moonbattery logo

Sep 18 2016

Dhimmi Denial, From Minnesota to Manhattan

The Islamophiles in charge have ceased to worry about their preposterous denials failing to pass the laugh test.

From St. Cloud, Minnesota, where yesterday Islamic outreach bestowed multiculturalism upon the Crossroads Center mall:

Nine people were injured by an attacker who was killed inside the Macy’s store by an off-duty Avon police officer.

St. Cloud Mayor Dave Kleis identified that officer as Jason Falconer during a press conference Sunday.

A short time earlier, St. Cloud Somali-American community members identified the deceased suspect as Dahir Adan. …

[St. Cloud Police Chief Blair] Anderson said the attacker, who was armed with a knife, reportedly made references to Allah during the attack and asked at least one person whether they were Muslim. But Anderson pointedly declined to call the attacks an act of terrorism, saying the motive isn’t yet known.

Like the police, Minnesota FBI spokesman Kyle Loven declined to say Sunday if investigators believe the attack was a terrorist act.

It happened at a workplace. Must have been workplace violence.

Comparably absurdly,

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was grilled Sunday over his refusal to call the weekend bombing in Manhattan an act of terror.

Twenty-nine people suffered injuries when an improvised explosive device was detonated in the neighborhood of Chelsea on Saturday night.

After the explosion, authorities conducted a search for additional devices in the area and discovered a pressure cooker with an apparent mobile phone attached to it and wires protruding.

“How can you say there is no link to terrorism when the Inspire magazine published instructions on how to build one of these pressure-cooker bombs, like the one used in the Boston Marathon bombing?” a reporter, referencing an online magazine linked to Al Qaeda, asked at a press conference.

He can say it because according to the liberal narrative, Muslims are put-upon victims of Islamophobic microaggressions and terrorism is under control. An Islamic connection is assumed by all involved; otherwise moonbats like de Blasio would not hesitate to call terrorism terrorism.

At least Shrillary was willing to call the Manhattan bombing a bombing — although moments later she denounced Trump for calling it a bombing, before presumably crawling back into her deathbed:

On tips from Bodhisattva and Torcer.

53 Responses to “Dhimmi Denial, From Minnesota to Manhattan”

  1. StephaneDumas says:

    Paul Joseph Watson posted a vlog about this.

  2. bitterlyclinging says:

    Its all about the money, Both parties were jockeying for position at the Muslim money trough, but when George W Bush reacted aggressively after bin Laden had the planes flown into the WTC and the Pentagon, Islam reacted and went out and bought the entire Democratic Party, lock stock and barrel.
    Today the Democratic Party is a wholly owned and operated CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood subsidiary, doing their every bidding. As such it no longer represents any American interests, but is the tool of a foreign power, radical Islam.

  3. Johnny Monday says:

    It’s too bad that neither party could put up a presidential candidate who could effectively lead the nation in these dangerous times. The Repubs had the opportunity to do so but went with the clown instead. We’re screwed.

  4. Torcer says:

    This is Why I Carry: Attacker Claims Several Victims at MN Mall
    Malls. These crowded, overpriced, germy rat mazes are my least favorite place to visit – not to mention, the overwhelming majority of them prohibit weapons.

    But this is why I carry.

    The Crossroads Mall in St. Cloud, MN was the scene of a frightening attack shortly after 8 p.m. Saturday night. Authorities were called to the scene when witnesses reported an individual was stabbing people with a knife.

    Any mall in America would be a horrific place to find yourself without the means of self defense, but this story truly puts it into perspective. Just one armed citizen could have ended this attacker’s rampage before they had the opportunity to move on to their next victim.

    As my daughter says, “It’s not a gun-free zone if you’re there, mom.”

    Bless her heart.

  5. Torcer says:

    Have Rush and others realized the enormity of their mistake?

  6. Mr. Freemarket says:

    I’m reminded of the “non-terrorist” attack in Salt Lake City on Valentine’s Day, 2007 where a Muslim terrorist was determined to have not yelled Allah Ackbar before shooting a number of people at Trolley Square Mall, and where officials concluded that he was not a terrorist before examining the non-terrorist’s computer, and before the bodies of the dead had cooled.

    The non-terrorist was buried with full Muslim honors in Kosovo.

