September 21, 2013

"Some witnesses said the gunmen had told Muslims to leave and said non-Muslims would be targeted."

BBC reports on the massacre in the upscale shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya:
"They came and said: 'If you are Muslim, stand up. We've come to rescue you," said Elijah Lamau.

He said the Muslims left with their hands up, and then the gunmen shot two people.

The correspondent in Nairobi for the Economist, Daniel Howden told the BBC he spoke to one man with a Christian first name but a Muslim-sounding surname who managed to escape the attackers by putting his thumb over his first name on his ID.

34 comments:

edutcher said...

Like the flight the Baader-Meinhof Gang hijacked that ended up at Entebbe.

There, they separated the Jews; here, the infidels.

ROP, right?

SteveR said...

A religion of peace, it goes without saying

Michael K said...

Another case of workplace violence.

Moose said...

Damned NRA...

Birkel said...

By definition, the shooters are white-black and Chrsitian-Muslim.

And the victims could be our President's children, one supposes.

The narrative uber alles.

cubanbob said...

Unfortunately the only way to stop this is to be even more savage than the terrorists. In the old school days the Soviets handled something similar to this by tracking down the assailant's families and killing them all as an example to the rest.

While these guys may not be afraid to die they are not likely to disregard the retribution on their families. It did work for the Russians as long as the terrorists were convinced that the retribution would be swift, massive and unstoppable. This was certainly a horrific solution and I for one aren't advocating this but nothing else seems to have worked. Perhaps countries that have these kinds of problems should take a page from the Saudi's-their restriction and banning of other religions and ban Islam in their respective countries.

Jane said...

Some were released for:

(a) Reciting a muslim prayer.
(b) Knowing Muhammed's mother's name.
(c) Having a muslim name.

Barack Hussein Obama would have passed the test. How many of us would have walked away?

Michael K said...

" In the old school days the Soviets handled something similar to this by tracking down the assailant's families and killing them all as an example to the rest."

No, they cut off the balls of the leader's father. The kidnappings ended of Soviet diplomats.

gspencer said...

Islam is one f_cked-up ideology.

We know it.

Lots of other know it.

Our government, Obama especially, acts as if Islam is without reproach.

This has to be intentional.

ken in sc said...

It is my understanding that the KGB would castrate a male relative and send the results to the terrorists as a warning. It seemed to work better than what the US did, which was nothing.

William said...

Now would be a good day to grant a full Presidental pardon to that Egyptian filmmaker.

Almost Ali said...

It was halal in the "White" House tonight!

Paul said...

Wait wait wait.. I thought Al Qaeda was kaput?

Isn't that what Obama said?

And I thought Kenya had real good gun control like NYC and Chicago.

Teaches you a lesson folks. Be armed.

Cedarford said...

William said...
Now would be a good day to grant a full Presidental pardon to that Egyptian filmmaker.

================
For the identity theft and bank fraud felony charges he was convicted and jailed of, and returned to for more identity theft which violated his probation?

Or are you arguing that he may be guilty of that, but his great work trying to incite Muslims to kill Americans and Christians then posing as a Jew Sam Bacile to pin the video on the Jews when the heat cam..entitled him to a pardon for his ID theft and bank fraud conviction?? On high civic contribution to America? Why?

It would be like you being on probation for armed robbery after doing half your time behind bars - seeking to show blacks are murderous animals, releasing a video depicting MLK as a child molester and drug addled rapist. And saying all whites wanted to rename the holiday "Nigger Beast Day" .
All in the hopes of inciting blacks to go animal on other races. Then as the heat came, posing as a Chinese American in sunglasses to through the anger on one group.

Then wait for some uniformed idiot to say William deseves a pardon on his armed robbery conviction on account of all the black murdering, looting, and burning he triggered,

cubanbob said...

" In the old school days the Soviets handled something similar to this by tracking down the assailant's families and killing them all as an example to the rest."

No, they cut off the balls of the leader's father. The kidnappings ended of Soviet diplomats."

Micheal I'm sure they did the castration but at the time-1983 if I recall correctly-I remember reading in the WSJ that the KGB did find and kill the relatives of the kidnapper/killers of the murdered Soviet diplomats in Beirut. Given the context of the situation in Lebanon at the time with respects to US hostages and murdered hostages there at the time I remember being shocked and impressed with the ruthlessness and effectiveness of the Russians in dealing with this.

Ambrose said...

Need to be careful here - this is similar to the malicious slander that Jews who worked in the World Trade Center were warned not to come to work on 9-11.

A. Shmendrik said...

Who me?

Wasserstein, Abdullah Wasserstein!

Lyle said...

Was the KKK ever this bad down South?

Not really.

Lyle said...

Was the KKK ever this bad down South?

It was nasty, but not this nasty.

Lyle said...

Islamophobes just getting what they deserve. Am I right?

Hyphenated American said...

Come on now, everybody knows that this violence was a response to a bigoted anti-Mohammed movie, and we need to make sure that the future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.

ErnieG said...

Thank God that something like this could never happen here. We're safe in our gun-free malls.

Hyphenated American said...

