HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » MosheFeingold » Journal
Page: 1

MosheFeingold

Profile Information

Name: Moshe Feingold
Gender: Male
Hometown: NY, NY
Home country: Poland
Current location: Ruidoso, NM
Member since: Sat Mar 22, 2014, 04:43 PM
Number of posts: 2,808

Journal Archives

Al Qaeda to jihadis: ‘Target white Americans, avoid minorities

"Al Qaeda to jihadis: ‘Target white Americans, avoid minorities, because US mislabels attacks as ‘hate crime’"

Foreign Desk
http://www.foreigndesknews.com/world/us/al-qaeda-jihadis-target-white-americans-avoid-minorities-us-mislabels-attacks-hate-crime/
By: Lisa Daftari
Jun 24, 2016 4:14pm

Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has published a guide urging jihadis to carry out more ‘lone wolf’ operations in the U.S. following the deadly terror attack in Orlando earlier this month and to set their sights on the targeting of white Americans.

The publication, “Inspire guide: Orlando operation,” which seeks to capitalize on the terror attack carried out by gunman Omar Mateen who pledged allegiance to ISIS, plainly encourages extremists to attack Americans.

While Mateen chose to target what the guide refers to as a “homosexual nightclub,” noting that killing gay people is “the most binding duty and closer to human nature,” it suggests to “avoid targeting places and crowds where minorities are generally found in America,” because “the federal government will be the one taking full responsibility.”

This refers to the heated debates sparked in the U.S. in the aftermath of the Orlando shooting by media, law enforcement and legislators debating the roles that gun laws, hate crimes and terror each played in the incident.

Instead, the guide advises jihadis to target “areas where the Anglo-Saxon community is generally concentrated. This class of the American community is the majority and it is the one that is in the American leadership.”

The document, published specifically with a targeted message against Americans was released in addition to the group’s periodical “Inspire” magazine, which often exploits terror attacks in the West and makes threats against Europe and the United States.

Historically, Al Qaeda has relied on major plots such as the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and other U.S. targets, but now reminds its readers to move forward “in continuation” of the teachings of Al Qaeda mastermind Osama Bin Laden who advocated for ‘lone wolf’ style attacks.

As the Islamic State has gained global notoriety with its jihadis launching local attacks in the West in places such as Brussels, San Bernardino, Garland Texas and most recently in Orlando, Al Qaeda has long been attempting to play catch-up in staying relevant in competing against other jihadist groups for both recruits and funding.

“We standby and support all Muslims who attack America in their homeland regardless of their affiliation to any group or loyalty,” the guide states, justifying the targeting of American civilians with the suggestion that since they elect and pay taxes to a government with “oppressive polices against Muslims everywhere,” they are a population at “war with Islam,” and can no longer be deemed ‘civilians.’

In the guide, the Orlando attack is referred to as one of “the most successful Lone Jihad operations” and will undoubtedly “inspire others to wage similar operations.”

In conclusion the authors note that while Mateen killed and injured almost a third of attendees at the nightclub, an extremely high tally for a ‘lone wolf,’ he could have killed even more by making explosives if he followed the simple guides that appear in previous editions of the group’s “Inspire” magazine.
Posted by MosheFeingold | Mon Jun 27, 2016, 03:46 PM (22 replies)

Summer Camp Blues

My great granddaughter (who is 11) just got back from a difficult three week summer camp experience.

Briefly, the camp is a mixed boys and girls camp, with the sexes segregated into two sides, but with some coed activities during the day. It is primarily Jewish, with kosher food served and the Sabbath observed, but lots of other people go and it's not exactly a frum facility. Basically, a place for Jewish kids to hang out with other Jewish kids, of all levels of Observance. Heavy on the conservative (religious, not political) side of Reform.

My GGD is objectively beautiful and also extremely athletic. As in, she was the only 11 year old to try (and completed in the top 5) 3 mile open lake swim. Boys follow her around like lost puppies and let her join their Xbox live video game battles.

So, flash forward three weeks. I got to go with the family to pick up my GGD and meet the cabin mates.

Flashing back three weeks: One of my GGD's cabin mates (also 11 or 12), on the first day, announced she was gay, and possibly going to transition into a boy.

Said roommate had a lot of other issues, notably her mother recently died and her father was apparently very distant. She was going to camp for 6 weeks, anyway, and three weeks nearly killed my granddaughter (Mom), so there is something going on at home.

She was clingy and very annoying cabin mate, wholly separate from any sexuality issue she had going on. (I figured this out from meeting her after 5 minutes. She would have driven me nuts.) She talked about her sexuality, a lot, which made my GGD and the other girls uncomfortable, in that they are all 11 and not particularly interested or comfortable talking about sex, of any kind.

Her revelation (and her annoying personality) made a lot of the girls shun her, from day one.

My GGD was a little freaked out, but opted to be nice to the girl, because that's the kind of family we are.

The result was, alas, the girl became a borderline stalker of my GGD, following her around and asking her to two of the dances they have. (My GGD declined, told her she was straight, and went with a nice looking Jewish boy from Israel -- where they held hands and danced. Serious stuff!)

