FBI won't investigate jihad synagogue bomb plot -- it isn't "terrorism"

We need not delude ourselves why the FBI dropped this case. It is because the target was the hated and despised Jews.

Wildjew

We need not delude ourselves why the FBI dropped this case. It is because the target was the hated and despised Jews.

Sometimes, Wild, I'd write this off as Jewish persecution complex whining.

*** 33:21 ***

But not in the case of this post by you. You guys are rational to have a persecution complex, and your observation here is on the spot.

This could be the beginning of a *terrifying* trend—where the FBI simply refuses to take cases that might make Muslims "look bad".

That's pretty much the stated policy of Eric Holder at this point, Graven. I think both he, Janet and Prez Barack are a skeert of offending Moslems. Doing that can lead to explosions, you know.

*** 33:21 ***

Say, here's a constructive idea: have the NYPD refer the case to NASA for follow up. Its purview goes way beyond the city limits of NYC, although its mission a la Moslems is as cloudy as that of the FBI.

APF, I am listening to a book on audio entitled, "In the Garden of Beasts: Love, Terror, and an American Family in Hitler's Berlin," by Erik Larson.

Amazon wrote: "In the Garden of Beasts is a vivid portrait of Berlin during the first years of Hitler’s reign, brought to life through the stories of two people: William E. Dodd, who in 1933 became America’s first ambassador to Hitler’s regime, and his scandalously carefree daughter, Martha. Ambassador Dodd, an unassuming and scholarly man, is an odd fit among the extravagance of the Nazi elite. His frugality annoys his fellow Americans in the State Department and Dodd’s growing misgivings about Hitler’s ambitions fall on deaf ears among his peers, who are content to "give Hitler everything he wants......"

It is interesting to note the lengths to which Franklin D. Roosevelt and his State Department went to avert their collective gaze to Nazi persecution and atrocities against Germany's Jews.

What has changed?

If we want to understand the genesis of terrible and costly wars, it is in grasping the pusillanimity, appeasement and moral cowardice on the part of people in authority that leads to war. I do not personally feel as though I am persecuted - or that I have a persecution complex - but I don't have my head in the sand either.

Roosevelt appointed dedicated anti-Semites to his cabinet. The author, Erick Larson characterized Ambassador Dodd's feelings about Jews as "rudimental" anti-Semitism. Dodd - I believe at Roosevelt's request - counciled Americans Jewish leaders to keep quiet about Nazi atrocities.

American Ambassador Dodd wrote in his diary that FDR warned him: "The German authorities are treating the Jews shamefully and the Jews in this country are GREATLY EXCITED. But this is also NOT a governmental affair. WE CAN DO NOTHING except for American citizens who happen to be made victims." He said the U.S. should use only "unofficial and personal influence" on the Germans. The idea of a sending a deterrent warning to the German people was never mentioned.

I don't buy this "we can do nothing" excuse for inaction in the face of evil. A U.S. president can condemn and speak against gratuitous bloody persecution and genocide? What has President Obama said about Muslim persecution of and murderous violence against Christians in Egypt? Obama supported the "people's" revolution in Egypt. What has Obama said about the persecutions and murders of Christians by Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan? In the territories administered by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas? Nothing.

When Iran's Mullahs crushed the peaceful Green Revolution movement, Obama "sanctimoniously said the USA will not meddle" but later when - with Muslim Brotherhood backing - Egyptians rebelled, Obama demanded Egypt's secular President Mubarak resign.

"we can do nothing" is something I also disagree with. In fact, we are in a horrible condition now because no one did anything over the past few decades.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the People....with 98% of congress re-elected everytime they run, we only have outselves to blame. That can change if we get involved & I don't mean just voting once every 2 years.

Go to precinct meetings is a big step towards the right direction & only takes a few minutes. Call your county party representative & ask when the next one is going to meet.

"we can do nothing" is something I also disagree with. In fact, we are in a horrible condition now because no one did anything over the past few decades.

Ultimately, it all comes down to the People....with 98% of congress re-elected everytime they run, we only have outselves to blame. That can change if we get involved & I don't mean just voting once every 2 years.

Go to precinct meetings is a big step towards the right direction & only takes a few minutes. Call your county party representative & ask when the next one is going to meet.

I don't buy this "we can do nothing" excuse for inaction in the face of evil.

Yeah, Wild, but in these daze of detachment-from-reality-is-ok obeisance, for some reason if the detachment involves the text string "Jews" or "Israel" the decoupling becomes all the easier, even voluntary.

And, oh irony-of-irony, that en masse decoupling includes Jews.

So I can't share your optimism. I find myself looking from George Orwell to Marshal McLuhan and looking for a new book, a new thinker, for an answer to what mass media hath wrought now.

To paraphrase the title media theorist Neil Postman used for one of his books on communcations, we are Entertaining Ourselves To Death.

Cabot, I WAS a precinct committeeman in our local Republican party; eight years. I went to precinct meetings. I joined the Executive Committee in 1996, during the Clinton years. We recruited pro-life Christian conservatives into the party; mostly Catholics since one our local priests is very outspoken in defense of life.

On September 11, 2001, like many Americans, my focus and my priorities abruptly changed. As the months went by, as President George W. Bush continued to mislead the public about Islam, as he championed the establishment of a Muslim-enemy state in Israel's heartland -- even as he condemned Israel for defending herself in the mist of some of the bloodiest violence in decades -- my angst and concern heightened. Then in August 2004 Bush / Rove put language in our national party platform for the first time in the history of the GOP, calling essentially for Israel's destruction; calling for the establishment of a Muslim-terror state in Israel and the forcible uprooting of Jews from Biblical and historic Israel. At that point I took it to the public on the radio and the newspaper. The Christian officers of our party successfully sought my removal from the Republican Executive Committee. So be it.

I went to precinct meetings. For eight years I went.

APF, I do not consider myself an optimist. Nor am I a pessimist or an alarmist. I think I am a realist (not in the James Baker III / Brent Scowcroft / Henry Kissinger sense of the term) in the literal sense of the term. I try to look at reality from an historic standpoint. History I think affords many lessons. For me, the long-term future of this country does not look so good, especially in light of the election of this most recent U.S. president. It speaks ill of the good judgment of American people not simply that people could elect such a troubling man - people make mistakes - but that significant numbers of Americans continue to like him and support him, in spite of the troubling economy. Can you imagine the support he would generate were the economy prospering? You've got to wonder, what were Germans thinking when they voted for the Nazi party in the early nineteen thirties? What were Americans thinking when they voted for this man in light of his very troubling adult associations? Obama ran with racists, bigots, jihadists and jihadist-sympathizers, anti-Semites, etc. What did they think they were voting for?

I am proud of you for going 8 years. You are to be honored for taking the next step from just voting. If only we could have more people like you in all of the precinct meetings.

Again, I am proud of you!

"Feckless Bureau of Islamization"

So right. I don't know how I can watch "Criminal Minds" again. You hear that, CBS?

Wow, they do grow up quickly these days! If I didn't know better I could swear some of these kids are about my age...

Again, wildjew, you distort what President Bush did back some seven years ago. You continue to maintain that President Bush essentially willed Israel's destruction by advocating a Palestinian-Arab state. All Bush did was assert that the (so-called) Palestinian Arabs should have their own state IF, yes IF (will you please and finally not overlook this "IF"), such a state would be a state that would be truly democratic and agree to live in peace with Israel. It is deeply dishonest of you to castigate Bush for willing Israel's destruction when his conditions for a Palestinian state were premised on its being free, democratic and willing to live in peace and harmony with Israel. My God man, how can you keep doing this?

I have spoken to many Israelis over the years and almost all of them, including ex-Israeli soldiers, have averred that IF (there's that "IF" again which you continually overlook and, God-damn it, I wish you'd stop it) Palestinian Arabs would agree to live in true peace with Israel, a Palestinian state would be no problem.

Bush is a realist (Obama is not). He knew that the possibility that so-called Palestinian Arabs having their own state (largely but not completely the 1947 UN partition plan), which would be democratic and perfectly willing to live in peace with Israel, was almost certainly something that never would happen. He put out the challenge nonetheless, which you have erroneously interpreted as treachery. Why you continue to overlook Bush's conditions is evidence to me of either your ignorance or your deceitfulness. Which is it?

You wrote: "Why you continue to overlook Bush's conditions is evidence to me of either your ignorance or your deceitfulness. Which is it?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wellington, you give me a choice between ignorance and deceitfulness. Forgive me if I refuse to accept your premise. What I am going to explain to you, a self-professed atheist or an agnostic, will not likely register. Had George W. Bush professed himself simply a "realist" (as you think he is) and a secularist like his father, that would be one thing. But he assured the nation and his millions of conservative Christian supporters, he was a (fellow) born again Christian believer who placed his faith and trust in the Almighty and in his Jewish savior Jesus. Don't tell me (I am speaking of Bush) that you are a born again Christian and then proceed to divide God's land in defiance of the clear warnings in the Bible. If Mr. Bush were a friend, why did he send Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to constantly berate Israel and lecture Israel about illegally occupying Muslim land? Why did Rice compare the Jews to southern white racists and the Palestinians to Blacks in the south who were seeking civil rights while she herself did not lift a finger to help blacks obtain civil rights?

We told them that in 2008, but they would not listen and voted for him anyway...Vacant hope and change was preferable to the war monger Bush...Now they have no hope, lousy change, and three wars, Gitmo is still open and $5 gas is upon us, not to mention a fraudulent birth Certificate..And yet, there are people who would vote for him again in a second...I guess they are just gluttons for punishment...Well, if they manage to elect him again, they will get lots more of that...

I'm not saying Bush was as bad or nearly as bad as Obama. Obama is much, much worse. But I expect better from a self-professed conservative Christian than what we got. I hold Bush and his supporters responsible in large measure for the rise of Barack Hussein Obama.

You think it is wrong for a self-professed Christian (U.S.) president to respect the Biblical covenant between God and the people of Israel respecting the land of Israel?

Wellington, let me ask you a honest question. Will you give me an honest answer? Do you deny President George W. Bush and the appointed members of his administration (Powell, Rice, etc.), made it plain that Israel illegally occupies ("Palestinian") Muslim land?

Respecting the Bush Administration's accusing Israel of "illegally occupying" Muslim land, I am not aware that anyone in the Bush Administration claimed that occupation by Israel of what it conquered in the '67' war was illegal. Rather, those in the BA, to the best of my knowledge, argued that such land taken in that war would be best given back to the Palestinian Arabs so they could form their own state, but on condition that these Arabs live in peace with Israel, acknowledge Israel's existence (with no tricks), be a democracy and be disarmed as well.

Personally, I think the BA was wrong to argue such land should be returned (again I am not aware that the word "illegal" was used). I have long argued that Israel should have annexed all land taken in the '67' war with the possible exception of the Sinai (and even here I'm inclined to think this land, some four times the size of Israel, should have also been annexed). Nonetheless, though I think all administrations wrong to have expected Israel to return land conquered in war, I fully understand why American administrations have continued to argue that should the so-called Palestinian Arabs finally agree to live in true peace with Israel, then the 1947 UN partition plan creating two states would be ideal, the changes due to the '48' war taken into account to the benefit of Israel and with no so-called right of return.

Whether or not Bush or Bush administration officials used the term "illegal" is not relevant. Bush did speak of Israel's "occupation" of Palestinian Muslim land. The implication is clear. Clinton says Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria are "illegitimate," a euphemism for illegal. I find your position a bit condescending. You say the Bush and his administration argued the land taken in war should be "given back" to the Muslims. This mind you, is the same Bush who lives on land expropriated from Mexico. What makes you think this land belonged to the Muslims in the first instance that you speak of "giving it back." Since you entertain the notion it is reasonable for American administrations to argue Israel should "give back" land to the Muslims if they agree to live in peace with Israel, why not have a national dialogue about "giving back" land conquered from the American Indian since clearly they are living in peace with their white European interlopers? Why is it the Jews who need to "give back" land?

Sorry to be late...No I don't think it is wrong to respect the Bible, but respecting the Bible and making US policies based on it are two different things...There is supposed to be separation of Church and State in America...If Obama respects the Quran, is it all right if he passes laws and policies based on it?

"If Obama respects the Quran, is it all right if he passes laws and policies based on it?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Firstly, I think you would acknowledge the Qur'an is very different from the Bible; certainly the Jewish Bible or "Old Testament." The Jewish prophets were righteous men who lived lives of integrity and morality. Not so Islam's prophet in my view, which is well-documented by Spencer and others. Second, it is generally acknowledged, the United States, from its inception, was based on what we call "Judeo-Christian" values, not on Judeo-Christian-Islamic values. That's just the way it is, Obama's attempts to pervert American history notwithstanding.

