Although we were co-organizers of the event, neither Pamela Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in this 60 Minutes piece on the jihad attack at our Garland, Texas free speech event in May 2015. 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”? Does 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. And they give a nod to Sharia blasphemy laws by describing the contest as “provocative.” It was an art exhibit, featuring historical and modern images of Muhammad, some created by Muslims. It was only provocative to Muslims who believe in Islam’s death penalty for blasphemy (and brainwashed dhimmis). Was 60 Minutes implying endorsement of that death penalty? Why, yes. If our event was provocative, the shooters were justifiably provoked.
Meanwhile, CBS gives a lot of space to Usama Shami, the imam of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix, from which the jihadis came, allowing him to exonerate the mosque of any responsibility for “radicalizing” the jihad attackers. 60 Minutes doesn’t mention what Simpson’s friend Courtney Lonergan told the Arizona Republic: “Simpson would never waver from the teachings he picked up in the mosque and elsewhere….He was one of those guys who would sleep at the mosque. The fact that he felt personally insulted by somebody drawing a picture had to come from the ideological rhetoric coming out of the mosque.” 60 Minutes also doesn’t challenge Shami on his lies right after the attack, when he said that the jihadis were not regular members of the mosque.
Despite all the predictable politically correct whitewashing and appeasement, CBS does a good job of highlighting a curious and still unexplained aspect of the attack: the FBI clearly knew the attack was coming (although it didn’t bother to inform us or our security team), as the FBI agent was right there, following behind the jihadis, whom he had encouraged to “tear up Texas.” But even though they knew the attack was coming, they didn’t have a team in place to stop the jihadis. They had one man there, and one man only. The jihadis were not stopped by FBI agents, but by our own security team. If the jihadis had gotten through our team, they would have killed Pamela Geller and me, and many others. (They would no doubt have loved to kill Geert Wilders, but he left before they arrived.)
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.”
But what was the FBI’s game in telling them to do that? Why didn’t they have a phalanx of agents in place, ready to stop the attack? Or did they want the attack to succeed, so that Barack Obama’s vow that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” would be vividly illustrated, and intimidate any other Americans who might be contemplating defending the freedom of speech into silence?
We have 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.
“60 Minutes investigates first ISIS-claimed attack in U.S. and what the FBI knew,” 60 Minutes, March 26, 2017:
A terrorist attack in Texas by two U.S. citizens shows how hard it is to prevent such an attack — even when one of the terrorists is well-known to the FBI
The following is a script from “Attack in Garland,” which aired on March 26, 2017. Anderson Cooper is the correspondent. Graham Messick and Steve McCarthy, producers. Jack Weingart, associate producer.
Wednesday’s terror attack in London by a man who had been known to British law enforcement is just the latest reminder of how difficult it is to prevent an attack before it takes place. Here in the U.S., in just the past three years, more than 100 people have been arrested for ISIS-related crimes. The FBI devotes significant resources to identifying potential terrorists and sometimes spends years tracking them. The terror attack in Garland, Texas, two years ago was the first claimed by ISIS on U.S. soil.
It’s mostly been forgotten because the two terrorists were killed by local cops before they managed to murder anyone. In looking into what happened in Garland, we were surprised to discover just how close the FBI was to one of the terrorists. Not only had the FBI been monitoring him for years, there was an undercover agent right behind him when the first shots were fired.
The target of the attack was an event taking place in this conference center on May 3, 2015. A self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest, offering a cash-prize for the best drawing of the prophet Muhammad, whose depiction is considered sacrilege by some Muslims. Security outside was heavy. There were dozens of police, a SWAT team, and snipers.
“The Garland attack is essentially the first opening salvo when it comes to attacks on the homeland.”More than 100 people were gathered inside and the event was ending when two terrorists drove up to a checkpoint manned by a Garland police officer and a school security guard. This grainy image shows both law-enforcement personnel standing next to an unmarked police car seconds before the attack. Bruce Joiner, the security guard, was unarmed.
Bruce Joiner: It’s like they pull up, stop, and the doors open.
Anderson Cooper: Do you remember seeing the weapon?
Bruce Joiner: Oh, yeah. Definitely saw their weapon. And that’s when I locked onto his face ‘cause he’s got this smile.
Anderson Cooper: He was literally smiling?
Bruce Joiner: Yeah, like, “I got ya. I got ya.”
The two terorrists opened fire with automatic rifles. Joiner dove for cover, but was shot in the leg. Officer Greg Stevens, returned fire with his handgun. Police nearby ran toward the scene.
Eyewitness video: And right here (expletive) just started shooting at this convention!
When this video was recorded by a passerby, both terrorists had been mortally wounded by Officer Stevens, and were laying on the ground next to their car.
Eyewitness video: They still shootin man! …
A SWAT team shot them both in the head.
Bruce Joiner: Because they kept moving and they weren’t sure there were explosives involved they had to shoot them.
Anderson Cooper: How quick did all of this happen?
Bruce Joiner: Oh, it’s a matter of seconds. I would say 20, 30 seconds. It’s very quick.
The next day as the FBI picked through the crime scene, the evidence showed Garland police had prevented a massacre. The terrorists brought six guns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, bulletproof and tactical vests, and Xeroxed copies of the black flag of ISIS. They were identified as 31-year-old Elton Simpson and 34-year-old Nadir Soofi. Just hours before the attack they had sent this tweet pledging allegiance to ISIS. But Simpson was already well-known to the FBI.
He grew up in the suburbs of Chicago, and moved to Phoenix, Arizona, in middle school. He briefly played college basketball before dropping out and converting to Islam when he was 20.
According to leaders of the Phoenix mosque he attended, Simpson was well-liked and soft-spoken.
Usama Shami: He was always asking questions, attending lectures.
Usama Shami is president of the Islamic Community Center of Phoenix. People here thought so much of the young Muslim convert, who took the name “Ibrahim,” that he was included in the mosque’s promotional video in 2007.
Elton Ibrahim Simpson: When you come together and you pray five times a day with the brothers and you’re reminded about the hereafter…
But at the time of this interview, Simpson had already become interested in radical Islam, and the Phoenix FBI, which was investigating one of his friends, hired an informant, a Sudanese refugee named Dabla Deng, to check Simpson out.
Anderson Cooper: There are informants inside the mosque?
Usama Shami: Yeah. I mean the whole case with Elton Simpson was with an informant that he was befriending Elton and taping his conversations.
Dabla Deng spent three years pretending to be Simpson’s friend, and was paid $132,000 by the FBI. He taped more than 1,500 hours of their conversations and finally recorded him talking about traveling overseas to wage jihad. Simpson lied to the FBI about it and got three years probation.
Usama Shami: When he found out that this guy was spying on him, and taping him and then finding out that the government was doing that, I think something clicked in him. And the mosque, we couldn’t do anything. Because we don’t know what he did.
Anderson Cooper: He felt that the mosque had abandoned him?
Usama Shami: Yes. And he felt that a lot of people had abandoned him. And that’s why he stopped coming to the mosque.
He moved into this Phoenix apartment complex with Nadir Soofi, who he knew from the mosque. Soofi had just had a bitter break-up and the pizza parlor he owned was going out of business. It was here in this apartment that Simpson and Soofi began closely following the rise of ISIS, reaching out to their supporters online, and acquiring weapons for a terrorist attack.
Seamus Hughes: Simpson and Soofi knew what they were getting into and I think they likely knew they were going to die.
Seamus Hughes tracks the online activities of ISIS sympathizers in the U.S. He served at the National Counter Terrorism Center, and is currently deputy director of George Washington University’s “Program On Extremism,” where he also trains FBI agents on how to identify American jihadis.
Anderson Cooper: Why is the Garland attack so significant?
Seamus Hughes: The Garland attack is essentially the first opening salvo when it comes to attacks on the homeland.
Anderson Cooper: Attacks in the United States?
Seamus Hughes: Attacks in the United States. These low-level attacks by ones and twos of people who are drawn to the ideology and decide to act.
Using an old-fashioned law enforcement tool, Hughes maps out ISIS’ online tentacles into the United States.
Seamus Hughes: So you have the two attackers, Soofi and Simpson. They’re also talking to Mohammed Miski, who’s an ISIS recruiter in Somalia.
Anderson Cooper: This is somebody in Somalia who they’re talking to online–
Seamus Hughes: Uh-huh. Yep. Through an encrypted app, Surespot. They’re also talking to Junaid Hussein.
Anderson Cooper: And he’s in Raqqa?
Seamus Hughes: He’s in Raqqa.
Raqqa is ISIS’ stronghold in Syria. Hughes calls Junaid Hussain an “ISIS rock star,” a British citizen, who communicated online with English-speaking recruits worldwide. He was killed in a U.S. drone strike a year-and-a-half ago. “Miski,” an American living in Somalia, tweeted this link about the “draw Muhammad contest,” in Garland, Texas, and direct-messaged Elton Simpson urging him to attack it.
Seamus Hughes: The most interesting part about this is we’re in a hybrid time, right. Before we used to be worried about these network attacks, think of 9/11 with the hijackers training for years and then coming over here. And then, we had lone actor attacks, individuals who were kind of drawn to this and decided to act. Now, we’re in this weird moment in between, where you have a number of individuals in Raqqa, reaching out to Americans in Ohio, New York, and other places and saying, “So here’s the knife you should use. Here’s the address of the local U.S. military officer and do what you can.”
Anderson Cooper: Do you think Elton Simpson would have launched this attack if it wasn’t for people in ISIS overseas who were online whispering in his ear?
Seamus Hughes: I think the folks whispering in his ear was a big part of it.
