TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:So, who and what were the deceased gunmen? Before anyone else says it, I know 'dead men don't talk'. Even so, they were something from somewhere.

BTW, good job, Garland PD!

One was identified as Elton Simpson of Phoenix, Arizona. The other has yet to be publicly identified. Simpson was already on the FBI's watch list.

In my time in the Military, I would have described this event as a successful baited L-shaped ambush .. Though I think in reality this was just a realistic understanding by the city something was likely to happen and they prepared well.

txglock21 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:So, who and what were the deceased gunmen? Before anyone else says it, I know 'dead men don't talk'. Even so, they were something from somewhere.

BTW, good job, Garland PD!

One was identified as Elton Simpson of Phoenix, Arizona. The other has yet to be publicly identified. Simpson was already on the FBI's watch list.

Hmmm? That sounds like an Anglo-American name. I wonder if he had been turned?

rbwhatever1 wrote:Way to go Texas! We need more of these cartoon events to flush out the toilets. Waiting for the background on these two cartoon clown jihadees...

Outstanding job by Garland PD.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05 ... d=noscript

Authorities identified Elton Simpson from Arizona as the man behind the “Shariah is Light” terrorist account.

A screen grab from the now suspended Twitter account of the person who tweeted about martyrdom and the #texasattack twenty minutes before the attack in Garland, Texas on Sunday shows that the person was a convert to Islam.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ammad.html

A senior FBI official has identified one of the men as Elton Simpson, who was previously the subject of a terror investigation, according to ABC News.

Simpson, identified in court papers as an American Muslim, had been convicted of lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Somalia five years ago, but a judge ultimately ruled it could not be proved that he was heading there to join a terror group. He was placed on probation.

After his identity emerged, FBI agents and a bomb squad swarmed Simpson's apartment in north Phoenix, Arizona and used a robot to carry out the first sweep of his home, the channel reported. Investigators are reviewing computer records from materials found at the home

.

I ranked comments from the DM by rating. There are a lot of Brits wishing they could live in Texas and that the UK would regain some guts. For example:

thejayman, London, United Kingdom, 9 hours ago

Absolutely LOVE Texas and what it stands for. I'm a born and bread Londoner and WISH I could live in Texas.

Edited to add:

I read through the comments at the execrable LAT "news" site.....the leftwing nut jobs and appeasers in Commiefornia make the Brits look like Warrior Crusaders. Too bad Texas can't close our borders to these Commiefornia nut cases. They have got to be the most pathetic bunch of spineless whiners in the country.

“Shariah is Light” makes about as much sense as "Truth Is Fiction".

Pawpaw wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:So, who and what were the deceased gunmen? Before anyone else says it, I know 'dead men don't talk'. Even so, they were something from somewhere.

BTW, good job, Garland PD!

Apparently, they both lived in Phoenix. There is supposed to be a news conference at 10:00 this morning, so we may learn more then.

I know it said that they were from Phoenix but if the picture captions were correct it looks like the Nissan truck they were driving had Texas plates. That would imply some local support.

I wonder if he visited any of those non-existent ISIS camps?

Pawpaw wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:So, who and what were the deceased gunmen? Before anyone else says it, I know 'dead men don't talk'. Even so, they were something from somewhere.

BTW, good job, Garland PD!

Apparently, they both lived in Phoenix. There is supposed to be a news conference at 10:00 this morning, so we may learn more then.

CNN will air the live news conference at 10.

Thanks Garland PD!

n5wd wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:Free speech

Garland PD

The "security officer" was an unarmed security officer. Hit in leg, discharged from hospital in less than four hours. Everyone's hopeful for a speedy recovery!

"Free speech"? Yes, but like yelling " Fire" in a crowded theatre, it shoulda been obvious that some sort of negative reaction was going to happen. SWAT was already on scene due to that possibility.

There were apparently no Muslim demonstrators there at the Center - wonder if someone knew something was afoot?

Sorry, I disagree with the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy. It is not. The problem with yelling fire in a crowded theater (assuming there is not fire) is that you are causing an alarm over a situation that does not exist, and such a false call is designed to instill panic.