Cedar ford, previously you claimed that the Egyptian film-maker said that he wanted to incite violence. I asked you to quote him. And provide references. Is it a good time now?

Moreover, did you manage to analyze the movie and figure out what was factually inaccurate in it? Cause moslemsthemselvs conceded that Mohammed married a 6 year old girl, and raped her when she was 9.

William said...

I don't know how to resolve the problem of Jihad terrorism, but I'm pretty sure the Soviet Union didn't either.....@cedarford::Why are Coptics the only oppressed minority in the world that are not allowed to engage in agitprop?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Cedarford,

The immediate US response to Benghazi was "Oh, it's all because of that bad, nasty filmmaker and his terrible, terrible YouTube trailer. But don't worry, we're going to lock him up." That this was untrue, and known to be untrue, when senior Administration officials said it on every medium they could find apparently does not matter to you.

The Benghazi attack, which fell totally by accident on September 11, was large, coordinated, and obviously not the outgrowth of any "spontaneous protest." Maybe you're cool with the US government telling tissue-thin lies to the world about why our Benghazi outpost was sacked (and incidentally why the site wasn't secured afterwards, so that a journalist was able to wander in three weeks later and pick Ambassador Stevens' diary off the floor). I am not.

Illuminati said...

The reason Muslims do terrorist attacks is because Islam benefits from them. So far terrorists have been a highly successful form of Muslim missionary. They get a great deal of publicity which arouses people's curiosity and brings in new converts, many women think the Muslim men are macho and sexy and seek out Muslim men as husbands, Western governments try to appease them with new concessions and open borders for massive Muslim immigration and Sharia compliance while labeling anyone who dares connect Islam with violence, Islomaphobes and placing the police on high alert looking for a backlash against "innocent" Muslims.

If the Muslims thought that these attacks would cause serious long term damage to the Ummah the attacks would cease immediately. So far Muslim strategists have seen immense benefits for Islam with almost no cost.

Cedarford said...

No Michelle, I am not fine with the BS video excuse. But it is myoptic to fixate on Benghazi and ignore the 3 other Embassies that were attacked last year as direct consequence of the video. The right is blind to the fact the scumbag Nakouli did succeed in his intent to incite Muslims to attack Americans and put thousands in jeopardy. He just didn't get the deaths he was hoping would be inflicted on Americans through the video.

Obviously the authorities investigated to see if crimes were committed. They were in fraudulent contracts "Sam Bacile" an Israeli-American was posing at, worked out with actors clueless they would be put at risk by being part of an anti-Muslim attack..they were told they would be playing Biblical characters and were overdubbed into tools of blasphemy Nakoula spread globally on the internet/

Authorities found Nakoula violated nearly every condition of his probation for felony bank fraud and identity theft. He used the Internet to raise funds for fraud done on investors and actors. He posed under several aliases - a long pattern in his career criminal life (he set up a methadrine making lab using 1 false ID and an ID theft persona of a real person for one of his other felony convictions. And his probation officer, on lawful search, found 6 forged passports at his residence. Violation of Fed law, and triggering more investigation to see if Bacile was an espionage and false flag operative..vs. a lifetime criminal con artist needing false passports for his scams.

Oh, BTW, Hyphenated American, I am not your research assistant nor someone that will talk you through your difficulties spelling "Google". Google "Sam Bacile" and you get his WSJ, ABC, and LA times interviews where he tried pinning the video on "Jews like himself", and stated the goal was to incite Muslims to kill and injure Americans so Americans would know "what a cancer they are."

Illuminati said...

Cedarford said:
"No Michelle, I am not fine with the BS video excuse. But it is myoptic to fixate on Benghazi and ignore the 3 other Embassies that were attacked last year as direct consequence of the video. The right is blind to the fact the scumbag Nakouli did succeed in his intent to incite Muslims to attack Americans and put thousands in jeopardy. He just didn't get the deaths he was hoping would be inflicted on Americans through the video."

Lets see now. I believe I am beginning to understand lefty moral logic. If someone makes a video about Muslims and Muslims go out and kill people it is the video maker who is responsible for the murders not the Muslims who do the crimes! I finally get it! And by the same logic, if a woman wears a short skirt in Sweden and is raped by a Muslim immigrant it is her fault for provoking his lust? On the other hand, if a mob of Christians kill one of the atheists who mock Jesus, lefties don't blame the atheist who provoked them but instead blame the Christians for the crime. Lefty logic makes perfect sense to me.

Hyphenated American said...

"Oh, BTW, Hyphenated American, I am not your research assistant nor someone that will talk you through your difficulties spelling "Google". Google "Sam Bacile" and you get his WSJ, ABC, and LA times interviews where he tried pinning the video on "Jews like himself", and stated the goal was to incite Muslims to kill and injure Americans so Americans would know "what a cancer they are."


If you make a claim that he stated his goal was to incite Moslem violence, it is your responsibility to prove it. This is how the real world works. If you cannot do it, then you need to be honest and concede that you made a wrong claim.

P.s. I am Jewish, so you need to do what I tell you to do. Don't forget that the Jews control the world,

Cedarford said...

