Terror expert, Brigitte Gabriel, accuses CNN of editing segment to fit pro-Islamist bias

Anti-Islamist activist Brigitte Gabriel took her case against Islamic terrorism to a national audience Sunday, repeating her warnings about the danger radical Muslims around the world pose to civilians at home in the United States.

brigittegabriel0623And she had to win an outnumbered debate to do it.

Appearing on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” Gabriel was repeatedly challenged by host Brian Stelter – whose pro-Muslim sympathies were barely disguised – as well her ostensible opponent, Linda Sarsou, director of the Arab American Association of New York.

Gabriel, the founder of Act! for America, was undeterred.

“We are dealing, Linda, with a radical Islamic element that wants to wreak havoc on the United States,” she said.

This wasn’t Gabriel’s first rodeo, of course. The longtime activist made headlines at a Heritage Foundation panel last week — many of them hatefully negative — when she pointed out how dangerous radicalized Islam is to the United States.

She made the point again Sunday, in the face of Stelter’s willfully blind skepticism.

“The terrorist threat has been there, Brian, for years,” Gabriel answered. “America has been attacked under different administrations since 1979 by radical Islamists whether we had a Democrat or a Republican in office.”

Stelter didn’t want to hear it, and appealed to Sarsou for instances of the American media actually encouraging anti-Islamic feeling in this country.

Laughably, her response was the Boston Marathon bombing – where the New York Post mistakenly focused on two North African men as possible suspects.

(OK, Linda, the Post got it wrong that time, but most Americans are aware that the actual Marathon bombers did in fact turn out to be radicalized Muslims bent on murdering Americans.)

Equally laughably, Sarsou tried to prove that radicalized Muslims aren’t a threat in the country because most of the plots that have been foiled by authorities were foiled because of tips from within the Muslim community.

True enough, maybe – but who crafted the plots in the first place? The Little Sisters of the Poor?

Sarsou didn’t address the question, but Gabriel did.

“We are both faced with an enemy wishing both our destructions,” she told Sarsou. “When those people attacked the World Trade Center, they wanted to kill Americans, Muslims, Christians and everybody.”

The Times Square bombing, the plot to bomb the New York subway system. Gabriel could have gone on – and on, and on.

“We’re talking about the mass killing of thousands of Americans, if not millions,” she said.

That’s what she’s talking about. Apologists like Sarsou want to talk about what they pretend is discrimination. Libs like Stelter want to talk about what they pretend is media bias, when the bias is almost entirely in the direction of Muslim sympathizers.

In fact, Gabriel took to Facebook on Sunday to complain about the editing job “Reliable Sources” did on the segment.

Check out the debate here. As strong as Gabriel’s performance was, she argued Mondaythat it was even stronger, but that CNN’s editing of 30-minute encounter was crafted deliberately to try hurt her. Given the circumstances, that’s almost certainly true, but still she shone.


Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!

Success! Thank you for donating. Please share BPR content to help combat the lies.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

PLEASE JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and great conversation. If you've commented with us before, we'll need you to re-input your email address for this. The public will not see it and we do not share it.

Latest Articles