    If only somebody had been able to throw some bacon into the open grave….

  7. KirklesWorth says:

    Yeah. They embrace Hillary now.

  8. anomalousprime says:

    Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt!

  9. Karma's Janitor says:

    Benghazi has already demonstrated how Hillary will handle informing the public and ensuring thei safety

  10. Torcer says:

    New Evidence in Chelsea Bombing Suggests Perpetrator Plans More | RedState

    29 Hurt in Manhattan explosion mayor calls ‘intentional act’ via @nbcnews

    FOX NEWS: Explosive devices in NY and NJ from the SAME PERSON

    ‘There will be more’: Chilling 911 call after the Chelsea explosion via @nypost

    ‘There will be more’: Chilling 911 call after the Chelsea explosion
    A 911 caller warned of further explosions right after the blast that rocked Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood and injured 29 people, The Post has learned.

    “I’m looking at the explosion down the block. There will be more,” the unidentified male said, claiming to be standing at 23rd Street and Seventh Avenue in the aftermath of the terrifying incident, according to law-enforcement sources Sunday.

    Investigators believe the blast was the result of a home-made, pressure-cooker bomb similar to an unexploded device found later on 27th Street, sources said.

    In another new wrinkle, a hand-written letter, a portion of which is in Arabic, was found inside a plastic bag that held the second device, sources said.

    Cops were interviewing two men who claim to have spotted a potential person of interest in the case, sources said.

  11. Torcer says:

    FBI investigates Minnesota stabbings as possible terror act

    What’s the opposite of assimilated? Dahir Adan, a 22-year-old Somali immigrant, identified as mall attacker via @twitchyteam

  12. J.j. Cintia says:

    And to think Trump wants to stop people like this from coming here to enrich us. How deplorable.

  13. THOUGHTCRIMINAL2084 says:

    Those are not “bombs” or “attacks” they are freedom fireworks and open borders festivities! The Newspeak Dictionary VII will have these corrections illustrated in them as well a 20% reduction in approved words.

  14. man_wolf says:

  15. man_wolf says:


  16. Jester says:

    This reminds me of an unfortunate episode five years ago in which I found myself attempting to debate a proglodyte at its own leftwingnutjob blog. I kept repeatedly pointing out documented incidents of Islamic violence and atrocities overseas, while it just kept shrieking: “IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE! IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN HERE!”


  17. FrozenPatriot says:

    Mark Steyn nails it again…

  18. FrozenPatriot says:

    Another explanation of the dumpster fire…

  19. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Let’s be fair. Benghazi was late at night and both BHO and HRC needed their beauty sleep. No where does it say the president must work night shifts.

  20. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Just another reason why no sane person would voluntarily live in NYC.

  21. Jack says:

    There is no way the the outgoing traitor is going to admit, or allow his agencies or the media to admit, that the dhimmi policy of Islamic outreach and appeasement has failed miserably and has put Americans at even greater risk. If any other community in the United States was killing Americans under the name of religion, the traitor would not hesitate to name it and eradicate it.

  22. shohio says:

    I don’t know how she could appear any less interested than she did right there. Wake up, Gal, you have a long way to go. They will need to wake her up on election night to tell her that she lost…

  23. bobdog19006 says:

    Can’t we stop blaming Muslim extremists every time somebody screams “Allahu Akbar!!” and starts killing people?

    This, after all, is not who we are, is it?

  24. Artfuldgr says:

    can i have some freedom fries with that.
    i had a liberal say to me she loved the unity after 9/11

    and i said, then why did you let your contemporaries kill it as nationalism rather than love it as patrotism?

  25. 762x51 says:

    She makes an excellent bag lady.

  26. 762x51 says:

    That is his real legacy.

  27. Kevin O'Kelley says:

    Yes, Sec. Hillary Clinton looked terrible over-medicated, but she did not crawl back to her deathbed. She bathed in the blood of seven virgins, ate a baby, and retired to her coffin until sundown.

  28. 762x51 says:

    Because all things not tRump MUST be Hillary.