The FBI closed the case on Elton Simpson in 2014, only to re-open it several weeks before the attack because of statements he made on social media.
Seamus Hughes: It speaks to a larger problem the FBI has, which is you have an individual who pops into your radar in 2006, but doesn’t commit an attack until 2015. So do you want the FBI to watch this individual for nine years?
After the attack, Phoenix FBI agents became convinced the two men hadn’t acted alone, and began investigating Elton Simpson’s friends. They arrested this man Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, a 43-year-old convert to Islam who grew up in Philadelphia, and accused him of funding the attack, as well as training and encouraging Simpson and Soofi.
Witnesses at Abdul-Kareem’s trial testified the three men watched ISIS execution videos together and discussed attacking a military base or the 2015 Super Bowl in Glendale, Arizona. Abdul-Kareem denied taking part in any discussions about a terror attack and says he rejected his friend’s growing radicalization.
He was found guilty on multiple counts and sentenced to 30 years in prison. But his attorney Dan Maynard continued to investigate, and uncovered new evidence the FBI was much closer to the Garland attack than anyone realized.
Anderson Cooper: After the trial, you discovered that the government knew a lot more about the Garland attack than they had let on?
Dan Maynard: That’s right. Yeah. After the trial we found out that they had had an undercover agent who had been texting with Simpson, less than three weeks before the attack, to him “Tear up Texas.” Which to me was an encouragement to Simpson.
The man he’s talking about was a special agent of the FBI, working undercover posing as an Islamic radical. The government sent attorney Dan Maynard 60 pages of declassified encrypted messages between the agent and Elton Simpson – and argued “Tear up Texas” was not an incitement. But Simpson’s response was incriminating, referring to the attack against cartoonists at the French magazine Charlie Hebdo: “bro, you don’t have to say that…” He wrote “you know what happened in Paris… so that goes without saying. No need to be direct.”
But it turns out the undercover agent did more than just communicate online with Elton Simpson. In an affidavit filed in another case the government disclosed that the FBI undercover agent had actually “traveled to Garland, Texas, and was present… at the event.”
Dan Maynard: I was shocked. I mean I was shocked that the government hadn’t turned this over. I wanted to know when did he get there, why was he there?
And this past November, Maynard was given another batch of documents by the government, revealing the biggest surprise of all. The undercover FBI agent was in a car directly behind Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi when they started shooting. This cell-phone photo of school security guard Bruce Joiner and police officer Greg Stevens was taken by the undercover agent seconds before the attack.
Anderson Cooper: The idea that he’s taking photograph of the two people who happen to be attacked moments before they’re attacked.
Dan Maynard: It’s stunning.
Anderson Cooper: I mean, talk about being in the right or the wrong place at the right or the wrong time.
Dan Maynard: The idea that he’s right there 30 seconds before the attack happens is just incredible to me.
Anderson Cooper: What would you want to ask the undercover agent?
“I can’t tell you whether the FBI knew the attack was gonna occur. I don’t like to think that they let it occur. But it is shocking to me that an undercover agent sees fellas jumping out of a car and he drives on.”
Dan Maynard: I would love to ask the undercover agent– Are these the only communications that you had with Simpson? Did you have more communications with Simpson? How is it that you ended up coming to Garland, Texas? Why are you even there?
We wanted to ask the FBI those same questions. But the bureau would not agree to an interview. All the FBI would give us was this email statement. It reads: “There was no advance knowledge of a plot to attack the cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.”
If you’re wondering what happened to the FBI’s undercover agent, he fled the scene but was stopped at gunpoint by Garland police. This is video of him in handcuffs, recorded by a local news crew. We’ve blurred his face to protect his identity.
Dan Maynard: I can’t tell you whether the FBI knew the attack was gonna occur. I don’t like to think that they let it occur. But it is shocking to me that an undercover agent sees fellas jumping out of a car and he drives on. I find that shocking.
Anderson Cooper: That he didn’t try to stop–
Dan Maynard: He didn’t try to stop ‘em. Or he didn’t do something. I mean, he’s an agent, for gosh sakes.
Anderson Cooper: If this attack had gone a different way, and lots of people had been killed, would the fact that an undercover FBI agent was on the scene have become essentially a scandal?
Seamus Hughes: It woulda been a bigger story. I think you would have seen congressional investigations and things like that. Lucky for the FBI and for the participants in the event you know, here in Texas, you know, everyone’s a good shot there….
john thomas says
As if you didn’t have enemies abroad! The pair of you must stay safe.
Pastor C says
Robert and Pamela, some of us out here pray for you daily!
These revelations only confirm what I’ve always said. We cannot expect ‘law enforcement’ to protect or defend us. We must remain prepared to do so ourselves.
JIMJFOX says
Yeh, ‘pray for you’- lot of good that will do.
Why don’t you PAY for them, oh holy one?
Michael Ray says
Curious that you are so bitter. Someone kindly telling another person that they are praying for them has no effect whatever on your life.