There is a reason the faith of a U.S. president is important. It does not merely demonstrate he believes in God - or the God of the Bible - but that he tries to live his life and render decisions base on Biblical morality. You say there is supposed to be a separation of religion and state in America. This is true to the extent that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from "respecting the establishment of religion" in the United States. There is to be no state church. But does this mean there is to be a separation of Biblically-based morality from the administration of state here in America? If a president does not base his policy on moral values derived from our Bible, how would you suggest he base policy? Purely on self-interest? Is that moral in your view? Little doubt, successive administration's efforts to establish a Muslim-terror state in Israel's heartland is based on what is perceived to be a national self-interest but is it moral? Is it ethical? Is it Biblically-based?

It's not a matter that the Quran and the Bible are different...The issue is, should the POTUS use any 'Holy Book', to formulate policy...and if he/she did, where does that stop?
It's fine for the President to be religious and moral as an individual, but Presidents have to make decisions that often are at odds with their religious beliefs...The Bible says, 'thou shall not kill', yet every President facing war or armed conflict will order the mass killing of 'enemies'...
Bush sr did it, Clinton did it, Bush jr did it, Rasool Obama is doing it, and Harry Truman did it big time in Japan...
There are reasons for the concept of separation of Church and State...I just mentioned one of them...

I ain't seed no Lutheran mujahadden squads blowing up things or beheading people, you?

I am on my way to a meeting. I will answer your important points when I return early this afternoon, I hope.

Obama ran with racists, bigots, jihadists and jihadist-sympathizers, anti-Semites, etc. What did they think they were voting for?

A black dude. An African-American, that's what.

Prez Barack's resume, statements, and even actions were null and void because he's black. Who else coulda been given a pass on hanging out with two known terrorists, attending a racist, anti-American church for 20 yrs, advised ACORN on voter registration, never had a real job, but did earn a joke of a record as a state senator. Who else but a black man could be elected with such a tawdry past?

His election was a rite of passage based on race, which in my corner is racist, albeit of the nouveau racisme kind.

If we had to elect an African-American, and maybe we did, it shoulda been a real one, a good one, a smart one, not some pre-packaged bullshit artist.

Prez Barack is a con man.

*** 33:21 ***

Not that it matters, but IMNSHO Prez Barack is not a Christian. No, he's not a Moslem, either. Although he holds a perverse and dangerous respect for Moslems, he's a secular humanist, and men of that faith are particularly susceptible to delusion.

If we start going down the line who should give land back taken from others, most every nation in the world would have to give back land. Israel's case is therefore in this sense no different from anyone else's (and remember that I personally think Israel should have annexed the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights {the last they kind of did} AND expelled the Arab populations from said lands) but Israel's creation was very different from the formation of most other states and a divided Palestine was the original UN plan of 1947, which to the credit of the Jews they accepted and to the discredit and eternal shame of the Arabs they did not. So, we have a kind of unique case going on here whereby an international body formulated a plan that many nations would finally like to see implemented (minus, once again, the extra land Israel took in the 1948 war plus a united Jerusalem). I don't like it but since America is the great power and must consider interests internationally other than Israel's, I can see why sticking to the old formula for form's sake is the least convenient option in a world made more unstable because the Islamic world is so screwed up.

Look, you and I know that the Arab Muslim world wants no Israel at all. The time has past for annexing the West Bank and Gaza and expelling Arab populations. The whole thing is a damn mess and I think you and I can agree on this much: it is the fault of the Arab Muslim world for this mess. Israel has had the thankless task of running these occupied territories for decades now with no solution in sight. America, for form's sake, has more or less stuck to the original partition plan (with some modifications) because what else is it going to do? Hell, you know very well that a very large majority of Israeli Jews would agree to a Palestinian state alongside Israel IF (there's that IF again)it really would live in peace with Israel, be democratic, and truly recognize Israel's right to exist. But this isn't going to happen because of Islamic hate and so what do you propose sould be done? Imagine if you were the POTUS, what would you publicaly say? Not what you would privately think, but publicly say?

