Shooting at muslim cartoon event?

[American_Jihad]

DID THE FBI WANT ROBERT SPENCER AND PAMELA GELLER DEAD?
FBI agent was at the Garland jihad attack, egging on the attackers.
March 30, 2017

Robert Spencer

60 Minutes ran a feature Sunday night about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.

...

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

This was not entrapment. Simpson and Soofi were determined jihadis who had scouted out other targets. Simpson, along with Soofi and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, who supplied weapons to the pair and helped them train, sought information about pipe bombs and plotted to attack the Super Bowl, and planned to go to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), long before anyone told him to “tear up Texas.”

...

We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They have ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.

Did the FBI Want Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Dead?

 

[Political Junky]

DID THE FBI WANT ROBERT SPENCER AND PAMELA GELLER DEAD?
FBI agent was at the Garland jihad attack, egging on the attackers.
March 30, 2017

Robert Spencer

60 Minutes ran a feature Sunday night about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.

...

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

This was not entrapment. Simpson and Soofi were determined jihadis who had scouted out other targets. Simpson, along with Soofi and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, who supplied weapons to the pair and helped them train, sought information about pipe bombs and plotted to attack the Super Bowl, and planned to go to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), long before anyone told him to “tear up Texas.”

...

We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They have ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.

Did the FBI Want Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Dead?

Surprise, a Con doesn't like 60 Minutes.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Muhammad taking a nap:

o-<---<

 

[American_Jihad]

Muhammad taking a nap:

o-<---<

...

 

[emilynghiem]

DID THE FBI WANT ROBERT SPENCER AND PAMELA GELLER DEAD?
FBI agent was at the Garland jihad attack, egging on the attackers.
March 30, 2017

Robert Spencer

60 Minutes ran a feature Sunday night about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.

...

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

This was not entrapment. Simpson and Soofi were determined jihadis who had scouted out other targets. Simpson, along with Soofi and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, who supplied weapons to the pair and helped them train, sought information about pipe bombs and plotted to attack the Super Bowl, and planned to go to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), long before anyone told him to “tear up Texas.”

...

We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They have ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.

Did the FBI Want Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Dead?

Hi American_Jihad

If there was anything set up, in this case,
it would be to promote gun rights and policing.

Geller was well-prepared and had hired extra private security on hand
for this event.

If the FBI egged on these two shooters, it was to ensure
they FAILED so they could argue that America NEEDS
more guns, more Homeland Security, more support for police.

The media bias has leaned so anti-military and anti-security,
this case in Texas of successful deterrence was used to counteract
all that negative press. And to make arguments to show that
"Geller was right" and these Muslim terrorists ARE being recruited locally for attacks.

 

[Political Junky]

DID THE FBI WANT ROBERT SPENCER AND PAMELA GELLER DEAD?
FBI agent was at the Garland jihad attack, egging on the attackers.
March 30, 2017

Robert Spencer

60 Minutes ran a feature Sunday night about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.

...

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

This was not entrapment. Simpson and Soofi were determined jihadis who had scouted out other targets. Simpson, along with Soofi and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, who supplied weapons to the pair and helped them train, sought information about pipe bombs and plotted to attack the Super Bowl, and planned to go to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), long before anyone told him to “tear up Texas.”

...

We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They have ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.

Did the FBI Want Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Dead?

Surprise, a Con doesn't like 60 Minutes.

David Horowitz writes for Front Page .. The Right loves him
Like Mussolini, he went from Communist/Socialist to Fascist Right.

 

[Brynmr]

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.

There were 10 drawings selected for that exhibition. One of them was mine. I didn't find out until the day of the show that I was a participant otherwise I would have traveled to Texas to be part of the event.

We were accused of unnecessarily offending Moslems. That wasn't it at all. It was all about free speech - the 1st Amendment. None of the Liberal media supported us.

 

[Brynmr]

Surprise, a Con doesn't like 60 Minutes.

60 minutes is a propagandist show for the Left. They're reporting is fraudulent. No pro-American should like 60 Minutes.

 

[Brynmr]

David Horowitz writes for Front Page .. The Right loves him
Like Mussolini, he went from Communist/Socialist to Fascist Right.

Anyone who supports freedom and America is "Fascist Right" to people like you.

 

[emilynghiem]

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.

There were 10 drawings selected for that exhibition. One of them was mine. I didn't find out until the day of the show that I was a participant otherwise I would have traveled to Texas to be part of the event.

We were accused of unnecessarily offending Moslems. That wasn't it at all. It was all about free speech - the 1st Amendment. None of the Liberal media supported us.