Perhaps we could stick to the point here, banding together to counter jihad.
Phil Copson says
JIMJ is pointing out the obvious that contributing money is of immediate practical value in paying for security.
Should I ever be in a similar situation, then between a vicar and an armed guard, I’ll take the armed guard, thanks, just as we all would.
Thinking beautiful thoughts doesn’t cut it.
Dennis says
I agree. Prayers are nice, but donations to pay for their protection are more needed right now. Prayer can be a cop-out.
Biff H says
Robert Spencer is a man of faith and it’s not a stretch to assume he believes in the power of prayer. Are you implying that if Robert Spencer holds this to be true he is a fool that needs to be protected from his belief system? If it were to come to light that Robert Spencer prays for the blessing the dollars that pays for his security continue would you think any less of him? Do you view a man who leans on his faith a weakling crippled by his belief system that needs to shed his superstitious leanings to better serve the cause? Are you conflicted in your support for him because it is in direct opposition to another agenda, one that takes every opportunity to belittle the foolish Christians in your mist?
Phil Copson says
Whether Robert Spencer prays or not is nobody’s business but his.
If you wish to pray for him and his colleagues at JW, that is nobody’s business but yours; their efficacy won’t be affected by publicity.
The point is that Robert runs JW because he knows that practical action in this world is required.
Biff H says
You’ve made it perfectly clear that your worldview holds there is no efficacy in prayer. Your snarky, condescending dig of Pastor C as the “holy one” confirms your bias and his belief in the power of prayer is, unlike Robert Spencer, subject to scrutiny (A worthless endeavor ripe for mockery) because it neglected to specifically include a pledge to finance Robert’s work. Robert Spencer chose to stick his neck out and not only has the ear of many a Christian but also can garner support from a pool of humanists, atheists, agnostics and members of faith-based groups that have suffered under the yoke of Islam for his free speech/counter-jihad initiative. You have strong views that men like Robert Spencer are deserving of financial support. Well and good. What I find repugnant is you chose to frame your appeal to support his work financially by attacking an ally whose personal commitment to supporting Robert differs from your own. You don’t know this man from Adam. There are quite a few individuals that provide financial support for the persecuted church and unlike Robert they have to choice as to how Islam, Communist dictatorships and atheist-centric, socialist experiments impact their lives. From a purely humanitarian perspective they are worthy of being addressed. Do you slight them for prioritizing their dollars for those truly in a life or death struggle with the butchers of ideologies with murderous intent? The fact is you chose to belittle a man without knowing either his mind or his heart and haven’t a clue as to his ability to offer financial support. That didn’t stop you from going on the attack. Your unflinching bias got in the way of you taking the time to consider framing your langauge in a more conciliatory tone. Your awkward attempt at reframing, backpedaling and obfuscating your position is laughable. You want to be practical? Start with building bridges instead of burning them by alienating others with divisive, unproductive banter. What’s it going to be? Let it go.
Phil Copson says
What are you chuntering on about, Biffo ? Please try to read what I actually wrote rather what you think I wrote. You are placing a very large and unstable construction on very small foundations. (1.) I made no comments on the efficacy of prayer; I said that it wouldn’t be improved by publicity. Either it works or it doesn’t, my views won’t affect the outcome. (2) I made no comment about PastorC “snarky, condescending” or otherwise. (3) from JIMJFOX’s original comment and my subsequent comments, you have blown a huge cloud of froth involving claims of “attacking an ally”, “slighting”, “”belittling the foolish Christians”, “going on the attack”, “unflinching bias”, “alienating”, “divisive”, and suggest that we regard Robert Spencer “as a weakling”, etc. (Your comments about laughable “reframing” , “back-pedalling” and “obfuscating”, I simply don’t understand – just abuse dressed up as argument, I feel….)
All this rage and vituperation because somebody refers to a third party as “Oh holy one”, suggests that payment is at least of known practical value, and I make some brief, to-the-point comments supporting him ?
It isn’t for me to speak for JIMJFOX, but my guess is that he was simply expressing a passing feeling of exasperation, rather than launching an all-out attack on Christianity ? For myself, I appreciate living in a Judeao-Christian society that is now moderated by a strong dose of secularism. This means that I can live in England without running the risk of being burnt at the stake for supporting the wrong version, or being barred from certain professions and prevented from becoming a Member of Parliament, as was the case until comparatively recently. Religious people like to remind us of the benefits of religion, but need reminding themselves that many of their freedoms come from secularism. Are you willing to be fined or beaten for not attending church ?
Yesterday I took a walk round Salisbury Cathedral , which is a wonderful monument to the human imagination and the stone-masons skills, but the most valuable part was seeing the Magna Carta.