In this case, they were indeed making a political statement, and I agree it was a controversial statement. However, it is their statement to make; and it was done in direct response to the previous actions taken at the same location.

TresHuevos wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:So, who and what were the deceased gunmen? Before anyone else says it, I know 'dead men don't talk'. Even so, they were something from somewhere.

BTW, good job, Garland PD!

Apparently, they both lived in Phoenix. There is supposed to be a news conference at 10:00 this morning, so we may learn more then.

I know it said that they were from Phoenix but if the picture captions were correct it looks like the Nissan truck they were driving had Texas plates. That would imply some local support.

Not if it was rented or stolen.

ScooterSissy wrote: In this case, they were indeed making a political statement, and I agree it was a controversial statement. However, it is their statement to make; and it was done in direct response to the previous actions taken at the same location.

I understand that they had previously allowed the center to be used for a "muslim" assembly of some kind. In spite of that, I believe it is foolish to allow the use of a public facility for an event that they KNOW is likely to elicit a negative response, and possibly a violent one, which it did. I also don't think it should ever have been approved for ANY "religious" meeting in the first place. There are plenty of private facilities that any type of religious group can use to hold an assembly. If anyone wants to hold a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or whatever assembly let them go to a Mosque, Temple, or Church and do so to their hearts content, but the government owned facilities should not be used...maintain the separation between church and state. The city of Garland was obviously anticipating problems given the uniformed and SWAT officers posted on the scene...thankfully. It's a case of "if you allow one group access, then you have no grounds to deny any other group the same access". The city council needs to look at setting a policy to avoid the issue.

talltex wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: In this case, they were indeed making a political statement, and I agree it was a controversial statement. However, it is their statement to make; and it was done in direct response to the previous actions taken at the same location.

I understand that they had previously allowed the center to be used for a "muslim" assembly of some kind. In spite of that, I believe it is foolish to allow the use of a public facility for an event that they KNOW is likely to elicit a negative response, and possibly a violent one, which it did. I also don't think it should ever have been approved for ANY "religious" meeting in the first place. There are plenty of private facilities that any type of religious group can use to hold an assembly. If anyone wants to hold a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or whatever assembly let them go to a Mosque, Temple, or Church and do so to their hearts content, but the government owned facilities should not be used...maintain the separation between church and state. The city of Garland was obviously anticipating problems given the uniformed and SWAT officers posted on the scene...thankfully. It's a case of "if you allow one group access, then you have no grounds to deny any other group the same access". The city council needs to look at setting a policy to avoid the issue.

I couldn't disagree more with what you've stated above. I would argue that cutting out all religious groups as not being able to use the facilities while allowing non-religious groups is by far a bigger infringement of the exact church/state protection you mention.

I would also argue that stopping an event from being held just because it might anger some people is a direct assault of our very Constitution and a very slippery slope of state censorship. Once that starts, you're not far from NK, China, Etc.

talltex wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote: In this case, they were indeed making a political statement, and I agree it was a controversial statement. However, it is their statement to make; and it was done in direct response to the previous actions taken at the same location.

I understand that they had previously allowed the center to be used for a "muslim" assembly of some kind. In spite of that, I believe it is foolish to allow the use of a public facility for an event that they KNOW is likely to elicit a negative response, and possibly a violent one, which it did. I also don't think it should ever have been approved for ANY "religious" meeting in the first place. There are plenty of private facilities that any type of religious group can use to hold an assembly. If anyone wants to hold a Muslim, Hindu, Christian or whatever assembly let them go to a Mosque, Temple, or Church and do so to their hearts content, but the government owned facilities should not be used...maintain the separation between church and state. The city of Garland was obviously anticipating problems given the uniformed and SWAT officers posted on the scene...thankfully. It's a case of "if you allow one group access, then you have no grounds to deny any other group the same access". The city council needs to look at setting a policy to avoid the issue.

yep, and then you have the government controlling speech!


jd