I suppose this was inevitable, just as the shooting itself was inevitable. There may be no way of knowing for sure if ISIS directed the shooters to do what they did - either directly or indirectly - but it only makes sense that they would make this claim. They're not likely to pay any price for doing so, and they clearly think it serves their interests to create the impression that they're on the ground in the U.S.
The show was hosted by the New York-based American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI)--which has been labeled an anti-Muslim "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center--featuring cartoon drawings that lampooned the prophet Muhammad. Pamela Geller, the group's president, known for inciting conspiracy theories and speaking out against
what she calls the "Islamization" of the United States, organized the contentious event. The keynote speaker was Geert Wilders, who has been outspoken against Muslims and marked for assassination by al-Qaeda and its allies.
By the way, am I the only conservative who questions whether it was a good idea to hold this event? Of course the ADFI didn't "deserve" to be shot at, and of course no one but the shooters is responsible for what happened, and of course free speech is worth fighting for, and of course there's value in demonstrating the true nature of radical Islam. But . . .
Knowing full well that Islamists are likely to show up guns-ablazing, you hold an event expressly for that reason. Have you made your point? Sure. But what risk have you taken? They might kill you. They might kill others. (It was a security guard, not one of the leaders of ADFI, who took the bullet.) They might kill dozens, or even hundreds. That doesn't make you guilty of the crime, but I think it's still worth question whether this is a wise decision. As it turns out, no innocents got killed and two jihadists were removed from the Earth, so you can argue that the result of the experiment was a net positive.
But I'm sure ADFI's goal was to significantly change public perception, largely by forcing the government and the U.S. media to pay more attention because it's on U.S. soil and they have no choice. Will they really do that? I don't think the coverage thus far indicates the strategy is working, and I'd be very surprised if the Obama Administration bends over backwards in response to an attack on Pamela Geller.
I'm all for fighting hard, but that doesn't mean absolutely any tactic you can think of - and the more reckless the better - brings you victory. I don't expect a lot of support for my questioning what happened here, but there has to be a better way to fight this battle than this.