"If we start going down the line who should give land back taken from others, most every nation in the world would have to give back land."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You are right. Most every nation in the world displaced native peoples. Except Israel's case is different. Unlike white Europeans who conquered and settled this continent, the Jews returned to their historic homeland. Beyond that, millions of Christians, Jews (including myself) and a infinitesimal number of Muslims, believe this land was given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and to their descendants forever by covenant. Unlike the US, Israel's wars were defensive. Every one of them. This makes US government policy the epitome of hypocrisy. I find it arrogant Wellington - don't you? - that the UN Resolution 242 (which the US helped draft) speaks of the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." For heaven sakes, this is the history of the United States! Such arrogance Wellington. Yes or no? Land was taken by force of conquest. But today as Americans say, "I've got mine!" acquisition of territory even by defensive war is inadmissible. Or at least for the Jews Americans believe it is inadmissible.

There were not one but two partition plans. The 1937 (British) Peel Commission recommended partition and the 1947 United Nations partition plan. Both plans were reluctantly accepted by the Zionists and outright rejected by the Arabs, opting instead for wars of annihilation. All bets are off, aren't they Wellington? Why should Israel be bound to immoral plans when the Arabs rejected them and then set about destroying the Jewish state?

What would I say if I were president? Probably something similar to what then Governor Huckabee said while in Israel. I had hoped Huckabee would stay in the race so that at least he could debate the issues.

Huckabee: "I think there probably should be [a Palestinian state], but it doesn't necessarily have to be on the tiny postage-stamp-size piece of land that is Israel...To tell Jewish people, ‘You cannot live here (Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, etc.), you cannot raise your children here,’ this is the true racism, this is apartheid,”......“I cannot imagine as an American being told that I could not live in certain places in America because I was Christian, or because I was white, or because I spoke English."

Netanyahu calls Abbas op-ed 'callous falsification of fact'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
05/17/2011 20:44

......The Palestinians, Netanyahy said, "were the ones who rejected the Partition Plan for two states and while the [pre-state Jewish establishment] agreed to it."

"Arab armies with the help of Palestinians are the ones that attacked the Jewish state with the goal of destroying [it], which there is no mention of in the [op-ed]," Netanyahu said.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=221007

You wrote: "It's not a matter that the Quran and the Bible are different...The issue is, should the POTUS use any 'Holy Book', to formulate policy...and if he/she did, where does that stop?"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Of course he should use his holy book to formulate policy. Why not? Don't religious Muslims use their holy book to formulate policy? Let me ask you a question duh-swami, from where does your sense of right and wrong come from? Mine comes from the word of God in our Bible, in addition to prayer and experience. Why shouldn't a leader's sense of right and wrong come from his God? If the West goes in the direction you seem to advocate - into a secular, godless state of affairs - you can be sure, Islam will conquer the West and America. Aren't we seeing this in an increasingly secular and godless Europe? God help this nation if it rejects God and His word as you seem to want it.

You wrote: "The Bible says, 'thou shall not kill', yet every President facing war or armed conflict will order the mass killing of 'enemies'...."

You are mistaken. The commandment does not read, "Thou shalt not kill." Herein lies the problem. People are unable to read the Bible. They look to their priests to interpret God's word and the priests misinterpret God's word and they mislead the people.

The commandment say, "You shall not murder." Ask any good rabbi. There is a huge difference.

Thanks to "Armed Infidel" - May 16 2011, for clarifying for us/me the PURGING OF ALL REFERENCES TO ISLAM FROM THE FBI's COUNTERTERRORISM LEXICON. I printed it out for myself for further reference.
While I knew about it, I had no details on it, will Google it further.

Obama's level of "political correctness" is inexcusably incorrect, but devilishly clever since any objection to it would be immediately seized on as "Islamophobia". Obama is apparently blissfully unaware that the concept of Islamist (i.e. fanatical extremist) is in contrast to that of truly moderate Muslims (the moderates constituting, according to generally accepted figures 85 - 90% of all Muslims).
But the rub is that with a total world population of Muslims estimated at one and a half billion, that leaves us with a world residue of one to one-and-a-half hundred million Islamist extremists.

Hi "damiEn"...

Back under another moniker, fishing for words from Mr. Spencer with which to, hopefully, hoist him on his own petard?
______

Try again, DAMIAN.