    This is what known in formal logic as a categorical syllogism and is, in fact, a syllogistic fallacy because of the undistributed middle term. Without delving too far into Boolean Algebra and Set Theory, which are far beyond your comprehension:

    Let tRump = A
    Let Hillary = B
    Let N = Never Trump
    Let Y = Any Intelligent Voter

    The formal logic statements are:
    All N is B
    Y is N
    Therefore N is B

    The middle term N is not distributed in the major premise,
    All N is B. Some N may be B, even a majority of N may be B but not all N is B, that is a fallacy.

    Now we substitute our variables into the equations:

    All Never tRump is Hillary
    Any Intelligent Voter is Never Trump
    Therefore Any Intelligent Voter is Hillary.

    Here is another fallacy you frequently engage in based on the same undistributed middle term fallacy.

    Let A = Hillary
    Let B = Qualified Presidential Candidates
    Let N = Not Hillary
    Let X = any other person

    All B is N
    X is N
    Therefore X is B

    Once again substituting our variables:

    All Qualified Presidential Candidates is Not Hillary
    Otis of Mayberry is Not Hillary
    Therefore, Otis is a Qualified Presidential Candidate.

    Your emotional, hysterically anti-Hillary position is fallaciously based on the presumption that any one who does not support tRump is a Hillary supporter. You failed to think through the proposition that tRump is not Hillary therefore he is a qualified candidate. You even failed to recognize this fallacy when I mockingly listed many people who would NEVER be President and are a “qualified candidate” under your 4th grade political calculations.

    What matters in a presidential general election is the electoral college, nothing else matters. Your inexperienced candidate does not understand this and apparently neither do you.. He still thinks of this as TV ratings and they are not the same thing. Right now, your cult leader is losing, 224 to 126 electoral votes, period.

    OR – 272 to 215 in a projected final result.

    What that means isn’t that tRump needs to pick up 5 or 6 points in general polls, it means he needs to gain 144 electoral votes, 49 days out of the election and will most likely fall .approximately 55 electoral votes short of that end goal.

    All your slithering bullshit does is turnoff anyone who “might” yet be persuaded to hold their nose and vote for tRump. You will lose and America will lose with you. You and the Trumpanzee Chorus are all responsible for the war we about to fight.

    See you on the battlefield, proggie progtard.

  29. 762x51 says:

    If it wasn’t a terrorist attack, why was the Federal Police Force involved? They have no jurisdiction over workplace violence crimes.

  30. 762x51 says:

    She has no skin in the game, Muzzrats are only killing the little people, why would she care?

  31. KirklesWorth says:

    What a ridiculous collage of nonsense.

    All N is B (false)
    Y is N (false)

    No need to carry on with this ridiculousness past this point. Sorry that all of your hard work equates to uselessness.

  32. KirklesWorth says:

    After re-reading your “explanation”, I am going re-analyze it in the spirit in which it was written.

    “All N is B” is an incorrect assessment of Trump-supporters positions, but at least you confirm the dichotomy of A or B. I have asked frequently for a candidate (let’s say “C”) who can defeat Hillary – do you have one? Therefore, lack of candidate C defaults to B if A does not receive sufficient votes and you get your Hillary. Therefore, the following “logic” is irrelevant – but I’ll play along for fun.

    The rest of your logic fails at “Let B = Qualified Presidential Candidates”, as there is no such viable candidate. B will never receive sufficient votes, so candidate A gets elected by default and you get your Hillary.

    Therefore, Never-Trumpers “logic” either equates to, or defaults to, Hillary if they get their way.

  33. Torcer says:

    Very interesting – I do believe I’m going to have to step up in what and how I carry.

  34. 762x51 says:

    I knew formal logic was beyond your comprehension but I never expected you you to try and disprove a known fallacy, that is hilarious. Watching you stumble around, bumping into yourself was priceless. It’s called the “Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle” and you just tried to prove it false, LOL. That is one of the funniest things I have ever seen. You are so inured of your cult following that you will try and disprove a formal fallacy. Maybe next time I will drag you out into Set Theory, this is far too entertaining to not followup.

    I can’t wait to see you try and address the tRumpsters shortfall in electoral votes although you avoided doing so here. Did all that “logic” wear you out, jerklesworth? ROTLMFAO!!

  35. KirklesWorth says:

    Oooh…”Fallacy of the undistributed middle”…fancy! I’m so impressed over here!