The fact that it is displayed there, and your own intemperate outburst, is a good demonstration of why secular societies need to keep religion under the restraints of civil law: I mean, when societies are run by people claiming to be acting in the name of God, and who have not only the desire, but an actual duty, to be revenged on those who don’t give their religion (by which they mean themselves) the respect they demand, who knows what they might do ? But that’s where we came in – isn’t it ?
Westman says
That the FBI proper didn’t have foreknowledge of the attack may or may not be true. That the undercover “agent” involved did personally know and would have allowed a massacre is beyond question. It is sinister that US taxpayer’s money paid for what appears to be a rogue attempt at assassination.
JIMJFOX says
FBI ‘agent’— or Islamic double agent??
A Harris USA says
Westman, the fact is that the FBI was a OBAMA run and controlled agency.. Just look at the business with the election.. Trust them, ? No way!! I have no faith in this agency as long as Obama’s minions are still in power there… The swamp in the FBI is very deep, 8 years of corruption in the favor of Obama’s Muslim propaganda, will take years to eliminate.. I do not trust anyone in power there, at all, and have not for years.. The Texas near miss of a mass murder just confirmed it……..The local cops were the ones who stopped the blood bath.. Let’s remember that..
John says
This is HUGE. it should be covered as you highlight it here.
An FBI agent knew for a fact the attack was coming – and chose not to stop it or set-up an FBI team in Garland to be ready to take down the attackers. I live about 20 minutes from Garland and remember that day well. It is clear that FBI agent was okay with the attack as planned. Very bad!
somehistory says
This is criminal and really, really disgusting and very evil. It is sickening.
Seabird says
It’s all of those things and worse to think that our Govt. acts like the Turkish Govt. (and all Islamic countries) in first denigrating and targeting dissenting citizens while encouraging others to silence them.
Even if the President could drain the Washington swamp, he will still have to purge the FBI, CIA and Pentagon putting his own life (and family) directly on the line.
Not only would the FBI not offer full protection to their own citizens they made no extra effort to protect a foreign dignitary (Mr Wilders) moving way beyond mere malfeasance and treason and straight into evil.
Reading that article (and your comment) really did make me sick.
Carolyne says
I believe the President is already in extreme danger because of the recent violations of the White House grounds and in the past instance 17 minutes passed before he was apprehended. If the Secret Service cannot stop these intrusions or at least stop them before 17 minutes expire, then I am suspicious of their motives. In almost every incident, the
FBI knew of the perpetrator. In the Boston case, even Russia had advised them of the danger, but for some reason, the FBI allowed them to wander around at will. In Orlando, the f**g Disney World had reported to the FBI about this guy, again not watched. One wonders which side all of the agencies actually are. Obama’s still, I believe. Our former President who is a Muslim.
I hope that AG Sessions can make some sense of this. I can’t.
On the subject of prayer, I don’t believe it helps but I understand that many do and that it is a source of comfort to them if nothing else. I am very sure that it doesn’t hurt unless it prevents them from taking other actions if they have the opportunity.
Dawn says
You need to keep safe ! The truth needs to get out there. We need you both. Hopefully blinded eyes will be opened to the truth about Islam
ECAW says
Yes, we really need Spencer and Geller. They are our foremost champions. I hope the FBI under Trump will be different.
don vito says
Shocking!
Angemon says
Is it the same sort of muslims who are deemed non-muslims by the “expert” talking heads on the grounds they “”misinterpret” or “twist” islam?
somehistory says
Wondering what is the FBI agent’s name…is he someone born in islam, converted to the evil cult, or just wants it to succeed for some *reason*? What is his motive? What was his intent?
Westman says
To be undercover with Muslims the “agent” would at least have a “moderate” Islamic background, including praying and socializing at the Mosque, etc. There is no reason to believe that a “moderate” Muslim would oppose radicals eliminating the perceived enemies of Islam.
somehistory says
A non-moslim could go *undercover* and pretend to be a moslim. Many officers and agents have gone *undercover* and associated with criminals in order to get evidence, such as the mafia, drug cartels, etc., but they aren’t criminals before they go undercover to get evidence.
So, the guy might be a moslim from birth and joined the FBI, a convert already in the agency, a convert who joined the agency after converting, or just have a *motive* for wanting the murderers to succeed.
His name would say a lot about which he is.
Lookmann says
That was FBI under Obama.
Have they changed, under the new admin., ?
davej says
“Provoking”? Who is provocative, cartoonists or men with multiple guns?
FBI: Protect your citizens and the principle of freedom of speech.
px fragonard says
NB how Anderson Cooper turns the attackers into the victims in this question. Notice the error?
“Anderson Cooper: The idea that he’s taking photograph [sic] of the two people who happen to be attacked moments before they’re attacked.”
Phil Copson says
Quote: “Anderson Cooper turns the attackers into the victims in this question……The idea that he’s taking photograph [sic] of the two people who happen to be attacked moments before they’re attacked.”
———————————————————————————————————————————-
You’ve mis-read the account. Cooper is referring to the two law enforcement officers, who were the first to be attacked, not to the two attackers themselves; see quote below.