In short, she made her romantic interest in my GGD known and was not taking "no" for an answer.

I saw this with my own eyes at the three week mark when we came to pick GGD up.

The girl was crying, following my GGD around, hugging her, and my GGD just kind of took the invasion of her space with a cringe. She repeatedly told GGD she "loved her." I didn't know about the gay issue a the time, but was thinking, "wow, this chick is weird and following my GGD around."

GGD, who loves camp, and has been going since 1st grade, is considering not going back to camp in order to avoid said girl, who apparently goes both terms every year.

GGD was very unhappy about having to change in a cabin with a person who was romantically interested in her. Boy or lesbian girl, it really doesn't matter.

GGD was bothered that being nice and normal was misinterpreted as openness to a romantic relationship and is considering being really mean in order to get the stalker girl to leave her alone. (Mom started calling stalker girl "Crazy Eyes" to use a Orange-as-New-Black reference.)

GGD wrote a plethora of heart-breaking letters home saying how unhappy she was that I read after she came home. They were far past the normal tears-on-my-pillow homesick letters from camp.

I am a past president of the board of this camp, and going to talk with the executive directors to see how they deal with this.

Before I do so, I really would like advice on this issue, both specific as to this situation and general, as several things have come to mind:

1. I don't think it is appropriate to house people who might have romantic interests in one another in the same cabin. Romantic interests creates a tension that ruins a lot of camp experiences, and candidly the kids are far too young to be dealing with anything like that. Hence why the boys are on one side of the camp and girls the other. I have zero ideas about how to address this.

2. For example, if one asked lesbian girls (and gays boys) to segregate, you'd create a ghetto that would have its own issues (and you'd have a cabin where romantic interests were more available). Also, the more religious elements of the camp would probably cease coming, and the primary goal is have Jewish kids from all kinds of Judaism.

3. More specifically as to GGD, Mom's initial response was to pull GGD from camp when she got the first letter. Dad convinced Mom to not get her. Dad's response was that: (1) this was part of growing up, GGD is pretty and going to have lots of unwanted suitors, and she needed to figure out how to deal with them sooner or later and (2) If Crazy Eyes didn't take the hint, she could use the religious card and tell the stalker that her Rabbi forbid her to be friends with her and proceed to shun her.


Posted by MosheFeingold | Mon Jun 27, 2016, 11:30 AM (4 replies)

Not a Single Republican Delegate Is ‘Bound’ to Donald Trump (Bit of a peek into the dark side)

(Forgive the National Review source; interestingly, it is the best source for OPO research on Don The Con.)

National Review, Online
By: David French
June 10, 2016

Let’s begin with a simple proposition: As a matter of law and history, there is not a single “bound” delegate to the Republican National Convention.

Not one delegate is required to vote for Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or any other individual who “won” votes in the primary process. Each delegate will have to make his or her own choice. They — and they alone — will choose the Republican nominee. The paragraph above contradicts much of what you’ve been told about the presidential nominating process, and it even contradicts state law in multiple jurisdictions, but state law does not govern the Republican party. The party governs itself, and according to the rules it has implemented, there is only one convention where the delegates were truly bound: 1976’s, when Gerald Ford fended off a challenge from Ronald Reagan. In every other Republican convention ever held, every delegate has been free to vote their conscience.

Let’s break this down, legal step by legal step:

1. State legislatures cannot violate the First Amendment rights of Republican delegates. Throughout the primary, pundits have reminded voters again and again that there exists a patchwork quilt of state laws that “require” delegates to follow the will of the primary voters — sometimes only through one ballot, sometimes through more. These laws are unconstitutional. A state entity cannot mandate the manner in which private citizens govern private organizations. Indeed, the notion that states can compel members of private associations to vote according to primary results is a fundamentally progressive notion, an expansion of the government into the private sphere. Yet First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of association stand as a bulwark against exactly this kind of government interference.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has already ruled that in a conflict between state law and national-party rules, the national-party rules take precedence. In Cousins v. Wigoda, the High Court decided a dispute between two delegate slates to the 1972 Democratic Convention — one slate (the Cousins slate) was selected according to Illinois state law; the other (the Wigoda slate) was actually seated at the convention. The Court granted review to determine whether Illinois courts were “correct in according primacy to state law over the National Political Party’s rules in the determination of the qualifications and eligibility of delegates to the Party’s National Convention.”

The Court ruled for Wigoda, holding that: The States themselves have no constitutionally mandated role in the great task of the selection of Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates. If the qualifications and eligibility of delegates to National Political Party Conventions were left to state law “each of the fifty states could establish the qualifications of its delegates to the various party conventions without regard to party policy, an obviously intolerable result.” Such a regime could seriously undercut or indeed destroy the effectiveness of the National Party Convention as a concerted enterprise engaged in the vital process of choosing Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates— a process which usually involves coalitions cutting across state lines. [Internal citations omitted.]

Or, to put it in plain English, the Court essentially told the states to mind their own business and let the parties govern themselves.

Excerpted due to copy right. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436428/republican-convention-delegates-not-bound-donald-trump
Posted by MosheFeingold | Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:26 AM (25 replies)
Go to Page: 1