    Sarcasm aside, it’s worthless. All you’ve attempted to disprove is that anti-Trumpers are not Hillary voters, which was never in contention. Typical leftist tactic of throwing a lot of useless garbage into an argument when the simplest explanation is the best:

    Trump is the only candidate that can defeat Hillary. If Trump can’t beat Hillary, you get your Hillary. If Hillary beats Trump, you get your Hillary.

    So those two scenarios provide you with your justification to have your civil war and kill “progressives” (which you can’t define) contrary to the laws of our country, and that’s why you want Trump to lose. What a patriot!

  36. Karma's Janitor says:

    it would have been better if they both had slept through the whole thing and let the Army command do their job

  37. rex freeway says:

    Wow, There is no life left in her eyes. She knows the hammer is getting ready to drop and it’s taken all the fight out of her.

  38. Mr. Freemarket says:

    Army command can’t act without orders. When no cross-border authorization is given to our military, they can’t actually respond. Thus, turning off the ringer on one’s phone is just as effective as giving an order to stand down….with more deniability.

  39. 762x51 says:

    So, you are saying that formal logic is worthless. I always knew that Progressives operated solely on emotion but didn’t realize you were incapable of acknowledging reality. I always knew you lied at every opportunity and preferred lies to truth, but I assumed that was all part of the act. You really cannot accept the real world over your fantasy, can you? That is some serious delusion you live under, jerkelsworth. This is good information, I look forward to using it against you frequently over the next few months.

    Now, about those electoral college numbers that you have avoided addressing TWICE now. Once more, here is the current data, we are looking for your explanation as to how your cult leader will overcome the substantial deficit he now faces. You keep saying “Trump is the only candidate that can defeat Hillary” yet he is failing to do so by empirical observation. Now a loyal, deluded Progressive would deny the data, in effect, shooting the messenger. You have spent months telling us how superior you are, being a filthy elitist and all, now it’s time for you to prove it.

    Let’s go jerkelsworth, show us how superior you are. Just don’t try logic because you simply have no grasp of it. ROTFLMAO!!

  40. 762x51 says:

    I don’t know if you had time to read the thread below but it is a riot. I’m thinking about a special course in logic for jerklesworth. It just has no grasp of the topic and rubbing that smug arrogance in its ignorance is too good to pass up.

  41. Torcer says:

    I’ve blocked having better things to do than deal with it’s deceit and deception.

  42. KirklesWorth says:

    Interesting how every single statement you make is wrong.

    So, you are saying that formal logic is worthless.

    Nope, only your misapplication of it.

    I always knew that Progressives operated solely on emotion but didn’t realize you were incapable of acknowledging reality.

    Wrong again, per your fallacy of the undistributed middle constantly.

    I always knew you lied at every opportunity and preferred lies to truth, but I assumed that was all part of the act.

    Prove it tough guy.

    You really cannot accept the real world over your fantasy, can you?

    You mean the “real world” of your “civil war” and “slaughtering ‘progressives'”? Dream on psycho.

    That is some serious delusion you live under, jerkelsworth.

    “Civil war”, “progressives”, projection.

    This is good information, I look forward to using it against you frequently over the next few months.

    Please do, as it will illustrate your apparent grasp on what you think you are an “expert” on.

    Now, about those electoral college numbers that you have avoided addressing TWICE now.

    Make it three – I care not for your electoral college speculations over a month away especially considering this story: Trump cracks the Electoral College lock: A new round of state polls shows Donald Trump suddenly has a path to 270 electoral votes.

    Once more, here is the current data, we are looking for your explanation as to how your cult leader will overcome the substantial deficit he now faces.

    I guess that only leaves you with your cult leader Hillary, which you want to win for your “progressive”-murdering civil war (PMCW). Just the way you want it!

    “Trump is the only candidate that can defeat Hillary” yet he is failing to do so by empirical observation.

    So, you’ll conventiently get your Hillary for your PMCW.

    Now a loyal, deluded Progressive would deny the data, in effect, shooting the messenger.The “messenger” shoots itself via its usage of fallacy of the undistributed middle constantly.

    You have spent months telling us how superior you are…

    Where? Prove it.

    …being a filthy elitist and all…Where? Prove it.

    …now it’s time for you to prove it.

    Prove what? That Trump is better than Hillary? See chart below.

