Why is Islamic extremist Boulder, CO shooter incompetent to stand trial?

Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa Boulder CO shooter Islamic extremists

Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa: Why is the Islamic extremist Boulder, CO shooter incompetent to stand trial?

A little over a year ago, Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa murdered 10 people inside a Boulder, CO King Soopers grocery store, but he has yet to stand trial or enter a plea because he has been declared “incompetent” to do so three times since the mass murder.

Why hasn’t the man charged with 10 counts of first-degree murder, 47 counts of attempted first-degree murder, one count of first-degree assault, 10 counts of felony possession of a prohibited large-capacity magazine, and 47 crime of violence sentence-enhancers. been tried yet?

Perhaps it’s because his crime doesn’t fit the “we need more gun control” agenda of anti-Second Amendment progressives like Colorado Rep. Joe Neguse (Boulder is in his district). Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t fit the race-baiting narrative that says he received special treatment due to “white privilege” (he is of Middle Eastern descent). Perhaps it’s because he doesn’t fit the “domestic terrorism” rhetoric Joe Biden is using to build his police state. Perhaps it’s because he is an Islamic extremist with ISIS sympathies who committed his terrorist act in the name of Allah.

I’m going with all of the above, but I believe the primary reason for this game of judicial rope-a-dope is that Boulder, CO, shooter Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa is an Islamic extremist with ISIS sympathies and that Joe Biden is president.

Even before details of the Boulder, CO, shooter were available, progressives blamed the mass murder on guns and white privilege, but we eventually learned that Ahmand Al Aliwi Alissa was likely motivated by radical Islam (via New York Post):

Alissa’s now-deleted Facebook page said he was “born in Syria in 1999 came to the USA in 2002,” the Daily Beast reported.

He included postings about Islam, such as its prayers and religious holidays, on his account — and shared another person’s thoughts the day after the mosque massacres in Christchurch, New Zealand, that killed 51 people in 2019.

“The Muslims at the #christchurch mosque were not the victims of a single shooter,” read the post on Alissa’s page, according to the Daily Beast. “They were the victims of the entire Islamophobia industry that vilified them.”

And here’s a piece of inconvenient truth: Joe Biden knew about Alissa’s background, including his sympathies for ISIS, prior to making his demands for more gun control:

The appeasement of radical Islam was big business during the Obama presidency. It was Joe Biden’s former boss who decided that paying ISIS not to take hostages was a better policy than fighting them, and it was during the latter part of Obama’s second term that pro-Muslim/anti-American sympathies in the judicial system made being “anti-Muslim” a justifiable reason to deny someone their constitutional rights.

Denying the existence of radical Islamic extremists was actually official policy for the Obama/Biden administration — they wouldn’t even use the words when discussing the topic — and they readily defended their extremism.

For example, Obama was featured in a February 2015 op-ed for the L.A. Times titled, “Our fight against violent extremism” — note the use of the word “violent” instead of “Islamic” — where he defended the murder and torture of innocent people at the hands of radical Islamic terrorists as the result of America’s failure to address their “legitimate grievances.”

“Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies.” (emphasis mine)

In his keynote speech at the White House summit on preventing violent extremism, Obama defended the peaceful nature of the religion of Islam despite the actions of extremists and terrorists using it for their own ends.

“No religion is responsible for violence and terrorism . . . People are responsible for violence and terrorism.”

A few months after making this claim, we learned that Obama didn’t really believe in the innocence of all religions.

During the White House’s 2015 National Prayer Breakfast, Obama played the moral equivalence card — a tool often used by the far-left to draw false comparisons between two phenomena which are not morally equivalent at all — to defend atrocities committed by Islamic extremists by comparing them white Christian Americans.

“Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.

“In our home country slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

During his presidency, Obama went to great lengths to separate radical Islamic extremists from acts of terrorism:

Following revelations that Boulder, CO shooter Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa was an Islamic extremist, some on the far-left immediately went to work changing the narrative to Islamophobia while still blaming the shooting on white privilege:


Like Obama, Joe Biden blames terrorism on white Americans instead of Islamic extremists.

During the 2016 Democrat primaries, Biden spoke at the “Million Muslim Votes” summit hosted by Engage Action and gave an early indication of his embrace of Obama’s pro-Islam/anti-American approach to terrorism when he promised to lift Trump’s travel ban affecting Muslim-majority countries in response to what he called “an unconscionable rise in Islamophobia.”

Concerning the travel bans, Biden called them “racist” and “xenophobic” in a February 2020 op-ed.

“The ‘Muslim Ban,’ this new ‘African Ban,’ Trump’s atrocious asylum and refugee policies — they are all designed to make it harder for black and brown people to immigrate to the United States. It’s that simple. They are racist. They are xenophobic.” (emphasis mine)

In his 2021 address to a Joint Session of Congress, Biden lumped “white supremacists” — he called them the “most lethal terrorist threat” to the country — with Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups.

“Make no mistake – the terrorist threat has evolved beyond Afghanistan since 2001 and we will remain vigilant against threats to the United States, wherever they come from. Al Qaeda and ISIS are in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, and other places in Africa and the Middle East and beyond.

“And, we won’t ignore what our own intelligence agencies have determined – the most lethal terrorist threat to the homeland today is from white supremacist terrorism. (emphasis mine)

In CRS 16-8.5-101(4), Colorado law provides that a defendant is competent to proceed with trial when that person does not have a mental or developmental disability that would prevent him or her from sufficiently assisting the criminal defense attorney. In other words, it means that the defendant is competent to stand trial for the crime(s) alleged against him or her. Incompetency means a defendant cannot proceed to stand trial.

Despite assurances from doctors and the judge that “there is a substantial probability that he will likely be restored to competency within the reasonable future,” Allisa might never be declared competent to stand trial (i.e., non-restorable) and ultimately never have to face charges.

In the end, Boulder, CO shooter Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa’s competency or incompetency to stand trial may become a moot point because Joe Biden and Colorado progressives are ready to give him a pass either way, especially since he’s an Islamic extremist.


David Leach is the owner of the Strident Conservative. He holds people of every political stripe accountable for their failure to uphold conservative values, and he promotes those values instead of political parties.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of his daily two-minute radio feature: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS