A world class psychodrama has played out in Texas not long ago. A bumbling wannabe suicidal terrorist with a weakened mental capacity tried to accomplish what he believed was a glorious act but failed, thus gave the world a case to study that may rank in importance at par with the Stockholm Syndrome.
Given that the incident involved Jews, a flood of
articles were written about it: some were news items and some opinion
pieces. Two articles were picked for discussion in this blog, because of what
they can yield in terms of information and opinion.
One article came under the title: “Texas Synagogue Attack
Smells Like more evidence of FBI Corruption,” and the subtitle: “This caught-off-guard
response from FBI agents is sadly what Americans have come to expect from our
top law enforcement agency.” It was written by Madeline Osburn, and published
on January 18, 2022 in The Federalist. The other article came under the title:
“Texas synagogue terrorist Malik Akram’s last call: Of course he hated the
Jews,” written by Jake Wallis Simons, and published on January 20, 2022 in the
New York Post.
What we have here is a psychodrama that is told in a plot
and a subplot. So, let’s begin with the subplot, which is the accusation that
the FBI is corrupt, exhaustively discussed by Madeline Osburn in her article. Here
in condensed form, is an abbreviated montage of what Osburn has written:
“The FBI’s statement that they ‘are continuing to work to find the
motive’ is another example of the agency’s ineptitude on multiple levels. The
first is their refusal to hint at the crime’s motivation as antisemitism. Said
Kenneth Marcus: ‘This was not a slip-up. It is symptomatic of a widespread
failure to understand the problems of antisemitism and anti-Zionism.’
Frustrating is the FBI’s corrupt obsession and use of resources on cases like
the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. The FBI’s failures as an entire institution in recent
years are too long to list here, but looking at the mass shootings and
explosions alone that happened is frightening. The FBI also has a bad track
record at categorizing motives and crime. Whether it’s their inability to move
on threats before they occur, or their corrupt labels after the fact, the FBI is
notorious for botching both”.
As can be seen, Madeline Osburn is saying that the Jews
are unhappy with the work done by the FBI because the agency is more interested
in protecting America against the violent overthrow of the government by armed revolutionaries,
than it is at highlighting the antisemitism and anti-Zionism displayed by a
bumbling wannabe suicidal terrorist with an weakened mental capacity, ranting
his heart out on a long distance telephone call to his younger brother.
Ironically, Madeline Osburn who is managing editor of the
Federalist, seems mystified as to why the FBI mistakenly believe that
protecting the American Federation rather than propagandizing Israel, is what
they get paid to do. What happened to the idea that America’s treasury and its security
apparatus, were created by Congress to serve Israel and only Israel? Has
someone forgotten something?
This brings us to the article of Jake Wallis Simons. The
following excerpt is what introduces us to the plot of the psychodrama which
unfolded on that day in Texas:
“Toward the end
of the 11-hour standoff Saturday at Congregation Beth Israel, Malik Faisal
Akram, the 44-year-old homegrown terrorist from northern England, ranted to his
younger brother about issues close to any jihadist’s heart”.
This is a conversation that took place between Malik Akram
and his brother, and was recorded, says Jake Simons, by a security source. Supposedly,
the conversation took place, “toward the end of the standoff” during the
synagogue’s hostage-taking incident, he explains.
The transcript of the conversation shows that Akram
wanted to die like a martyr. He did not threaten to kill the hostages because
all he wished for was that his people do to the American women what the Americans
do the women of his people: fornicate with them, presumably by mutual consent or
by rape. Here is an excerpt from Akram’s rant:
“I’m opening the doors for every youngster in England to
enter America and f–k with them! Live your f–king life, bro, you f–king coward!
We’re coming to f–k America! F–k them if they want to f–k with us! We’ll give
them f–king war! I’d rather live one day as a lion than 100 years as a jackal.
I’ve asked Allah for this death. Allah is with me, I’m not worried in the
slightest. I’m going to go toe-to-toe with [police] and they can shoot me dead,
I’m coming home in a body bag. Why do these f–king mother–kers come to our
countries, rape our women and f–k our kids? I’m setting a precedent”.
Jake Simons went on to make the following points:
“He [Akram] raged against the Jews. Anyone could hear
him rave, ‘But Americans don’t give a f–k about life unless it’s a f–king
Jew!’ CBS refused to call him what he was: an Islamist terrorist. Michigan
Attorney General said: ‘we don’t know that for certain, but we have seen an
exponential rise in the formation of extremist organizations, many of which are
white supremacy organizations.’ The BBC showed the efforts made by Akram’s
family to get him to surrender, as well as his deteriorating mental state. The
jihadist ideology? The Jew-hatred? Not so much. The FBI Dallas office’s special
agent described the terrorist to the press as singularly focused on one issue,
and it was not related to the Jewish community”.
Which is why Madeline Osburn and Jake Wallis Simons believe
that the FBI are corrupt. This aside, what remains to do now is for the four
hostages to write what they remember has happened during the 11 hours that they
were with the gunman. Did they discern a change in attitude on his part as time
moved on? How so? Did they express the need for food or water or the urge to go
to the bathroom? What were his reactions? Did their own attitude change with
the passage of time? How so?