    Let’s go jerkelsworth, show us how superior you are. Just don’t try logic because you simply have no grasp of it. ROTFLMAO!!

    All I have to do is let you go off on your tirades to show how inferior you are.

  43. KirklesWorth says:

    You should stick to death threats, swearing, and insults because your fallacy of the undistributed middle “logic” backfired and ended up being your M.O. That’s not smug – that’s just you being you.

  44. KirklesWorth says:

    Yeah. You make cowardly claims with never a citation to back it up. I, however, take great care to document the facts instead of spewing falsehoods like you.

  45. 762x51 says:

    It didn’t fail, imbecile, you just refuse to accept it even though it is an accepted FACT. You progressives always deny facts which is why I never debate you anymore, it is pointless. You actually believe you “disproved” the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle? LMAO, I hope everyone reads this and realizes how utterly demented your fantasy world is.

    How pointless it is to try and have a conversation with a Progressive totalitarian like you. No one here has ever threatened you proggie progtard, that is just part of your fantasy, and swearing and insults are all you deserve, asshole.

  46. KirklesWorth says:

    I’ll start from the end with the lies first, so they don’t get glanced over. And you’ve given me quite a plethora to work with – thank you. But lets start with your lies and what you called me (with the exception of #8):

    1. “Progressive” – false, uncited, unproven.
    2. “Totalitarian” – false, uncited, unproven
    3. “No one here has ever threatened you” – false. Even though Dave Blount has to delete your threats, I have them captured for reference. Here’s the first:

    762×51: I have a bullet with your name on it, any time you think you have what it takes to impose your fascist dreams, elitist f__ktard. Go f__k yourself. Comment deleted.

    4. “Proggie” – redundant, false, uncited, unproven.
    5. “Progtard” – redundant, false, uncited, unproven.
    6. “Your fantasy” – ridiculous, uncited, unproven.
    7. “Swearing” – false, uncited, unproven, and hypocritical (see above citation).
    8. “Insults” – (didn’t you start by calling me “imbecile”?) I apologize if I called you “Einstein” – I never realized how hurtful that can be. Do you need a “safe space” to hide from my “microaggressions”?

    Oh I’m sorry, but the definition of “fail” is 1. be unsuccessful in achieving one’s goal; neglect to do something. Let’s see how many goals you’ve achieved:

    1. Ted Cruz – nope.
    2. Trump defeated / Hillary elected – your current project
    3. Civil war – nope
    4. Correct application of the fallacy of the undistributed middle: – not at all (see below).

    But please, state your so-called “fact” that I won’t accept. You “never debate” because you are better at insults, swearing and death threats. Citations and proof are difficult concepts for you to grasp, so you emotionally lash out.

    I didn’t have to “disprove” anything of yours – you haven’t proven squat. You even typed the logic wrong:: (1) All N is B; (2) Y is N; (3) Therefore Y is B (not N).

    But since you are a glutton for punishment, I will specify what you stated incorrectly and/or without citation that I made any of your so-called claims. At each step, your “fallacy of the undistributed middle constantly” fails:

    1. “All N (Never Trump) is B (Let Hillary)” – false and never claimed by me (except that you personally want Hillary).
    2. “Y (Any Intelligent Voter) is N (Never Trump)” – false and never claimed by me.
    3. “Therefore Y (Any Intelligent Voter) is B (Hillary).” – false and never claimed by me.
    4. “All B (Qualified Presidential Candidates) is N (Not Hillary).” – false and never claimed by me.
    5. “X (any other person) is N (Not Hillary)” – false and never claimed by me.
    6. “Therefore X (any other person) is B (Qualified Presidential Candidates)” – false and never claimed by me.

    Now what I did prove is your constant use of the fallacy of the undistributed middle that you somehow think you are some sort of expert on:

    1. All N (Progressives) support B (government-run health care)
    2. Y (Trump) supports N (government-run health care)
    3. Therefore, Y (Trump) is B (“progressive”)

    This is of course false. Then you build on the illogic with:

    All N (Trump’s views) are B (“progressive”)
    Y (KirklesWorth) supports N (Trump)
    Therefore, Y (KirklesWorth’s views) are N (“progressive”)

    This is of course false. Your use of this fallacy discredits you far worse than anything I have said.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy