Very disturbing surveillance footage comes out of the attack on the Nairobi mall

CNN was able to obtain footage from surveillance cameras showing the first day of the four-day-long attack that al Shabab Islamic terrorists made against the Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. The video makes for horrifying viewing. It’s terrible to watch because we, as sympathetic and empathetic humans, must always be disturbed when we watch the slaughter of the innocents. It’s also terrible to watch because the “Western” look of this mall brings home the fact that Islamic terrorists are waging all-out war against us, i.e., Americans and others who live ordinary capitalist, Judeo-Christian lives.

What struck us, though, as the most terrible thing of all about the footage is the Islamists’ relaxed, calm, and calculated approach to the slaughter of the innocents. It is no exaggeration to say that their “business as usual” attitude is precisely the same attitude the Nazis had when, in a businesslike way, they shot or gassed six million Jews, plus gypsies, homosexuals, Catholics, communists, and anyone else they didn’t like. (It’s worth noting that the Islamists are no more fond of Jews, homosexuals, or Christians than the Nazis were. Just sayin’.)

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi (6)

The clerk has been shot, but he is struggling to live

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi (4)

Having been shot, the clerk struggles to sit up, even as he is surrounded by a rapidly spreading pool of his own blood

The first second of the video shows relaxed shoppers strolling through a store in the Westgate Mall on September 21. Suddenly, although there is no audio, you know that the terrorists have started shooting outside the store, as dozens of panicked people begin running frantically for cover.

One clerk hides himself beneath the front counter, only to have an Islamist walk in and casually, without thought or effort, shoot him. The terrorist then walks away. The clerk, lying in a spreading pool of his own blood, struggles to right himself. His efforts are wasted. As he sits up, another terrorist walks by, and with the same casual air as his comrade in slaughter, delivers the killing shot.

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi (5)

The dark-jacketed Islamist on the left delivers the kill shot to the wounded clerk

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi (7)

Panicked shoppers run and crawl across the mall’s main floor, seeking shelter from the killers

Another surveillance camera shows terrified shoppers racing through an open area of the mall in their efforts to escape from the gunman. Many drop to their stomachs and begin crawling away. Some no longer move.

A mother with two children appears on the scene, pushing a shopping cart. In the cart is a wounded child. Behind her follows a blood-stained, limping teenage girl, with her hands in the air. And then, behind that teenage girl, we see the explanation for this little procession: A gun-toting Islamist is herding these hostages along. (We are pleased to report that the woman, her two children, and the other children that she rescued all survived the attack.)

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi (9)

A woman escorts her two children through a store, as she pushes a shopping cart holding a third, wounded child

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi

A terrorist herds a bloodied, wounded teenage girl through a store

The surveillance footage shows several of the terrorists wandering through stores, their gait relaxed, and their guns at the ready. Some are seen talking on cell phones. Authorities believe that they were not talking to each other but were, instead, receiving real-time instructions from outside controllers. One terrorist sees a body lie on the ground and fires an extra bullet into it . . . just in case.

The most disturbing thing of all about the whole video is that the terrorists are not in a frenzy of rage or insanity. Rather, they are exactly like workers in a slaughterhouse. On this first day, they know that they are in charge, and that’s despite the fact that there is surveillance footage showing two white men (meaning, two men who were obviously not the all-black al Shabab terrorists) holding revolvers and obviously making a plan to protect the civilians sheltered behind them. It’s believed that these men were security guards or perhaps off-duty policemen. Despite their obvious bravery, they were no match for the heavily armed killers.

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi (11)

For the Islamists, it’s an enjoyable turkey shoot

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi (1)

This man can be seen talking on a cell phone, which authorities believe is how outside controllers directed the Islamists in the mall

The Islamists carry themselves upright and unafraid, they talk on the phone, and they break for prayers, with butts in the air for Allah. It’s very disturbing to realize that kids running around at a paintball game show more tension than these terrorists do. These killers know that, on this first day, they are unstoppable. Knowing this, they obviously enjoy themselves as they massacre the innocents.

It is important to emphasize the terrorists’ appearance because we need to understand their character in order to appreciate the war we’re in. And make no mistake – even as Barack Obama makes nice with the Muslim Brotherhood, and despite President George W. Bush’s constant claim that “Islam is a religion of peace,” Islamists have declared war against the West.

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi (8)

The terrorists were completely relaxed and in control as they went on their killing spree

Surveillance camera footage from the first minutes of the attack on the Westgate Mall in Nairobi (2)

When they weren’t killing civilians, the Islamists took time out to pray to their god

There are millions of peaceful Muslims throughout the world, but the religion itself is premised upon Holy War and at least 10% of Islam’s followers take this mandate very seriously. Given that there are currently 1.6 billion Muslims around the world, the 10% of true believers means a worldwide army of 1,600,000,000 Muslims who actively or passively support what happened during those four days in Nairobi.

This is an asymmetrical war. The Islamists fully realize that they cannot defeat our military, so they don’t bother. They also recognize that, because they are an informal network that spans the globe, rather than representing any specific country, it’s extremely difficult for western armies to meet them on the battlefield. After all, Western armies wage war against nations, not against loose alliances of individuals.

There was little that these security guards could do with their small guns against the massive arms the terrorists brought in

There was little that these security guards could do with their small guns against the massive arms the terrorists brought in

Still, people did survive, thanks in no small part to many individual acts of bravery

Still, people did survive, thanks in no small part to many individual acts of bravery

The result is that the Islamists attack the softest targets – unarmed civilians and, optimally, children. This most recent attack against a civilian population was not aberrant. It was entirely consistent with an ideology that routinely attacks schools and other soft targets, as it did in Beslan, Russia, and as it repeatedly does in Israel.

As long as Western leadership is in denial about what is going on, we are all sitting ducks, or fish in a barrel, or turkeys at a shoot, or whatever other metaphor you want to use for a helpless population that is perpetually at risk of experiencing a slaughter against which it cannot defend itself. The only two things we, as individuals, can do are to (1) exercise our 2nd Amendment rights so that we can try to defend ourselves in the event of an attack or, at least, take a few of them with us when we go; and (2) elect politicians like Allen West, who understand that Islam is engaged in an existential war against the West, and that the West can win only by destroying the Islamists. (This doesn’t mean killing all Muslims, but it does mean waging total war against the 10%.)

(This post originally appeared in somewhat different form at Mr. Conservative.)

Did Kenya bring religion into disrepute?

I was trolling through Facebook, where one of my friends posted this article about last weekend’s events in Kenya.  (Read only if you have a very strong stomach or, if you don’t, are willing to be sick to yours.)  One of his friends, in turn, commented that Al Shabab’s acts are the kind of things that give religion a bad reputation.  I thought that was a surprisingly ecumenical comment.* I sat for quite a while afterwards trying to think of a single religion other than Islam that has, in the last, say 300 years, done anything even remotely like that.  I came up empty.

Until people are willing to admit that the problem isn’t religion, or even some generic “extremism,” but is, in fact, Islam, I don’t see us making any progress whatsoever in pushing back the barbarian onslaught.

____________________

*I know “ecumenical” isn’t quite the right word, since it pertains to all Christians faiths, not all faiths, but I’m tired, and it was the best I could come up with.

A good man with a gun saves as many as 100 people at the mall in Nairobi

An armed former Royal Marine who happened to be in the Westgate Mall in Kenya when the Al-Shabab terrorists struck, may have saved as many as 100 people.

Former Royal Marine armed with gun saves lives

For all that liberals profess to think better of people than conservatives do, one of the most striking things about them is that they believe that, the moment people get hold of guns, they turn into crazed killers.  The vast majority of people, when given a gun, will use it only for good or, at the very least, not for bad.  Disarming them means that they are unable to come to anyone’s defense.

I don’t know if this Royal Marine fired his gun, or if he just used his other skills to rescue people.  Nevertheless, one has to wonder whether he would have been as effective if he didn’t have his friend at his waist.

BBC goes the extra mile to pretend that Islam had nothing to do with yesterday’s murder spree in Kenya

We know the facts:  Gunmen invaded a mall in Nairobi, Kenya, that is primarily frequented by Westerners.  By the end of the attack, at least 39 people had been murdered and 150 injured.  There may still be hostages.  An African Muslim group called Al-Shabaab announced soon after the attack that this was intended to be a targeted attack against non-Muslims.  Lest anyone be unclear about this concept, it spelled it out:  “Only Kuffar were singled out for this attack. All Muslims inside #Westgate were escorted out by the Mujahideen before beginning the attack.”

Funnily enough, the BBC, which still clings to its reputation as a news service, failed to get Al-Shabaab’s memorandum.  When the inimitable Zombie went to check out the BBC’s coverage, the BBC turned out to have tuned out Islam from its reporting:

The BBC’s lead story this afternoon was almost a study in journalistic malfeasance: an archetypal example of how left-leaning Western journalists will violate their own consciences — and the basic principles of reporting — in their relentless quest to hide the truth.

 Such bias happens every day, and complaints about it happen just as often, but the sheer volume and speed of partisan reporting makes it difficult to highlight a single example. Even so, let’s pause for just a moment and dissect this typical specimen of ideological media spin.

The article under discussion can be found here — at least for now. Since media outlets often delete articles which they later find embarrassing, I can’t guarantee it will be online forever, so to preserve the evidence I took a screenshot, which you can see here.

[snip]

Right off the bat, even in the headline itself, the BBC commits a litany of egregious and inexcusable journalistic errors.

The first and most obvious blunder is the missing subject. Who did what? Well, according the the BBC, an entity called a “shoot-out” committed mass murder in Nairobi. Note how there are no human actors in the headline. It wasn’t people who killed 11, it was an inanimate and leaderless “shoot-out” that killed 11.

This is a basic grammatical snafu which even freshmen journalism students quickly learn to avoid. But not the BBC, apparently.

On a second, more subtle, level, use of the word “shoot-out” implies that there were two equal combatants involved, and that therefore blame can be spread around to everyone. But as we know, it wasn’t at first a “shoot-out” — it was a group of terrorists massacring unarmed non-Muslims. (Only much later, after police arrived, did it devolve into a shoot-out.)

Since the BBC has been one of the world’s leading media outlets for nearly a century, and in previous generations set the global standard for news-writing guidelines, they have absolutely no excuse for writing a headline like that — they can’t claim “We’re new at this kind of thing” or “We’re just bloggers — cut us some slack.” No. The BBC literally wrote the book on how to write proper headlines. And if they write a poor headline like this, it must be on purpose.

I urge you to read Zombie’s entire post, just so you know how the Left lies to people.

To appreciate the scope of its egregiously misleading excuse for journalism, imagine if, when Hitler’s troops invaded Poland, jump-starting WWII, the BBC headline had been “Scattered German Troops Engage Some Polish Citizens In Battle.”

The New York Times comes out pro-gun: but only for African elephant protection

Babar's mother getting shot

As far as the New York Times and the rest of American Progressives are concerned, those Americans who insist that they want to exercise their Second Amendment rights for self-protection are delusional and, quite possibly, nascent psychopathic killers.  Guns are bad.  Really, really bad.  The evidence is irrelevant because . . . yes, guns are bad.

Except that guns aren’t always bad.  While your average Progressive understands that they’re obviously a bad idea when people use them to protect themselves, they’re a very good — indeed, an innovative idea — when Africans come together with guns to protect elephants.

I am not delusional (nor am I a nascent psychopathic killer).  The New York Times practically vibrates with excitement as it describes the way Kenyans have armed themselves and come together to protect elephants from poachers:

From Tanzania to Cameroon, tens of thousands of elephants are being poached each year, more than at any time in decades, because of Asia’s soaring demand for ivory. Nothing seems to be stopping it, including deploying national armies, and the bullet-riddled carcasses keep stacking up. Scientists say that at this rate, African elephants could soon go the way of the wild American bison.

But in this stretch of northern Kenya, destitute villagers have seized upon an unconventional solution that, if replicated elsewhere, could be the key to saving thousands of elephants across Africa, conservationists say. In a growing number of communities here, people are so eager, even desperate, to protect their wildlife that civilians with no military experience are banding together, grabbing shotguns and G3 assault rifles and risking their lives to confront heavily armed poaching gangs.

[snip]

Villagers are also turning against poachers because the illegal wildlife trade fuels crime, corruption, instability and intercommunal fighting. Here in northern Kenya, poachers are diversifying into stealing livestock, printing counterfeit money and sometimes holding up tourists. Some are even buying assault rifles used in ethnic conflicts.

The conservation militias are often the only security forces around, so they have become de facto 911 squads, rushing off to all sorts of emergencies in areas too remote for the police to quickly gain access to and often getting into shootouts with poachers and bandits.

“This isn’t just about animals,” said Paul Elkan, a director at the Wildlife Conservation Society, who is trying to set up community ranger squads in South Sudan modeled on the Kenyan template. “It’s about security, conflict reconciliation, even nation building.”

You can read the whole thing here but, if I understand it correctly, the Times isn’t just excited about the elephants (although that’s important).  The Times is also thrilled about is the fact that, when African villagers form armed militias, they can protect themselves from crime, economic destitution, and hostile neighbors — all as a byproduct of protecting elephants.

Hey, I’ve got an idea!