“This grainy image shows both law-enforcement personnel standing next to an unmarked police car seconds before the attack.” ie – the photo is of Garland police officer Greg Stevens and school security officer Bruce Joiner just before they were attacked by Elton Simpson and Nadir Zoofi.
So the options are that the FBI agent either told his bosses or kept the information to himself for personal reasons such as being in sympathy with Simpson and Zoofi’s intentions, or furthering his career by playing the hero when the attack kicked-off.
The FBI either didn’t know, or did know but chose not to tell Pamela and Robert’s security team.
That still leaves open the possibility that they may have told the local police, but with instructions not to pass the information on – any comment from the local police ? If there was a “heavy police presence” then there must be somebody out of that lot who is prepared to say what they were briefed.
It is understandable that the private security team would not be told; if the event had been cancelled, school doors hurriedly locked etc, the chance to catch or kill the would-be assassins in the act would have been lost.
I suppose that it’s possible that the FBI agent did not expect them to open fire on arrival, but to try to enter peacefully with concealed weapons in order to get near to the intended targets – ( they can’t have expected to find Robert, Pamela, and Geert Wilders waiting by the entrance, after all) – and he would then have followed them in ?
But what then ? To shoot them once they produced their weapons, or shoot them after they had shot the intended victims ? If Simpson and Zoofi had split-up once inside the building, he couldn’t possibly have followed and shot both of them.
How closely does the FBI monitor it’s agents ? could he have followed them to see if they succeeded, and then plausibly denied to his bosses that he had been on the scene ?
RonaldB says
I was at the event. I can clear up one question. The shooters would not have been able to enter the building with concealed weapons, because security subjected everyone going inside to metal detectors.
The shooters, even if they intended to go in, would have seen the security setup and changed their plans. Perhaps they knew even before getting out of the car (brings to mind the question of who gave them intelligence). So, the “hail Mary” play of running in, guns blazing, was actually their best chance of getting inside to commit murder.c
RonaldB says
Also, no one was admitted without a ticket.
Phil Copson says
Thank you for the info Ronald. I expect that the whole truth will never be known, since it appears that those involved can be relied upon to lie to any investigation. Regards, Phil.
Michael Blair says
I pray for the safety of both of you.
JIMJFOX says
Don’t bother. PAY, not pray.
Ashley says
JIMJFOX…why such comments? Keeping such brave souls as Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller in thought and prayer is an act of thoughtful kindness.
Voytek Gagalka says
“60 Minutes” – A self-described “journalists” pretending of saying something important but being really a propaganda tube for and by the die-hard Left. The only thing which they show as relevant seems to be only that clicking clock presented three times during that said “60 minutes” describing how fast time goes by when “60 Minutes” stuffers talk usual nonsense in-between. (I did not watch them for years now and am not sure if that clicking clock is still shown; excuse me if it is not and they altered the format of their program now, but that was how it was presented always years ago.)
DFD says
To Robert Spencer:
“….Or did they want the attack to succeed…”
Would that surprise you? How often have governments used their own people for a pawn sacrifice? I don’t know, my guess: One can fill a database, megabyte upon megabyte…
Keep at it Robert, keep at it. But be careful.
Relic says
alex9234 says
And they also didn’t go after Theodore Shoebat after he called for the death of Pamela Geller and Milo.
Tommy says
After all, the FBI gave us Whitey Bulger.
Ashley says
Dan Maynard: I can’t tell you whether the FBI knew the attack was gonna occur. I don’t like to think that they let it occur. But it is shocking to me that an undercover agent sees fellas jumping out of a car and he drives on. I find that shocking.
_______________________
This FBI agent FLED the scene.
Shaking my damn head…
underbed cat says
This all occurred under the Obama administration, maybe the FBI agent was driving by to collect a photo, for the record but not to engage. Luckily they had protection that did engage and it truly is frightening that the jihadist was able to fire, and the officer who responded injured, was a expert. It could have all gone very badly. My only thought is that the driver notified the ground protection as he passed by, if he did not why not.
RCCA says
Unless my memory fails, wasn’t there an undercover FBI agent in the event who was answering questions by text to the perps about the security arrangements, etc.? And wasn’t the local police chief adamant and outraged that no one had contacted his office about the attack, just some generic warnings two weeks prior? Yes, I remember that very clearly.
This (second) undercover FBI agent, who was captured fleeing the scene, sounds more like a double agent to me as well. Well, there’s certainly a lot more to this story we aren’t hearing. I have serious questions about who the heck the FBI is hiring to do counter terrorism and I’d start with who is doing the hiring.
Mitch Classic says
Obama’s State Department deliberately abandoned Americans in Benghazi to be murdered, his ATF caused the deaths of hundreds with Fast & Furious gun-walking.