Dear Brynmr Congratulations on being selected and I hope this didn't cause you political backlash personally.

Geller's point was that in America, free speech as a right comes first.

Of course it's going to offend some people. All political speech is going to do that. It is a political statement and highly charged.

In addition, the idea of deliberately challenging the censorship of terrorists attacking anyone "PHYSICALLY" who makes a VERBAL STATEMENT or EXPRESSION is also "offensive" to those who want to impose their political religious ideology on others.

So yes it is offensive. But it is not illegal. it is protected as free speech in this country.

And anyone who wants to protest has the right to petition by civil means that respects due process of laws. So there is a proper way to protest as well that involves exercising "free speech and press, and the right PEACEABLY to assemble and to petition" instead of violent action as a response.

There is a legal and illegal way to respond. Maybe we need to teach what is civil due process and proper ways of redressing grievances, in order to teach full respect and responsibility for free speech.

If you are going to make statements that incite protests in response, what is the procedure for resolving those issues so it doesn't incite violent disruptions? Shouldn't THAT be part of civic responsibility as well?

 

[irosie91]

DID THE FBI WANT ROBERT SPENCER AND PAMELA GELLER DEAD?
FBI agent was at the Garland jihad attack, egging on the attackers.
March 30, 2017

Robert Spencer

60 Minutes ran a feature Sunday night about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

The contempt fairly leapt from the screen. “A self-described free speech advocate”? Did 60 Minutes mean that Pamela Geller didn’t have the requisite degree in free speech advocacy? Or that she wasn’t really a free speech advocate? What they really mean, of course, is that she is not on the Left, and so cannot be celebrated as a free speech advocate the way the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, who were all Leftists, can be.

...

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

This was not entrapment. Simpson and Soofi were determined jihadis who had scouted out other targets. Simpson, along with Soofi and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, who supplied weapons to the pair and helped them train, sought information about pipe bombs and plotted to attack the Super Bowl, and planned to go to Syria to join the Islamic State (ISIS), long before anyone told him to “tear up Texas.”

...

We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They have ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.

Did the FBI Want Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller Dead?

Hi American_Jihad

If there was anything set up, in this case,
it would be to promote gun rights and policing.

Geller was well-prepared and had hired extra private security on hand
for this event.

If the FBI egged on these two shooters, it was to ensure
they FAILED so they could argue that America NEEDS
more guns, more Homeland Security, more support for police.

The media bias has leaned so anti-military and anti-security,
this case in Texas of successful deterrence was used to counteract
all that negative press. And to make arguments to show that
"Geller was right" and these Muslim terrorists ARE being recruited locally for attacks.

Emily----be careful of the propaganda you parrot------the scum you quote---are not
your friends

 

[protectionist]

An "Islamic cartoon" contest ---- with Pam Geller huh?

What's that smell?

That smell is free speech.

 

[irosie91]

An "Islamic cartoon" contest ---- with Pam Geller huh?

What's that smell?

That smell is free speech.

euqity

An "Islamic cartoon" contest ---- with Pam Geller huh?

What's that smell?

That smell is free speech.

In fact is "smells" of EQUITY---in the sense that equity means --'fairness and justice' -------denigrating cartoons are not a NEW phenomenon-----but it seems to
me-----NOT particularly middle eastern or Iranian. -------I have seen lots generated
in the USA------that existed even from before 1776. Medieval art is full of
grotesque "art" depicting just about anything that the "church" did not like.
Really crude stuff directed against blacks happened in the USA in the 1800s -----and in the late 1800s ---it rose against jews and a few other ethnic groups The islamo-Nazi literature-----since the 1930s is CHOCK full of it. It is THAT system
that Iran aped with their anti holocaust "contest". Pam Geller's approach to
the islamo Nazi art is an example of EQUITY

 

[Brynmr]

If you are going to make statements that incite protests in response, what is the procedure for resolving those issues so it doesn't incite violent disruptions? Shouldn't THAT be part of civic responsibility as well?

Absolutely not! To do so would only encourage more oppression and more violence and diminish the freedom given to us in the Constitution. Violent protest against legal free speech should be met with an iron fist.

 

[Brynmr]

Dear Brynmr Congratulations on being selected and I hope this didn't cause you political backlash personally.

Thank you and no. Everyone was very supportive and the Left ignored me.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you are going to make statements that incite protests in response, what is the procedure for resolving those issues so it doesn't incite violent disruptions? Shouldn't THAT be part of civic responsibility as well?