Hyphenated - American. "If you make a claim that he stated his goal was to incite Moslem violence, it is your responsibility to prove it. This is how the real world works. If you cannot do it, then you need to be honest and concede that you made a wrong claim"

No, that is a debate ploy the willfully obtuse often utilize to play a game whereby their opponent is instructed he is under obligation to do the other sides research and do citations, which of course are never accepted.
Smart debaters refuse to be sucked into that little game. Especially when established facts are cast as "unproven".

The proper response is to note the willfully obtuse refuse to acknowledge the facts..Did you Google and take time to look up the WSJ and ABC articles about Sam Bacile (Nakoula) and what he said? And if I was factually correct or not? No you didn't bother..right? Because you are playing a different game.

Cedarford said...

Illuminati - it is not Lefty logic to understand all nations and societies have laws where whatever free speech rights cross a line into incitement to riot, seek to cause deliberate harm by falsely shouting fire, or openly advocating killing public officials, minorities, etc.

Pretending otherwise is to claim that the person who falsely shouts fire in a theater is in no way responsible for the casualties from a stampede..because he didn't force them all to bolt...he really intended for them to calmly exit.
Or the person demanding others rape some girl on a pool table is not at fault because he didn't personally rape her, just stated a precious and protected 1st Amendment opinion very loudly that others should do it.

The law is still weighed too much on the 1st Amendment side for malicious slanderers, but properly dspenses with 1st Amendment justifications for malicious speech intended on jeopardizing public safety.

Hyphenated American said...

"Pretending otherwise is to claim that the person who falsely shouts fire in a theater is in no way responsible for the casualties from a stampede..because he didn't force them all to bolt...he really intended for them to calmly exit.
Or the person demanding others rape some girl on a pool table is not at fault because he didn't personally rape her, just stated a precious and protected 1st Amendment opinion very loudly that others should do it."

This is a pretty typical reply from a person with limited honesty of intelligence.
To claim that the movie "innocence of Moslems" is equivalent to falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre it is necessary, firstly to prove that the movie relied on deliberately and obvious false information. I've seen no attempt to prove this, at most the argument is that the movie is disrespectful towards Mohammed.
Secondly, in the theatre, innocent people try to get out and save their lives. In the case of the movie, Moslem thugs and savages vomited multiple crimes, which makes the comparison completely wrong.
The argument that a movie criticizing Mohammed is equivalent to a call to thugs to rape a woman is even more stupid. No one has been able to quote a single portion of the movie, which called for murder or rape anyone.
In other words. Cedar ford is engaged in false comparisons. Indeed if anything, what cedar ford is doing is much closer to being an inciter of violence than the Egyptian Copt. He is lucky though that people who he slanders are. It violent, unlike the Moslem thugs.

Last but not least, a better (although not perfect) analogy would be the civil rights leaders, who marched through the streets controlled by violent white racists.

Hyphenated American said...

"But it is myoptic to fixate on Benghazi and ignore the 3 other Embassies that were attacked last year as direct consequence of the video. The right is blind to the fact the scumbag Nakouli did succeed in his intent to incite Muslims to attack Americans and put thousands in jeopardy."

The sacking of embassies were not caused by the movie, nor were the Moslem savages incited to commit violence. The movie did not call on them to do anything, they simply reacted to a moderate criticism of their religion. An attempt to erase the line between criticism and incitement is dangerous. At some point cedar ford may realize this, when Jewish people who are falsely accused by cedarford decide to put end to his anti-Semitic incitement on this blog. If cedarford finds excuses for Moslem thugs who attack and kill innocent people because someone critisized their religion, the cedarford is a fair game for the Jews who are upset because of his writing.

In other words. Cedarford, would you agree that it is your fault if some Jews burn your house because of your slander of the Jews? Don't think you are special.

Hyphenated American said...

"No, that is a debate ploy the willfully obtuse often utilize to play a game whereby their opponent is instructed he is under obligation to do the other sides research and do citations, which of course are never accepted."

There is a good Russian saying, "a claim made without a proof, can be dismissed without explanation". You've had more than a month to find evidence which would support your claims, and yet you failed yo do so. You deliberately ignore the accepted rules of debate, which proves that you are not an honest decent man,



"Smart debaters refuse to be sucked into that little game. Especially when established facts are cast as "unproven".

An claim unsupported by evidence can be dismissed without any explanation. Just because you chose to call your claims "established", while failing to demonstrate a scintilla of evidence, establishes you as a man who is either dishonest, or ignorant of honest debating tactic. In either case, you are not a serious man,

"The proper response is to note the willfully obtuse refuse to acknowledge the facts.."

Your refusal to prove that your claims are based on facts undermine more than Your argument in this particular case. In fact this puts your outside the circle of decent honest people.

"Did you Google and take time to look up the WSJ and ABC articles about Sam Bacile (Nakoula) and what he said? And if I was factually correct or not? No you didn't bother..right? Because you are playing a different game."

Apparently you did not bother yourself since you failed to provide any evidence to support your claim. As I said the person who makes the claim is responsible for,proving it, the other side is under no obligation to do the original research in order to disprove the unsupported claims.