I find it easy to believe that Obama’s FBI wanted Robert and Pamela to be murdered.
mousey says
reminds me a little of extortion 17.
i wonder was “our security team”(RS) really “Security outside was heavy. There were dozens of police, a SWAT team, and snipers.”(60min) Was that garland police?
Sam says
I would not be surprised if FBI closed their eyes to an innocent person being killed by a muslim to appease their bosses and muslims. I would be disgusted however. My question is who can a US citizen trust for protection from Islam. I think nobody but himself.
Support Trump. He may be our last chance.
Gen Jones says
60 Minutes is the worst kind of ratings driven faux journalism. But it’s good to remember that the president of CBS is David Rhodes, brother to Obama speechwriter and national security advisor Ben Rhodes of “we created an echo chamber” infamy re the Iran deal.
Several years ago 60 Minutes did a hatchet job on the owner of a company I used to work for. You’d be surprised how many ill informed people would repeat to me with utter certainly the lies perpetrated in the program. So the “average person” seems to believe reports like this with a less than critical eye. In film school the first thing we learned about documentary film was “objectively is subjective”. Everything has a point of view or an agenda if you want to be less charitable to the motives of the teller.
underbed cat says
A insurgency administration with connections to a major news source, (that was news to me) the silencing of the doctrine of Islam, the mis- information warfare was at a peak. I also think that it was a time when the administration was more aghast to have a connection to shooting muslim terrorist, since they are the “best of all people” and always the victim never the preps….luckily some one was on duty, unfortunately he suffered being shot..but able to protect and survive. The Iran deal is so utterly horrible that shows how not having the facts can be a turning point, will civilization have any chance of surviving. The news media plays down consistently, how many times they say isis strikes…forgetting Tsnarnew brothers previous killing, etc…they all have in common one important, trait….found across America under the guise of a peaceful religion…
Carolyne says
This “Muslim love” began with Jimmy Carter when he betrayed the Shah of Iran. There has not been a minute’s peace in the Middle East and many other places since that time, all due to Muslims. They thrive on death and destruction.
Gen Jones says
Sorry that’s objectivity not objectively. ^
Melanie says
They also failed to mention that in 2010, CAIR-AZ raised money to post bail for Simpson so that their “brother could be free while awaiting trial,” advised Muslims to “use caution when speaking to the FBI” about Simpson, and then condemned Simpson’s actions as ‘unIslamic’ after the attack, at which point he was apparently no longer their “brother.” How is that not relevant info?
Abu Al-Dente says
The tried and true honeypot technique.
Jeanette says
Abu Al-Dente – that name is hilarious!
Jeanette says
The FBI can no longer be trusted.
Linda Jones says
Completely true Mr. Spencer. Obama filled the W H and every possible post with Muslim Brotherhood, CAIR, etc. So the name of the self proclaimed prophet would not be slandered. To say the world has to obey the laws of a religion they themselves don’t practice is outrageous enough, but that is atop the dampening of freedom to practice the ones we DO believe in.
And I’ve said it before, Mo was a learn as you go kind of guy. Writing an edict which says no one may EVER depict him in ANY way, is tantamount to a criminal, law man, in the old west saying, “No wanted posters allowed!” He did it for self preservation alone. How could it possibly matter today?
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
==QUOTE== All the FBI would give us was this email statement. It reads: “There was no advance knowledge of a plot to attack the cartoon drawing contest in Garland, Texas.” ==UNQUOTE==
What a strange statement for the FBI to make. They do not just say that the FBI had no advance knowledge of a plot, but that no-one did, not even the attackers.
Vic says
There is something very sinister about the FBI and especially James Comey. Ever since the Hillary investigations it seems his/their job has been one of obfuscation and obstruction of the truth. What is it that goes on that they don’t know about? So why do they seem to hide behind the cloak of “national security interest” and every single investigation just builds up to some crescendo and then fizzles out. Until there is another scandal to divert our attention. From one scandal to the next…no resolution to any of them.
What happened to Benghazi? Fast and Furious? The arms sales to ISIS? The Clintons pay to play scheme? Boston bombing? Garland close call? It’s appalling that this intelligence machine is turning into a cesspool reminiscent of the mafia. It’s sinister and should make us very concerned.
Take good care of yourself, Mr. Spencer. The same for Pamela Geller. Your work and dedication has opened many eyes to see the truth. Stay safe.
Jeffery says
It’s abundantly clear from the sworn affidavit given by FBI Special Agent Shawn Scott Hare that Obama’s FBI knew of the imminent attack in Garland.
The link to the affidavit is here:
https://cchs.gwu.edu/sites/cchs.gwu.edu/files/downloads/Hendricks%20Affidavit%20in%20Support%20of%20a%20Criminal%20Complaint.pdf
The FBI Knew Of The Plan To Attack Garland
On page 41, you see that the undercover FBI agent aka “UCE-1” discussed, on May 1, 2015, via social media, the upcoming attack in Garland with both Simpson aka “Jabu” and Hendricks aka “Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem”. The undercover agent “UCE-1” again discussed the imminent attack with Hendricks (and presumably Simpson) on May 2.