Absolutely not! To do so would only encourage more oppression and more violence and diminish the freedom given to us in the Constitution. Violent protest against legal free speech should be met with an iron fist.

^ Sorry I think I wrote that too confusing.
I meant "resolving those issues" IN ADVANCE [so they DON'T incite violent disruptions]
ought to be part of civic responsibility. (Sorry about that, Brynmr)

Examples: If we "know by experience" that putting a Restraining Order on a violent stalker/abuser tends to cause backlash (where they want to kill the target even more, and too many of them succeed in retaliation),
shouldn't there be a procedure to deal with that anticipated reaction and increased threat?

In this case: If we "know in advance" that calling for a cartoon contest of this nature
is going to "trigger" political protest and heightened risk of violent attack,
shouldn't there be a procedure to address and diffuse this reaction.
(instead of knowing attacks could be incited that could endanger or kill innocent bystanders).

I think we are on the same page, based on what you said.

And I'm glad you didn't suffer implications from exercising your free speech!
Thanks for posting and sharing this,
and hope to read more from you in the future.

 

[irosie91]

If you are going to make statements that incite protests in response, what is the procedure for resolving those issues so it doesn't incite violent disruptions? Shouldn't THAT be part of civic responsibility as well?

Absolutely not! To do so would only encourage more oppression and more violence and diminish the freedom given to us in the Constitution. Violent protest against legal free speech should be met with an iron fist.

^ Sorry I think I wrote that too confusing.
I meant "resolving those issues" IN ADVANCE [so they DON'T incite violent disruptions]
ought to be part of civic responsibility. (Sorry about that, Brynmr)

Examples: If we "know by experience" that putting a Restraining Order on a violent stalker/abuser tends to cause backlash (where they want to kill the target even more, and too many of them succeed in retaliation),
shouldn't there be a procedure to deal with that anticipated reaction and increased threat?

In this case: If we "know in advance" that calling for a cartoon contest of this nature
is going to "trigger" political protest and heightened risk of violent attack,
shouldn't there be a procedure to address and diffuse this reaction.
(instead of knowing attacks could be incited that could endanger or kill innocent bystanders).

I think we are on the same page, based on what you said.

And I'm glad you didn't suffer implications from exercising your free speech!
Thanks for posting and sharing this,
and hope to read more from you in the future.

Sure Emily-----how would YOU resolve the issues that have galvanized the genocide of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS (and counting) based on the teachings of the Koran?------the civilized worlds awaits your cure with bated breath (hint---
it ain't "salvation thru jesus Christ" ask a copt, or maronite, or Chaldean)

 

[Brynmr]

Absolutely not! To do so would only encourage more oppression and more violence and diminish the freedom given to us in the Constitution. Violent protest against legal free speech should be met with an iron fist.

^ Sorry I think I wrote that too confusing.
I meant "resolving those issues" IN ADVANCE [so they DON'T incite violent disruptions]
ought to be part of civic responsibility. (Sorry about that, Brynmr)

Examples: If we "know by experience" that putting a Restraining Order on a violent stalker/abuser tends to cause backlash (where they want to kill the target even more, and too many of them succeed in retaliation),
shouldn't there be a procedure to deal with that anticipated reaction and increased threat?

In this case: If we "know in advance" that calling for a cartoon contest of this nature
is going to "trigger" political protest and heightened risk of violent attack,
shouldn't there be a procedure to address and diffuse this reaction.
(instead of knowing attacks could be incited that could endanger or kill innocent bystanders).

I think we are on the same page, based on what you said.

And I'm glad you didn't suffer implications from exercising your free speech!
Thanks for posting and sharing this,
and hope to read more from you in the future.

Pretty much the same response, Emily. If we alter our behavior to appease psychos, then it harms us and encourages them. It's a lose lose result. It's not up to us to bend to their barbarism. It's up to them to become civilized. It isn't easy nor without risk, but defending freedom never is. I don't take pleasure in offending people unless there's a demand not to offend under threat of violence. Then, it is not only necessary but a whole lot of fun.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

 

[Sunni Man]

Pretty much the same response, Emily. If we alter our behavior to appease psychos, then it harms us and encourages them. It's a lose lose result. It's not up to us to bend to their barbarism. It's up to them to become civilized. It isn't easy nor without risk, but defending freedom never is. I don't take pleasure in offending people unless there's a demand not to offend under threat of violence. Then, it is not only necessary but a whole lot of fun.

May you reap a just reward for you efforts. ..... ...