ISIA: Isis In America

[rlm1966]

I just want to know why street signs, government building and government documents are in any language other than english. That is the official language of this country. If you want to live here you need to learn the language or get out. It really is that simple. When I go to other countries, except for airports, hotels and shipping ports I don't expect them to cater to my language and I am just on vacation.

[Lenno]

Here we go: McClatchy suggests limits on free speech after Texas jihad shooting

May 4, 2015 10:12 pm By Robert Spencer Leave a Comment
You knew this was coming. It was inevitable. We have seen it before.
When the Obama Administration blamed the Benghazi jihad attack on a video about Muhammad, there were calls in the mainstream media for restrictions on the freedom of speech. Eric Posner in Slate derided the First Amendment’s “sacred status” and declared that “Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order.”
In the Los Angeles Times, Sarah Chayes noted that “the current standard for restricting speech — or punishing it after it has in fact caused violence — was laid out in the 1969 case Brandenburg vs. Ohio. Under the narrower guidelines, only speech that has the intent and the likelihood of inciting imminent violence or lawbreaking can be limited.” She then argued at length that the Muhammad video did indeed have the likelihood of inciting imminent violence, and should thus be banned. Her article was a sleazy and dishonest sleight of hand, as the law is that speech that calls for violence can be banned, whereas she was arguing that speech that doesn’t call for violence, but that might make people who oppose it behave violently, should be banned. That would be to enshrine the heckler’s veto into law and to enable Islamic jihadis to silence anyone they disliked simply by killing someone.
And in the Washington Post, the vile gutter thug Nathan Lean (who has repeatedly published on Twitter what he thinks is my home address and places I frequent, in a transparent attempt to endanger me and those around me, and/or to frighten me into silence) declared: “The voices of hate that hope to fracture our society along religious lines should have no place in our public discourse.” Who would decide which are the “voices of hate” that should be silenced? People like Nathan Lean, of course – that is, purveyors of the “Islamophobia” myth who are determined to silence anyone and everyone who dares raise the slightest objection to the advancing jihad.
And now, Lindsay Wise and Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy wish that Pamela Geller and I could be prosecuted for standing for free speech against violent intimidation, and describe completely wrongly the concept of “fighting words,” which is actually about words spoken in an actual fight situation, not about an innocuous activity that others find so provocative as to commit murder.
The free world is going quietly.
“After Texas shooting: If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?,” by Lindsay Wise and Jonathan S. Landay, McClatchy, May 4, 2015 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

WASHINGTON — Organizers of the Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland, Texas, knew violence was a possibility.
They shelled out $10,000 for extra security to patrol the controversial event, which featured a speech by a Dutch politician who’s on al Qaida’s “hit list” and a contest for the best cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad. Local law enforcement was on the alert. A SWAT team and a bomb squad patrolled.
The two gunmen who opened fire with assault weapons outside the exhibit on Sunday were killed by a police officer. They have been identified by law enforcement as Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, both of Phoenix. They appear, from social media posts, to have been motivated by a desire to become mujahedeen, or holy warriors.
The attack highlights the tensions between protecting Americans’ treasured right to freedom of expression and preserving public safety, and it raises questions about when – if ever – government should intervene.
There are two exceptions from the constitutional right to free speech – defamation and the doctrine of “fighting words” or “incitement,” said John Szmer, an associate professor of political science and a constitutional law expert at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
“Fighting words is the idea that you are saying something that is so offensive that it will lead to an immediate breach of the peace,” Szmer explained. “In other words, you are saying something and you should expect a violent reaction by other people.”
The exhibit of cartoons in Texas might have crossed the line, Szmer said.
“I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect what they were doing would incite a violent reaction,” he said.
Organizers knew, he said, that caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which many Muslims consider insulting, have sparked violence before. In a recent case that drew worldwide attention, gunmen claiming allegiance with the self-described Islamic State killed 12 people in an attack on the Paris offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, which was known for satirical depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
On the other hand, “fighting words can contradict the basic values that underlie freedom of speech,” Szmer said. “The views being expressed at the conference could be seen as social commentary. Political and social speech should be protected. You are arguably talking about social commentary.”
It’s unlikely that the issue will be tested in the Garland case, however, because prosecutors in Texas almost certainly won’t press charges against the conference organizers, he said.
The anti-Islam group that organized the art exhibit and contest in Garland is the American Freedom Defense Initiative, whose mission is the preservation “of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and equal rights for all,” according to its Facebook page….
The gunmen’s violent actions will end up drawing undeserved attention to the hateful message spread by Geller’s group, said David Schanzer, a professor at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy and director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security.
“Any efforts to censor them or restrict their rights will just play into their agenda, which is to antagonize and spread a pretty vile message,” Schanzer said.