Let’s import a few hundred elephants into various American cities, such as Chicago, Detroit, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, etc..  Then, when Obama and his team go after American guns, we no longer have to rely on something as outdated as the Second Amendment to protect American gun ownership (it’s just for muskets, for Gawd’s sake!).  Nor do we have to drag out all those tired old statistics showing that, as John Lott trenchantly puts it, “More Guns, Less Crime.”

Instead, when the Obama government shows up on our doorsteps, demanding that we disarm ourselves, we can talk in language the Progressives understand:  “If you take away our guns, hundreds of elephants will die needlessly!  Use a gun; save an elephant.”

Is Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a 1978 case rejecting academic racial quotas, the smoking gun behind Obama’s Kenyan identity? *UPDATED*

Barack Obama has kept carefully hidden all of his college records.  Many of us have assumed that this secrecy is because those papers show that he took nothing but Leftist Mickey Mouse classes and ended up with lousy grades.

Now that we know that Obama marketed himself to publishers as a Kenyan, though, we’re beginning to suspect that the papers hide, not only academic mediocrity, but the same Kenyan identity Obama was using to market himself in the publishing world.  The question, of course, is why would Obama pretend to be African?  After all, when it came to college admissions, wasn’t being black good enough for affirmative action purposes?

Normally, in the years since the Civil Rights movement, the answer would be “Yes, being half-black (not half-white, but half-black) should have given Obama the leg-up he needed to parlay mediocre grades and a drug habit into a shiny diploma from one of America’s best institutions of higher education.”  Obama’s problem, though, was that he came of age at a very specific time in the annals of affirmative action.  To appreciate this, you have to know that Obama, who graduated from high school in 1979, must have started looking at colleges in 1978.

When it comes to college admissions, 1978 isn’t just any year.  It’s a very special year.  It was the year that the Supreme Court decided Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265.

Allan Bakke was a young man with an excellent academic record, who nevertheless got turned down by 12 medical schools.  When he applied to the medical school at UC Davis, and was again rejected, he learned that he had almost certainly lost out on the opportunity to attend that medical school because UC had set a quota for admitting non-white people in order to meet the University’s “diversity” requirements.   Bakke sued.  In a deeply fragmented decision, the Supreme Court held that this race-based admission process was unconstitutional.

With that decision, Obama, who was a self-confessed slacker in high school, suddenly lost his e-ticket to a good college.   He couldn’t know then (nor would it have mattered) that the various concurrences in this deeply divided opinion would eventually open the door to colleges and universities making race a “factor” in admission, so much so that this “factor-ness” eventually created a whole new quota system.

My best guess is that, denied an opportunity to use quota systems to parlay a lousy academic record into a quality college admission, Obama searched around for other means of bypassing his academic failings.  It was this search that led him to announce that he was Kenyan.  I’m sure that a certain amount of digging will reveal that, just when the Bakke decision came down, American universities were engaged in some sort of pro-active policy involving increasing the number of African nationals on America’s college campuses.  Obama was happy to oblige the universities in this effort by co-opting his father’s nationality, and burying the fact that he was a garden-variety American black kid.

There’s the nexus — In 1978, Obama, who already then was willing to lie to achieve his goals, created a false identity to deal with the changes the Bakke decision wrought on college admissions.

UPDATE:  This isn’t so much an “update,” as it is further thoughts.  Although this post might explain why Obama did what he did, it’s really less of a post about Obama himself than it as an indictment showing the rot in the whole race/affirmative action system.

I actually came at the theory bass ackwards, when I was writing about the commonality between Warren and Obama.  I began by looking at affirmative action’s origins as a well-intentioned paving stone on the road to Hell.  In the beginning, do-gooders felt that it made sense to give the then-current generation of blacks a leg up, rather than making them wait the two to three generations it took other disenfranchised people (Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, Jewish immigrants, etc.) to “make it” in America. After all, we had forced upon these blacks their sufferings, and it was up to us to fix it, and to fix it quickly.

Once it affirmative action became institutionalized, however, it inevitably became corrupt.  From the institution’s side, it was a numbers game and a way to boast about liberal credibility, irrespective of whether the student or employee benefiting actually suffered handicaps from his or her race.  (Witness the way Harvard milked Elizabeth Warren’s Native Americanism, despite the fact that, even if true, it never handicapped her upbringing or denied her educational opportunities.)

From the point of view of ordinary Americans who were willing to say anything to advance, it became a ginormous loophole.  For example, back in the 1970s, I knew a rich Jewish girl with average grades who got into Lowell, San Francisco’s academic high school, by using a dark complexion and a fake accent (~) on her lily-white name to pretend to be Hispanic.  Fearing a charge of racism, the district caved and let her in, despite the fact that other students who did not run from their white heritage had better grades.  Elizabeth Warren is not the first to play this game.

