BREAKING: 'Targeted Terror Attack' Hits Boulder, Colorado, During Pro-Israel Gathering

[GoldenBoy89]

Mohamed had been planning this attack for the last year and was waiting for his oldest daughter to graduate from high school before completing the attack. She graduated last Thursday.

Mohamed expressed his hatred for the Zionist Organization as they support and fund the bombings that are taking place in Palestine. He said he searched for Zionist groups and found the one in Boulder which advertised their weekly marches down Pearl Street Mall in Boulder, Colorado every week on Sundays.

Mohamed searched YouTube and learned how to make Molotov cocktails. Mohamed said he had to use Molotov cocktails after he was denied the purchase of a gun due to him not being a legal citizen. Mohamed said he took a concealed carry class where he learned to shoot a gun but that all changed after he was denied the purchase.

Mohamed said he wanted them to all die and that was the plan, he said he would go back and do it again and had no regret doing what he did. Mohamed said anyone who supports the exist of Israel on "our land" is Zionist. Mohamed clarified "our Land" was Palestine.

Mohamed said it was revenge as the Zionist group did not care about thousands of hostages from Palestine. He said they care about their benefit, money, and power. Mohamed said this had nothing to do with the Jewish community and was specific in the Zionist group supporting the killings of people on his land (Palestine).

https://www.coloradojudicial.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2505040%20Arrest%20Warrant%20Signed_Redacted_Redacted.pdf

Can’t help but think of the lives saved by a simple gun law preventing this nut from getting a hold of one.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How did Muslims, Christians and Jews manage to live together in Palestine all those centuries before the Mandate? Why did Jews throughout the Middle ages see Palestine as a place of refuge from the pogroms of Europe? Why did tens of thousands flee to Palestine during the Reconquista? Kind of a dumb thing to do if all the Muslims there were going to kill them. Oh, and as to that, why did the Muslims wait so long to start the killing? It's not like they didn't have the opportunity--Christian Europe didn't seem to have much difficulty doing it at any time.

The "period of peace" you're referring to ties in with a thing I mentioned in my previous post.

Under Ottoman rule, Jews were given dhimmi status.

Which for those who aren't familiar, isn't much better than the treatment Black people received under Jim Crow in the south.

Quick recap:
dhimmi status came with legal and social restrictions. Jews had to pay a special tax (jizya or haraç), could not carry weapons or ride horses, faced limitations on building or repairing synagogues, and were subject to sumptuary laws regarding clothing and public behavior. While Jews could engage in some lower-level professions, they remained legally subordinate to Muslims and faced discrimination.


So while they did "manage to live together", it wasn't because of mutual respect, it was because they had no choice but to relegate themselves to second class citizens in order to not get punished.


It'd be like saying "Well, back in the 1950's in Alabama, Blacks and Whites managed to live together and the violent crime rate was much lower"

Yeah, it's because one group was relegated to "second class status", and had no choice but to deal with it because the law wasn't on their side in that part of the country back then.


The abolition of the dhimmi system and removal of the jizya tax in the late 1850's was something that sparked a lot of backlash in the Muslim community, as the legal framework shift (making non-Muslims equal to Muslims) was not well-received and destabilized things.

(and many of the decentralized leaders opted to ignore the new edicts and continued trying to impose the restrictions -- the same way after the civil rights legislation was passed here in the US, many of the local leaders down south continued trying to enforce certain rules)



Or to put it bluntly and succinctly.
Muslims were willing to live with Jews in their nations provided "those Jews don't get too uppity and want the same rights and statuses as us Muslims have"

 

[durangodawood]

Thats true. But we are talking about the context of nations.

How different is that really? If people X turf people Y off their land, then they literally stole their land. I mean, we do believe in land ownership, right? Even communists would have recognized people Y's communal ownership of the land.

Sounds like youre advocating for the supremacy of sheer amoral force of will. Do what thou wilt.

 

[BCP1928]

The "period of peace" you're referring to ties in with a thing I mentioned in my previous post.

Under Ottoman rule, Jews were given dhimmi status.

Which for those who aren't familiar, isn't much better than the treatment Black people received under Jim Crow in the south.

Quick recap:
dhimmi status came with legal and social restrictions. Jews had to pay a special tax (jizya or haraç), could not carry weapons or ride horses, faced limitations on building or repairing synagogues, and were subject to sumptuary laws regarding clothing and public behavior. While Jews could engage in some lower-level professions, they remained legally subordinate to Muslims and faced discrimination.


So while they did "manage to live together", it wasn't because of mutual respect, it was because they had no choice but to relegate themselves to second class citizens in order to not get punished.


It'd be like saying "Well, back in the 1950's in Alabama, Blacks and Whites managed to live together and the violent crime rate was much lower"

Yeah, it's because one group was relegated to "second class status", and had no choice but to deal with it because the law wasn't on their side in that part of the country back then.


The abolition of the dhimmi system and removal of the jizya tax in the late 1850's was something that sparked a lot of backlash in the Muslim community, as the legal framework shift (making non-Muslims equal to Muslims) was not well-received and destabilized things.

(and many of the decentralized leaders opted to ignore the new edicts and continued trying to impose the restrictions -- the same way after the civil rights legislation was passed here in the US, many of the local leaders down south continued trying to enforce certain rules)



Or to put it bluntly and succinctly.
Muslims were willing to live with Jews in their nations provided "those Jews don't get too uppity and want the same rights and statuses as us Muslims have"

Aha! Real history at last. Be careful, it's a slippery slope you're on. You'll never get to the MAGA position, "Palestinians have always wanted to kill all the Jews in the world" the way you are going. The funny thing is, real history doesn't make the Palestians look any better or Jews look any worse. I can't think why conservatives are so allergic to it.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

The "period of peace" you're referring to ties in with a thing I mentioned in my previous post.

Under Ottoman rule, Jews were given dhimmi status.

Which for those who aren't familiar, isn't much better than the treatment Black people received under Jim Crow in the south.

Quick recap:
dhimmi status came with legal and social restrictions. Jews had to pay a special tax (jizya or haraç), could not carry weapons or ride horses, faced limitations on building or repairing synagogues, and were subject to sumptuary laws regarding clothing and public behavior. While Jews could engage in some lower-level professions, they remained legally subordinate to Muslims and faced discrimination.


So while they did "manage to live together", it wasn't because of mutual respect, it was because they had no choice but to relegate themselves to second class citizens in order to not get punished.


It'd be like saying "Well, back in the 1950's in Alabama, Blacks and Whites managed to live together and the violent crime rate was much lower"

Yeah, it's because one group was relegated to "second class status", and had no choice but to deal with it because the law wasn't on their side in that part of the country back then.


The abolition of the dhimmi system and removal of the jizya tax in the late 1850's was something that sparked a lot of backlash in the Muslim community, as the legal framework shift (making non-Muslims equal to Muslims) was not well-received and destabilized things.

(and many of the decentralized leaders opted to ignore the new edicts and continued trying to impose the restrictions -- the same way after the civil rights legislation was passed here in the US, many of the local leaders down south continued trying to enforce certain rules)



Or to put it bluntly and succinctly.
Muslims were willing to live with Jews in their nations provided "those Jews don't get too uppity and want the same rights and statuses as us Muslims have"

Sounds better than the Christian alternative in Spain and Portugal. Expelled in 1492 and 1497. At least they got to keep the clothes on their back.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Aha! Real history at last. Be careful, it's a slippery slope you're on. You'll never get to the MAGA position, "Palestinians have always wanted to kill all the Jews in the world" the way you are going. The funny thing is, real history doesn't make the Palestians look any better or Jews look any worse. I can't think why conservatives are so allergic to it.