What exactly is vile about standing up for the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law, Schanzer? You’re just libeling, not giving a reasoned argument.

The best way to fight against people you disagree with is to confront their ideas, he said.
“I think their ideas are both wrong and actually makes problems worse through their actions,” Schanzer said. Echoing Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis’ well-known sentiment from 1927, he added: “I say we go against them by fighting speech with more speech.”…

This is rich. I have offered to have a public discussion or debate with virtually every significant Muslim leader on the scene. They have all contemptuously refused. They don’t want to fight speech with more speech. They don’t want to confront our ideas. They want to smear us, defame us, marginalize us, and destroy us utterly. That is how the Left and the Islamic supremacists work these days.


Video: Robert Spencer at the AFDI/JW Muhammad Cartoon Contest

[Lenno]

[niceguy]

Organizers of the Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland, Texas, knew violence was a possibility.
They shelled out $10,000 for extra security to patrol the controversial event,

So $5,000 per dead jihadi. A bargain!

[Lenno]

NEW YORK: Muslim contract worker threatens to “shoot everybody” at Syracuse Airport

By Shoebat Foundation on May 4, 2015 in General
By BI: A contract employee at Syracuse Hancock International Airport in upstate New York was charged Saturday with making a terrorist threat after he said he would bring a gun to work and “shoot everybody,” police said.
Mohammad Salak

Syracuse.com Mohammad Salak, a 33-year-old employee of the company Envoy, hired by United Airlines to handle ground services, became the focus of an investigation after fellow employees relayed what he had said on Friday, Lt. Eric Carr of the Syracuse Police Department said. The employees told investigators with Syracuse Police, airport security, FBI and TSA that Salak made threats to get a gun and shoot everybody, Carr said.

Salak, of Gordon Parkway, had gotten into a fight with another Envoy employee on Friday, Carr said in a news release. Carr provided the following account: After the two employee exchanged words, another employee overheard Salak, upset, saying, “They don’t know where I’m from. I’ve been in wars. I’ve killed people and killing somebody is nothing to me. I’ll leave here and go get my mask and my gun and come and kill everybody.”
Syracuse officer working an airport security detail detained Salak. He was then removed from his position with the contractor and his security credentials were revoked while police investigated.
No weapons were found in Salak’s locker. Police determined the threats were directed at fellow employees, not travelers or members of the public passing through the airport. Salak was charged with felony making a terroristic threat and held at the Onondaga County Justice Center

[Lenno]

[Thinwater]

Yes, it is a Highpoint POS, or a Keltec. I had a customer bring one here with several reloaded bullets lodged in the barrel. It looked like a snake that ate several eggs. I milled through the barrel to see the bullets and get a count, then threw the entire thing in the trash can. At least it did not explode and the stuck rounds were not the fault of the rifle. They were 9mm.

[Lenno]

May 5, 2015 8:20 pm | 173 Comments Wait What? MSN Headline: #Garland “Event Organizer Offers No Apology After Thwarted Attack In Texas”

Yes, seriously, this is the headline:

An ISIS terror attack on American soil and the focus of the MSM is it’s obviously the fault of the victims who sucked those poor impressionable, unwilling terrorists into attacking the event

[Lenno]

More details are beginning to emerge about the incompetent Islamic terrorist attack on a free speech event held by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) in Garland, Texas Sunday. Bearing Arms readers have asked for more details about how the actual shooting went down, and about the Garland police officer who used his duty sidearm to defeat two attackers armed with rifles within 15 seconds.
Please keep in mind that we don’t have all the details about the attack, the individual officer’s response, or the exact steps law enforcement took once the attack began, and that even if we had that information, we would withhold such details which may be useful for any other would-be terrorists attempting future attacks.
That said, we will provide analysis of some key pieces of publicly available information.

* * *

At the point of the attack, the two suspects apparently drove up and opened fire upon an unarmed security guard who was accompanied by a 60-year-old Garland police officer. The unarmed guard was struck the volley of gunfire. The veteran Garland officer then drew his duty-issue Glock pistol and opened fire on the suspects.
The officer killed one terrorist and wounded the other in his initial volley of return fire. Witnesses claim there was a brief pause, and then the officer fire two more shots to kill the still-moving terrorist as he appears to be reaching for a backpack. The entire event lasted 15 seconds, with heavily-armed Garland SWAT converging on the scene immediately afterward.
We’re not going to mention any more about the officer who took out these terrorists, only that to give an idea of his approximate position in relation to the terrorists as he engaged them.