Thinking about this history, I asked myself why Obama didn’t just leverage himself through the system based upon his being half-black?  Why did he have to be African?  It was those high school memories that let me to the answer.  Like me, Barack Obama, who is almost exactly my age, graduated in the shadow of Bakke.  It didn’t affect me, but it sure as heck must have affected him.

Standing alone, my Bakke theory does nothing more than prove, once more, that Obama lies, which is something we’ve seen in real time over the last 3.5 years.  Nevertheless, I think this theory has a larger utility insofar as it lays bare one of the rotten pillars of the Leftist race hustlers.

(Welcome, Daily Caller readers!)

Obama and Elizabeth Warren: birds of a feather who fake facts to capitalize on Orwellian institutional diversity

Ed Driscoll has the best wrap-up I’ve seen of the bombshell report that Barack Obama either told his literary agent that he was born in Kenya or, when she made a mistake to that effect, was happy to let that mistake sit around, uncorrected, until 2007. Ed’s point, like mine, is that this agency squiblet doesn’t actually mean Obama was born in Kenya.  As someone pointed out (and I’ll add a link when I remember who did the pointing), if Obama really was born in Kenya, Hillary would have worked that angle back in 2008.

Nevertheless, this 1991 document, one that pre-dates Obama’s political career, establishes more clearly than anything else could two important things.  First, it proves beyond all doubt that Obama lies and lies and lies.  Jack Cashill and Roger Simon, both published authors, say no agency would ever publish a bio without running it by the author first.  Whoever wrote those words, Obama was complicit.  Assuming as I do that he’s just a second-rate mind from Hawaii, he actively or passively lied back then.  And when he scrambles now to recover from that lie, he’ll be lying again.

Second, this little print publication, which was in active distribution through 2007, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the media is now and has been running interference for Obama.  The media should have found this document  — and would have found it if it had only stopped searching through Sarah Palin’s garbage cans.

I continue to have a deep, deep desire to see Obama’s grades and job applications.  Just as Elizabeth Warren cast herself as “Faux-cahontas” to get affirmative action benefits, I’m willing to bet that Obama, when applying to college and seeking jobs, claimed Kenyan birth in order to cast himself as an “exotic” who would lend even greater diversity cachet to colleges and businesses.  If American black is good, African black is even better.  The institution manages to get both a person of color and someone who suffered colonial depredations.  It’s a double sin expiation for the institution that grabs this person.

-

I was talking to someone today who claimed that the U.S. is still a deeply racist nation.  I suggested that it is no longer possible to call the U.S. racist, because it’s no longer possible to have a non-insane discussion about race.  In a world where George Zimmerman, a half-Peruvian, part-black man is a “white-Hispanic;” where lily-white Elizabeth Warren gets one job after another based upon an imaginary, possibly Cherokee ancestor  who bequeathed 3 droplets of non-white blood to Warren; and where an American born nonentity makes himself interesting by claiming an African birthplace, who the heck can have a reasonable discussion about either race or American attitudes towards race?

The topic of race in America is so toxic and polluted, it’s time to do what we should have done a long time ago:  abandon it altogether.  Otherwise, we risk return to a bizarre racial world of quadroons, octaroons, quintroons, and 32nd-roons — and worse, it does so, not even based upon actually genetic lines, but upon made-up histories.

“Born in Kenya” — not a claim from the Birthers, but from Obama’s own literary agents, back in 1991

Breitbart.com dropped a bombshell:

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

Read the whole Breitbart report (which is very detailed) here, including photos of the entire promotional booklet.

Does this mean Obama was in fact born in Kenya?  Who knows.  I doubt that the literary agent came up with this biographical data on her own, or that it went by Obama without his approval.  Either Obama fed this information to the literary agent, or he happily accepted the statement because it gave him a commercial advantage.

Assuming Obama fed the information to the agent, it still doesn’t answer whether Obama was actually born in Kenya or if he was re-making himself to obtain a monetary advantage (cool internationalist versus garden-variety American guy).  The one thing we know with absolute certainty, though, is that Obama lies, and then he lies again, and then he lies about his lies.  He’s remade himself so many times that, absent reliable documentation from August 1961,  it’s still not possible to separate truth from fiction when it comes to Obama’s personal history.

Hat tip:  Everyone!  This one went off like a bomb in my in box.