But, in the interest of fairness...

If one argument is going to use a very recent lens to evaluation the situation, isn't it apropos that the counter-argument would do the same?

As I noted before, one faction tends to pretend that it was all lollipops and gum drops prior to 1948.

So people tend to discuss the very recent history and events.

Even apart from dhimmi status stuff (and the backlash that occurred when it was removed)

People often also neglect to mention the name Amin al-Husseini.

He was the Palestinian leader (and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920's), who just so happened to collaborate with Hitler.

The Nazis actually bankrolled his broadcasting operation and paid him a salary that was as much as they were paying their Field Marshalls at the time. ...the same guy who said

"The Day of Judgement will come, when the Muslims will crush the Jews completely: And when every tree behind which a Jew hides will say: 'There is a Jew behind me, Kill him!"

And, On 1 March 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husseini said: "Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."




So if one faction is going to base their evaluation on a "history of the conflict starts with this bad thing that happened in 1948" lens, why can't the other side base their evaluation on a "history of the conflict starts in 1921" lens?

Obviously both are shallow and myopic, but both factions in a debate should at least have to play by the same rules.

 

[Ophiolite]

It appears from the post that all the antisemitism is Netanyahu's fault. As if everyone loved the Jews until he started bombing Gaza.

I didn't have a problem with Jews, I don't have a problem with Jews, I don't anticipate ever having a problem with Jews.

I do have a problem with an Israeli government whose recent behaviour in Gaza is difficult to distinguish from genocide. But let me concede it is not genocide and simply say that it is so inhumane and lacking in empathy that is disgusts me very deeply indeed.

And just to anticipate possible responses to those remarks, the actions of Palestinian terrorists enrage and sadden me simultaneously. You can now waste your time figuring out the relative measure of disgust versus rage and sadness.

 

[Ophiolite]

Dresden is nothing to brag about.

There are few things in wars that are worth bragging about, but Dresden - and most of the allied bombing of Germany - were notable low points.

I can't help noticing that many of the posters here are in the category beloved by propagadists that paints the opposition as ogres, and the issues as clear black and white, with nary a hint of grey. If the world were actually that simple that could be a sound position to take. Unfortuantely it is a tad more complex.

@ozso Since, you asked and don't seem to have been answered, in descending order Dresden was the responsibility of Churchill, the War Cabinet, Air Chief Marshall* 'Bomber" Harris, then the British People en masse (for the most part).

* I may have the wrong rank. Just calling it from memory.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I didn't have a problem with Jews, I don't have a problem with Jews, I don't anticipate ever having a problem with Jews.

I do have a problem with an Israeli government whose recent behaviour in Gaza is difficult to distinguish from genocide. But let me concede it is not genocide and simply say that it is so inhumane and lacking in empathy that is disgusts me very deeply indeed.

And just to anticipate possible responses to those remarks, the actions of Palestinian terrorists enrage and sadden me simultaneously. You can now waste your time figuring out the relative measure of disgust versus rage and sadness.

Great. I am sure Fantine appreciates you sharing your position on her behalf.

 

[Valletta]

Can’t help but think of the lives saved by a simple gun law preventing this nut from getting a hold of one.

And I can't help thinking what if he and so many others had never been allowed to stay in this country?

 

[Postvieww]

Burning people alive is particularly cruel.

On this we agree ! But it relevant that he was still here because of the Biden immigration failure.

 

[rjs330]

How different is that really? If people X turf people Y off their land, then they literally stole their land. I mean, we do believe in land ownership, right? Even communists would have recognized people Y's communal ownership of the land.

Sounds like youre advocating for the supremacy of sheer amoral force of will. Do what thou wilt.

I'm just pointing out the reality of situation. If you want to whine about stolen land then whine about how every nation and people in them live on stolen land.

And lets just say the land is stolen. Who exactly do we give it back to?

I mean if you are going to claim it was stolen then lets give it back to the original owners then.

The entire argument about stolen land is a ridiculous one when it comes to nations and nation building.

Either nobody lives on stolen land or everybody does. I mean what are you even advocating for in all this "stolen land" silliness.

You have the conquered and rhe conquerors. And the land only belongs to the people who are able to protect and defend the land they are on. Thats it.

I'm not advocating for anything. Just being real. Its like there are those who insist on silly arguments that when taken to the ultimate conclusion are patently ridiculous.

 

[rjs330]

But, in the interest of fairness...

If one argument is going to use a very recent lens to evaluation the situation, isn't it apropos that the counter-argument would do the same?

As I noted before, one faction tends to pretend that it was all lollipops and gum drops prior to 1948.

So people tend to discuss the very recent history and events.

Even apart from dhimmi status stuff (and the backlash that occurred when it was removed)

People often also neglect to mention the name Amin al-Husseini.

He was the Palestinian leader (and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the 1920's), who just so happened to collaborate with Hitler.

The Nazis actually bankrolled his broadcasting operation and paid him a salary that was as much as they were paying their Field Marshalls at the time. ...the same guy who said

"The Day of Judgement will come, when the Muslims will crush the Jews completely: And when every tree behind which a Jew hides will say: 'There is a Jew behind me, Kill him!"

And, On 1 March 1944, while speaking on Radio Berlin, al-Husseini said: "Arabs, rise as one man and fight for your sacred rights. Kill the Jews wherever you find them. This pleases God, history, and religion. This saves your honor. God is with you."




So if one faction is going to base their evaluation on a "history of the conflict starts with this bad thing that happened in 1948" lens, why can't the other side base their evaluation on a "history of the conflict starts in 1921" lens?

Obviously both are shallow and myopic, but both factions in a debate should at least have to play by the same rules.

I mentioned all this in another thread. Of course it was pretty much ignored.

 

[rjs330]

I didn't have a problem with Jews, I don't have a problem with Jews, I don't anticipate ever having a problem with Jews.

I do have a problem with an Israeli government whose recent behaviour in Gaza is difficult to distinguish from genocide. But let me concede it is not genocide and simply say that it is so inhumane and lacking in empathy that is disgusts me very deeply indeed.

And just to anticipate possible responses to those remarks, the actions of Palestinian terrorists enrage and sadden me simultaneously. You can now waste your time figuring out the relative measure of disgust versus rage and sadness.

Here is what is often missed. The Israelis would love to live in peace. Do you honestly believe that they like having to have built a wall, build shelters to protect themselves from attacks? Deal with suicide bombers?

What kind of lunatics would love that?

Now thats not to say they have done everything right. But they sure have done a sight more than rhe Arabs have done to create a peaceful country. The Arabs that live there have a great deal more freedom than any Jew would in most Arab countries around them.

At some point one has to come to the conclusion that a country is eventually going to have had enough. I think Israel is there. Have they gone too far? In some ways maybe. Under the circumstances rhey face, maybe not. If they really wanted a genocide there would be a lot better way to do it than what they are doing now.

 

[jasperr]

And I can't help thinking what if he and so many others had never been allowed to stay in this country?

How would you regulate and police that?

Who are the "others"?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The entire argument about stolen land is a ridiculous one when it comes to nations and nation building.

Either nobody lives on stolen land or everybody does. I mean what are you even advocating for in all this "stolen land" silliness.

You have the conquered and rhe conquerors. And the land only belongs to the people who are able to protect and defend the land they are on. Thats it.

I'm not advocating for anything. Just being real. Its like there are those who insist on silly arguments that when taken to the ultimate conclusion are patently ridiculous.

At the risk of sounding super cynical, the "land stealing"/"injustice"/"conquest" dynamic has a system that some (note: I didn't say all) on the far-end of the progressive wing tend to adhere to when evaluating such matters, and it's not a particularly a scientific one.

Find the most recent instance where it's a group of people who are a little further left on the spectrum doing it to a group who's a little further right on the spectrum, and that's when it's "the really bad one".

Whenever it goes in the other direction, it's always just this soft, tepid critique that lends lip-service to the non-committal "I don't like violence, but here are the reasons why they were so mad" shtick to maintain the patina of consistency while still reinforcing the idea that "it's always the privileged peoples' (by current American standards) fault if you trace it back far enough"

 

[ozso]

@ozso Since, you asked and don't seem to have been answered, in descending order Dresden was the responsibility of Churchill, the War Cabinet, Air Chief Marshall* 'Bomber" Harris, then the British People en masse (for the most part).

* I may have the wrong rank. Just calling it from memory.

That doesn't answer the question of who was to blame for the bombing having taken place. I say Hitler and the Nazis were to blame.

 

[JosephZ]

The entire argument about stolen land is a ridiculous one when it comes to nations and nation building.

Either nobody lives on stolen land or everybody does. I mean what are you even advocating for in all this "stolen land" silliness.

You have the conquered and rhe conquerors. And the land only belongs to the people who are able to protect and defend the land they are on. Thats it.

What if all of the Arab states launched an unprecedented attack on Israel and managed to conquer the country? After their victory they rename Israel Palestine and allow this new state to form its own government. The Palestinian government invites Palestinian refugees from all over the world to return with most of the Israeli population fleeing to Europe and the United States. The homes and lands of the Isrealis that fled are now occupied by the newly arrived Palestinians. Around a million Israelis remain in Tel Aviv and the Palestinian government allows them to stay there, but they are put under strict surveillance, and they have to request permission from the government to travel anywhere outside of Tel Aviv.

Since the Arab states successfully invaded and took control of the former state of Israel, and the new Palestinian government is now able to protect and defend itself against any Israeli insurgencies, would you respect this new state of Palestine and recognize its right to exist?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What if all of the Arab states launched an unprecedented attack on Israel and managed to conquer the country? After their victory they rename Israel Palestine and allow this new state to form its own government. The Palestinian government invites Palestinian refugees from all over the world to return with most of the Israeli population fleeing to Europe and the United States. The homes and lands of the Isrealis that fled are now occupied by the newly arrived Palestinians. Around a million Israelis remain in Tel Aviv and the Palestinian government allows them to stay there, but they are put under strict surveillance, and they have to request permission from the government to travel anywhere outside of Tel Aviv.

Since the Arab states successfully invaded and took control of the former state of Israel, and the new Palestinian government is now able to protect and defend itself against any Israeli insurgencies, would you respect this new state of Palestine and recognize its right to exist?

Would this newly formed Palestine be surrounded by a half dozen Jewish fundamentalist states that wanted to eliminate them for religious reasons?...and would 3 of those nations be feeding weapons and hundreds of millions in funding to renegade Jewish groups that existed in the occupied territory (with the support of the majority of the Jewish population) who conveniently set up their hostile operations near schools, hospitals, and civilian areas?

And what can be said about the other interesting aspect, which is that Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan all try to take in Palestinian refugees at various points, and ended up kicking them out due to some "troublemaking". What's does the counterpart to that look like?

If not, then it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

...but I see the point you're going for.

 

[JosephZ]

Would this newly formed Palestine be surrounded by a half dozen Jewish fundamentalist states that wanted to eliminate them for religious reasons?...and would 3 of those nations be feeding weapons and hundreds of millions in funding to renegade Jewish groups that existed in the occupied territory (with the support of the majority of the Jewish population) who conveniently set up their hostile operations near schools, hospitals, and civilian areas?

And what can be said about the other interesting aspect, which is that Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan all try to take in Palestinian refugees at various points, and ended up kicking them out due to some "troublemaking". What's does the counterpart to that look like?

If not, then it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.

...but I see the point you're going for.

I was just trying to keep things simple.