The FBI Provided ISIS Attackers with Tactical Information
On page 43 of the affidavit, you see that the federal agent is actually at the scene of the intended mass murder AND he is communicating with Hendricks (and presumably Soofi and Simpson).
“…UCE-1 subsequently traveled to Garland, Texas and was present on or about May 3, 2015, at the event. UCE-1 notified Hendricks that he/she was in the vicinity of the “Draw the Prophet Muhammad Contest” event in Garland, Texas.”
The obvious question is why is the undercover agent (UCE-1) in Garland if not to stop the attack? Why is the undercover agent still communicating with the terrorists right up to the moment of the shooting?
The FBI Undercover Agent was the “eyes” of the Jihadists.
On page 43, the undercover agent (UCE-1) is described as giving Hendricks (and presumably Soofi and Simpson) tactical information and reconnaissance.
“…Hendricks asked UCE-1 a series of questions related to the security posture, to include: “How is security?;” How big is gathering?;” “How many ppl?;” “How many police/agents?;” “How big is building?;” “Is it wood?;” “Do u see feds there?;” “Do you see snipers?;” and “How many media?”
“…UCE-1 provided Hendricks with a series of general observations,…”
On page 47, we see Hendricks and the undercover federal agent (UCE-1) discussing the attack. It is clear that the federal agent witnessed the attack. He appears to have done nothing to prevent the attack. He appears to actually assisted by serving as the “eyes of Hendricks.”
” ‘..UCE-1 claimed to have been the “eyes” of Hendricks, to have seen Simpson and Soofi be killed, and stated that “Cops almost shot me.’ ”
In the aftermath of the attack, Hendricks mistakenly assumed that his fellow jihadist, the undercover federal agent (UCE-1) was killed in the attack by Garland Police.
Pam Stein says
Barry placed Muslims at the very top levels of ALL of our IC agencies. None are worth a shit to us now-> they cannot be trusted. The FBI DHS CIA all use incredible amounts of ? taxpayer dollars to operate.
I’m not paying for this!
These agencies need stripped of funding and we must start again.
ermom says
Is that ‘undercover agent’ Muslim?
ermom says
And yes, I’m one of your viewers/readers who prays for you, Pamela Geller, Dr. Bill Warner, David Wood, Andrew McCarthy, Jamie Glazov and Gang, Nonie Darwish, Brigitte Gabriel, etc., and those of you on the tip of the spear, fighting for our very lives and liberty. And yes, I buy your books to help support your efforts.
Call your Congressfolk, and urge them to pass a bill, ‘No foreign law in the United States of America, including Sharia’. 11 words. That’s all. No 2,000 pg. ‘comprehensive’ nonsense. Sharia is gov’t, a TOTALITARIAN POLITICAL IDEOLOGY, which is NOT compatible with western values and principles. Sharia is NOT religion. I do NOT care one bit, how many times someone prays. Obama’s administration was already imposing it stealthily on us, through the EEOC, by suing that trucking company because 2 Somalis, Muslims, didn’t want to drive alcoholic beverages. The EEOC spent a lot of money on that case, and won. Then they sent out a memo stating that businesses must give ‘religious accommodations’ to their workers. Hmmm, so where was the EEOC, when the florist & bakers, CHRISTIANS who didn’t want to take part in a homosexual ‘wedding’ for religious reasons, got sued? Where were they to protect the ‘religious rights’ of the Christians? For that matter, why weren’t homosexual activists, going to MUSLIM florists & bakers for THEIR homosexual ‘weddings’? (Anyone see what happened when Louder with Crowder, tried to get Muslim business owners to bake such a cake? They all refused.)
Remember that there are imams telling Muslims that they should take all the WELFARE they can get, consider it JIZYA, and a ‘money jihad’ to hurt non-Muslim western nations, even the ‘jihad seekers’ allowance’. Think of the Tsarnaev brothers, that family on welfare, while they bought bomb making equipment and planned to kill us, at the Boston Marathon Islamic jihad attack.
So, I reiterate, was that ‘undercover FBI agent’ Muslim, similar to Maj. Nidal Hasan, the Ft. Hood Islamic jihadist?
David Pimentel says
“Simpson and Soofi knew what they were getting into and I think they likely knew they were going to die.”
Islam … the 1400-year-old suicide cult. It’s no wonder that it attracts nut jobs like this.
Sam says
This is treason of the United States by a government agent acting as a spy (double). We wont here much about this anywhere anymore I am sure. What a shame and really surreal that an government agent wants a freedom fighter telling the truth about enemy be killed. This is happing in America and very disturbing.
Who knows what else those moderate muslims and their friends are doing in government offices all over America. I know the answer they are complaining about being discriminated by facist conservatives.