The evidence markers at the bottom of the photo above show us a remarkable story, as they denote the final locations of the shell casings ejected from the officer’s Glock duty pistol. While every pistol is different from another in its ejection pattern, and the movement of the officer and the cant of his gun precludes us from knowing exactly where he was, there, is a distinct trial of shells showing that the officer was moving forward from the bottom left of the photo above towards the terrorists at the rear of the vehicle. He appears to have opened fire from 20 yards away, and fired at least a dozen shots by the time he reached an area near the traffic cones, roughly 7-10 yards from where the terrorists died.
Second photo taken from the opposite angle (below) seems to confirm this determined officer’s advance on the terrorists while firing.
Note: the damage to the vehicle driven by the terrorists was from controlled demolitions from EOD units ensuring that the car was not a VBIED (vehicle-borne improvised explosive device).

There seems to be a great deal of skepticism regarding whether or not the suspects were wearing body armor and whether they were armed with “automatic weapons” or “assault rifles” or something else entirely. Other photos from the crime scene suggest answers to those questions as well.

In the image above, we have drawn an orange rectangle around what appears to be blood-drenched halves of a soft body armor carrier worn by one of the terrorists. Most people don’t seem to grasp that there are multiple grades of soft body armor, that these materials degrade over time, and that the armor panels themselves do not often cover the entire torso, leaving gaps under the arms, below the ribs, and at the neck.
We simply don’t know if the officer’s bullets compromised the armor or went around the armor panels, but it is quite clear that there was soft body armor worn by at least one of the terrorists, and that it did not prevent him from being quickly taken out of of the fight.
Did the terrorists have “automatic weapons” as some mainstream media outlets initially claimed?

The media claim of “automatic weapons” or “machine guns” is always to be discounted until positively affirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt by firearms experts (not law enforcement public information officers), simply based on how difficult it is to obtain automatic weapons in the United States.

What we do have is two separate images that appear to show long guns recovered at the scene. We’ve taken part of the image above and flipped it vertically below in an effort to better determine what we’re looking at.


It isn’t anything we immediately recognize, though we can say for certain that it doesn’t appear to be any centerfire variant or an AR-15 or AKM. While the photo we have to work with is frankly horrible, our best guess is that The firearm we’re looking at is a most likely Kel-Tec SUB-2000, a popular and inexpensive pistol caliber carbine shown below.

Partially obscured behind evidence marker 34 is what appears to be a firearm with an AR-15-type front sight post, but the quality of the image and amount of the gun covered by the evidence marker make it impossible to tell what we’re really looking at.
Is this a legitimate centerfire AR-15? Is this a rimfire copy? Is this an airgun, designed to look enough like an AR-15 to win a jihadi his martyrdom?
Frankly, I’m tempted to think that we’re looking at a “faux-15″ martyrdom special or a .22 clone, considering we’ve not be able to track down credible reports of the distinctively different reports of a centerfire rifle fire, and the confirmed Glock pistol-fire from the Garland officer.

We’re not ruling out the possibility that this was a centerfire AR-15 recovered at the scene, we’re simply noting that there wasn’t much evidence suggesting it was able to be brought into play by the terrorists.

* * *

No matter how you break down the details, this was an incredible display of bravery and marksmanship by this 30+ year veteran of the Garland Police Department, who not only resisted the natural urge to create distance between yourself and rifle-armed assailants, but who appears to have done precisely the opposite, and who advanced while firing accurately, bringing the attack to a swift conclusion without a single additional casualty once he brought his weapon to bear.
Determined people with good training and a decent handgun can indeed defeat the most zealous fanatic.
Get out there and train folks. Maybe one day it will be your turn to be the one standing on the line defending liberty from savagery.
Update: We’d like to thank Kaitian for finding a higher resolution image of the SUB-2000 used in the attack, which we’ve swapped out in the story above.

[Lenno]

By BI: Sharon Soofi, mother of Nadir Soofi, who had no criminal record, says she can’t imagine what went through her son’s mind when he did this. Apparently, Mrs. Soofi does not follow her son’s religion, or else she would have understood.