The suspect, of course, doesn’t really mean what he is saying …
The man caught in surveillance footage ambushing a Philadelphia officer in a squad car, shooting him multiple times, claimed he acted “in the name of Islam,” police said at a news conference Friday.
The suspect’s gun had been stolen from police in 2013, Commissioner Richard Ross said.
The man wore “Muslim garb,” a law enforcement source told Fox News. The source would not elaborate. Local media identified the suspect as 30-year-old Edward Archer.
Officer Jessie Hartnett was in stable condition at a hospital, police said. The suspect fired a total of 13 shots Thursday night, Ross said. Three bullets struck the officer in his left arm.
So we have a suspect, with a stolen gun, in Muslim-garb who claims he did it for Allah … but it’s GUNS that are at fault, donjaknow?
Jim Kenney, who is in his first week as mayor of the nation’s fifth largest city, said, “There are just too many guns on the streets and I think our national government needs to do something about that.”
Holy.fuck.
By saying he was doing it for Allah and Islam, when obviously the “Religion of Peace” would not allow any such action, he has set the stage for an insanity defense. Right? Doesn’t that follow from what the “genius” Mayor said about the ROP?
I know taqiyya means a Muslim can lie to infidels about his faith.
What is it called when infidels lie to other infidels about Islam?
um, mebbe “bullshit”, at a guess?
Democratspeak.
Another story that weirded me out this morning: I read at United Hatzolah’s twitter that the Tel Aviv terrorist killer Milhem had been found in northern Israel and shot to deatha after he shoots at the police, so I go over to the JPost twitter to find the story, which headlines with the guy emerging from a mosque when he was shot, then I click the newspaper link to read the copy and there’s no mention of a mosque at all, it just says he came out of “a building”. This, from the JPost? I mean, what the fuck?
At the press conference, the cop was making it pretty clear that this was an act of Islamic terrorism. Then the mayor gets on the mic and starts talking about: “this had nothing to do with Islam. No one up here thinks it had anything to do with Islam.”.
[…] Right Wing News, National Review, Hit & Run, The Jawa Report, American Power, Jihad Watch and protein wisdom (Via […]
Greetings:
I think that someone should Trump the government-media complex by nominating Officer Hartnett for Worldwide Police Officer of the Year. After being shot three times by that allah-bag, he exited his vehicle and chased the Muslimaniac firing his weapon as he went. I have no words to communicate the level of my admiration.
Alternatively, that Mayor reinforces a bit of the folk wisdom from the joy of my youth in the Bronx. It went like this: First Prize is an all expense paid week in Philly. Second Prize is two all expense paid weeks in Philly.
If the people of Philly don’t do something to straighten their Mayor out over this, then they have failed a police officer who refused to fail them.
But…but… “Smart Guns!” “Police Disarmament!”
Given that the gun was a stolen police firearm, maybe our “national government” should start by disarming all of Jim Kenney’s cops.
Doublethink of course.
I was expecting the answer to include “dhimmi” and perhaps “jizya.”
That’s arabic for “please eat me last mr. crocodile,” isn’t it?
A gun control hammer sees every use of a gun as a nail. Who holds the gun is a meaningless distraction.
Likely this douche bag mayor wants to disarm the police as soon as they disarm the citizens.
Guns have no business in Utopia.
A gun control hammer sees every use of a gun as a nail. Who holds the gun is a meaningless distraction.
Likely this douche bag mayor wants to disarm the police as soon as they disarm the citizens.
Guns have no business in Utopia.
It’s worse than that. They want us disarmed, while arming and importing them.
At some point Ockham’s Razor has to kick in and we have to conclude that it isn’t stupidity on their part. It’s treason. After all, they are so much smarter than us rubes.
There needs to come a point where we respond to the objective result of what they do, and stop letting them plead, “But we meant well!” Even if they did — what difference, at this point, does it make?
I know intent is important in language, but there’s that pesky thing about “by their fruits ye shall know them.”