They were screaming "Allahu akbar." Doesn't that make them...Islamic jihadists? Well, yes, but what about the Crusades?
"Report: Gunmen open fire at Israeli embassy in Mauritania," from AP (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
Six gunmen opened fire on the Israeli Embassy early Friday morning, trading fire with guards before fleeing screaming "Allah Akbar," witnesses said.The six men arrived by car and regrouped in front of a discotheque that is just beside the embassy, said Hamza Ould Bilal, a taxi driver who was parked outside the club, called the VIP. He saw them pull out their automatic weapons and scream "God is Great!" in Arabic, before assailing the embassy, he said.
Yes, but no doubt they were Automatic Weapons of Peace.
...looks like the guards need to spend more time on the firing range to improve their shooting skills....
Come on chaps, nothing to see here, just some enrichers being anti-Islamic, move on, nothing to see here, nothing to get worked up about, nothing to worry about, Islam ia religion of peace... and anyway it was the Jews fault, colonisation, the Crusades, blah blah.
I love the press. "Six gunmen...screaming allah akbar...IN ARABIC." Notice how they never use the M word, as if we should not judge on such flimsy evidence as motive or declaration that islam or muslims have anything to do with this atrocity among the daily atrocities infidels around the globe continuously suffer! The fact that the shooters said allah akbar in arabic I guess is a murky clue to the identity of these unknown wrongdoers! But, please? in what other languages can one scream allah akbar other than in arabic?
And if their bullets missed the Israeli embassy, maybe they'd get really lucky and hit some patrons of the discotheque den of iniquity next door.
Yikes! Mauretania, which speaks the Hisseniya form of Arabic and is 99% Muslim, recognizes Israel? Wow!
Not much detail but my bet is that it took the Israelis about a minute to smoke them.
Mauritania.
The two best things about that country, at least from what little we know, are:
1) that it dares to buck the Arab League's would-be Diktat and recognizes the state of Israel
and
2) its name: "Mauritania." Bring back those Roman names. Wouldn't Libya be much more tolerable if it were called "Tripolitania," for example? And instead of "Saudi" Arabia -- named after a single malevolent and greedy family (the Al-Saud), why not take the Arabian peninsula, the Jazirat al-Arab, and re-romanize the place, with Arabia Petraea, and Arabia Deserta (these two taking care of "Saudi" Arabia and to the north and east perhaps spilling over into Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, the sheikhdoms), with Yemen and part of Asir Province (of "Saudi" Arabia) re-acquiring the name of "Arabia Felix."
Yes, that's just the toponymic ticket, to cheer us all up. Especialy if we live in Rome, and are two thousand years old.
"Yes, but no doubt they were Automatic Weapons of Peace."
And all you infidels out there misunderstand Islamic culture. This "attack" was merely a devout Friday prayer. Friday is the Muslim sabbath, don't you know, and these rambunctious fellows were just a bit overly enthusiatic.
Setting off fireworks is often a Muslim sign of rejoicing (recall, they were joyfully shouting "Allah Akbar!"--such divine mirth!). Everyone knows it's hard to get fireworks in Mauritania, and these innocent guys, in their youth and natural playfulness, were just making do with local resources--automatic weapons and live ammunition. It's not their fault that Mauritania is insufficiently Islamic and therefore not thriving economically as every Islamic society naturally does by Allah's reward for piety.
Also, everyone knows that Islam absolutely respects other religions and forbids terrorism of any kind, so they could not possibly have been "attacking" the Israelis. Those obviously bigoted embassy guards misunderstood the celebration--we are lucky they did not hit anyone in their vicious and violent over-reaction. They should all be severely reprimanded for being culturally insensitive. A UN resolution should be issued condemning this heinous insult against Islam.
This story was initially reported by Australia's national broadcaster, as follows (I copied and saved it, which is just as well, since this version seems to have disappeared):
"Unidentified gunmen attacked the Israeli embassy in the Mauritanian capital Nouakchott early today, wounding some people, police and emergency services say.
"A bar near the embassy, in the centre of Nouakchott, was also hit by gunfire in the attack before the attackers fled, they said.
"The attack followed recent public calls by political parties in Mauritania, an Islamic Republic which straddles Arab Africa, for the Government to sever diplomatic ties with Israel.
"The country is one of the few Arab League states to have relations with Israel.
"It also came just weeks after the Lisbon-Dakar rally was cancelled due to fears of an armed Islamist threat in the West African country following two attacks in late December in which four French tourists and some soldiers were killed."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/01/2152485.htm
The story has now been changed and expanded, but, curiously, with the background information - about Mauritania recognising Israel, and some political parties in the country calling for that to cease - removed completely.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/02/2152485.htm
As the original report noted, the attack has a 'domestic' context - recent calls by political parties to sever the country's ties with Israel - but I cannot help thinking of the recent incitements voiced by Shariatmadari in Iran, for example, on 26 January, as reported on jihadwatch, January 28 2008. For example:
"But aren't most of the sensitive centers of the Zionists, of the Americans, and of some European states that support Israel already situated within the arms' reach of the Muslims? And aren't the Zionists [vulnerable] and located within arms' reach of the Muslims at the four corners of the earth? What human and legal basis can prevent an attack on these centers and people? "
Shariatmadari also attacked any Muslim leaders whom he saw as hindering efforts to attack Israel and the Jews, and declared them as targets of jihad:
"The prevalent legal doctrine in both the Shi'ite school and the Sunni school is that it is permissible to attack anyone whom the enemy uses as a shield in the war against the enemies of Islam.
"Therefore, if some heads of Islamic states prevent the Muslim peoples from attacking the Zionists – thus constituting a shield that prevents support to the persecuted people of that region – it is permissible to topple these defenders of the enemy."
The current Mauritanian regime, by having relations with Israel, would presumably fall under Shariatmadari's condemnation.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CRUSADES?
That was a hillarious lead-in to the story! AMazing how WEstern Lefties are so quick to cover for Antisemitic violence nowadays. Check out the video "Ever Again" for a good discussion about the marriage of Antisemitism and the New Left.
They were probably just hungry taxi drivers annoyed about being short-tipped, and were really shouting:
"I want a Clark bar!"
Islam: dying for you to covert.