles and backpacks attacked police outside our event.”
As this is being written the bomb squad is checking the shooters vehicle and backpacks for explosives, a tedious and long process.
The rally included a cartoon contest depicting Muhammad and there was a $10,000 cash prize for the winner. The featured guest speaker, Gert Wilders, a Dutch politician, has been previously targeted for death by Islamic extremists. Wilders is known in Holland for being highly critical of Islamic extremists and in support of free speech.
CNN: ” The Sunday night event invited cartoonists to send in cartoons of Prophet Mohammad. The group said it received more than 350 submissions. There were about 200 people at the event, police said.
The Guardian, UK: “In the minutes following the attack, Junaid Hussain, from Birmingham, who now goes by the alias Abu Hussain al-Britani, wrote a message under the hashtag #TexasAttack saying: “They Thought They Was Safe In Texas From The Soldiers of The Islamic State.” When it became clear that the two gunmen involved in the attack had been killed, Hussain added: “The 2 Brothers attained shahdah in texas! O Kuffar know that death is better than living humiliated! Allahu Akbar !!!”
“Shahda” in the context appears to be an alternative transliteration of Shahada, an Islamic creed declaring belief in the oneness of God and acceptance of Muhammad as the true prophet.”
- In January, gunmen attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical magazine that has a controversial history of depicting Mohammad, and killed 12 people.
- The next month, a gunman attacked a free speech forum in Copenhagen, Denmark, featuring cartoonist, Larks Vilks, who infuriated al Qaeda with his depictions of Mohammed.
- In the United States, cartoonist Molly Norris is still in hiding, four years after she depicted the likeness of Mohammed on several items, and was deemed a “prime target” for execution by Islamic extremists.”
Photo on right is Pam Geller. She was just interviewed on CNN and said: “”Civilized men can disagree,” Geller said Monday on CNN. “Savages will kill you when they disagree.”
Geller, a conservative blogger, is the president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, which organized Sunday’s event in Garland, Texas. She said she is not anti-Muslim, she is anti-jihadist.
God bless Texas – These two Muslim fanatics got what they deserved. However, their fate was sealed the moment they thought they could go to Texas and gun down innocent folks, like the Muslim gunmen did with the Parisians or Danish. They unarmed and unable to defend themselves, but Texan’s carry guns and they learn how to shoot at an early age. Of course there are some in Texas that hate firearms, but they aren’t really Texans, they’re just posers and they’ll be moving on to places like California before too long.
The REAL winner of the contest in Garland is whomever took out the terrorists.
Only thing that would’ve been better is if Texas had announced that all of the ammo used had been treated with pork products . . . .
Score: TX – 2 Terrorists – 0
“Pam Geller, said, “This is a war. This is war on free speech. What are we going to do? Are we going to surrender to these monsters?”
Jack shouldn’t this read, “We are NOT going to surrender….”?
I believe these terrorist picked the wrong state to mess with. Guess they hadn’t heard about the Alamo.
Peggy, that does sounds better, but I had to quote verbatim what she said and that’s how she said it.
Ignore my above correction. I just reread it and saw it was correct. Sorry.
The Great Refrainer —
40 Years Since Climatologists Blamed California Drought On Global Cooling
Praise the Lord and pass the ammo—
Thank God this officer stopped these terrorists before they killed anyone. This could have been much worse.
“Wilders is known in Holland for being highly critical of Islamic extremists and in support of free speech.”
Well, no–Wilders wants to ban the Quran in Holland, so he’s definitely not in favor of “free speech,” only speech which he agrees with. Wanting to ban the Quran is no better than wanting to ban speech critical of Islam.
Of course, in this specific situation, Wilders has the moral advantage of not actually trying to shoot anyone, so there’s that.
Geert Wilders was wrong to call for a ban on the Koran. Apparently his position on Muslims was an “evolved” one that took place gradually over the scope of about 19 years. It began when his neighborhood crime began to increase with the influx of middle eastern immigrants. At the time he was running for city council… and won. His concerns about Islamic immigration was hardly unique despite the pervasive liberal politics among the Dutch. The Dutch government debated and eventually modified their immigration policy.
After 9-11 and as horrific accounts of Islamic extremism found it’s way into the headlines more and more frequently, Wilders views also changed on Islam. He reacted to the violence with increasingly stronger opinions.
The more cases of barbarism in the name of Islam, Sharia law honor killings, fatwa’s to kill blasphemers, all the expanding religious wars in the middle east, Muslim views reflecting bigotry towards gays, etc., the more polarized Mr. Wilders opinions became. Eventually Wilders was fed up with what he saw happening in so many countries with large Muslim populations in Europe and events in the middle east. Wilders took a very negative position on the whole Muslim religion, a mistake. In a book he published several years ago he was essentially guilty of saying Muslim couldn’t be trusted to behave peacefully in civilized society because they were all too close to being radicals because they were guided by the Koran and Sharia law. He claimed if the right circumstances arose we could suddenly be facing a dangerous enemy in our midst, one that we freely invited to live among us.
Wilders was wrong, and now I’ve said that three times. But the question worth considering here is, to what degree was he wrong?
The left asks for no such measure of proportion, wrong is wrong. Beheadings, stoning for adultery, hanging of gays, floggings, etc. was of course also wrong in their liberal view – but, Geert Wilders was wrong for his extreme opinion on Islam! They hate him for that, and they accuse him of being a bigot! So, it appears that in the so-called minds of PC liberals, Muslim extremists and Wilders were more or less [equally] wrong. The key word here is [equal]. But, are they really? Is the stoning death of a woman for [suspected] adultery an offense [equal] to holding biased opinion? Ask the woman, would she rather be stoned to death or…. criticized unfairly?
Ironically, liberals seem to spend more time criticizing a guy like Wilders than condemning murderous Muslims!? Even worse, they’re more inclined to give the radical Muslims a break because it shows how tolerant they are of other cultures and shows they’re in no way Islamophobic…God forbid! Oh, perhaps because it’s also safer not to rattle their cage? On the other hand, old Geert is an easy target for their self-righteous condemnation. This juxtaposition reminds me of something Forrest Gump said… (you know it)
Yep, two idiot terrorist on our soil that did not respect the rights of our first amendment:
were quickly introduced to the reality and need of our second amendment.
Jack, I’m glad you don’t agree with Wilders’ views. Obviously I agree with you that actual terrorists are much worse.
“Ironically, liberals seem to spend more time criticizing a guy like Wilders than condemning murderous Muslims!?”
Don’t you think the purpose of the criticism is relevant?
Everyone worth speaking to already agrees that terrorism and murder are wrong. Sure, there are a few idiot liberals who try and justify it, but for the most part the left and right universally agree that terrorism = bad.
Geert Wilders, on the other hand, is popular in some right wing circles. His views are influential in Holland and some American conservatives want to promote them here. It’s more likely that “banning the Quran” could become viewed as a mainstream position in America than “death to all infidels” doing the same.
Furthermore, politicians have much more incentive to respond to public criticism/shaming than terrorists do. The media, Congress and the president are pretty unanimous in agreement that ISIS is an evil terrorist group. Has that made any difference to ISIS’ tactics? Of course it hasn’t. They are beyond shame and they don’t answer to anyone. Wilders, on the other hand, answers to his constituents and his fa base. There’s a chance he might change his positions–or, at the very least, lose influence–if enough people convince enough other people that he is wrong.
So it makes sense that liberals would spend more time critiquing Wilders than condemning terrorists. Terrorism is obviously much, much worse than making bigoted statements. It doesn’t mean that we think Wilders is somehow worse. It’s not about degrees of wrongness, it’s about time management and effectiveness.
Re #11: I have always depended upon equivocators like Chris to instruct people on relevant criticism, degrees of wrongness, and time management.