Imam shot by FBI

[Comrade B]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31dearborn.html
in relation
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/world/americas/01canada.html?ref=world

Does anyone have any more information on this? IT doesn't say anything about evidence of the Imam actually having been doing anything illegal... which makes me wonder what excuse the FBI has for him apparently shooting at them.
The only harm done to the FBI in a gun fight, was apparently a dog getting killed.

If this were to happen in any other country... Would people believe it?
Let's say in China, a Uighur religious figure who speaks out against the Chinese government is killed in a supposed gunfight with police in a warehouse with no evidence of them having committed any large crimes. Who the fuck is going to buy that?

[TC]

Its a classic COINTELPRO style assassination, the way they assassinated Black Panther Party leaders.

[9]

From that NY Times article: "...some leaders portrayed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s counterterrorism squad of using heavy-handed tactics against Mr. Abdullah, who was not accused of terrorism."
What creative wording. I like how some leaders portray it this way. Because, you know, there is certainly nothing objective about the assertion that murdering an innocent man constitutes "heavy-handed tactics" on behalf of the FBI. What a load of shit.
Then again, from some of the sentiments I've been reading from a few of the opportunistic 'leftists' around here who happen to have a penchant for white male identity politics (paraded as the antithesis of identity politics, per usual), I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear support for this action. Or perhaps to hear that the left should have been mobilizing protests against the victim's congregation a long time ago. :rolleyes:

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Well thank fuck that assassinating political opposition is only done by Barbaric African countries and Uncivilized Asians. Thank god for American freedom.
:rolleyes:

[Искра]

"Well, you know... he was a Muslim, therefore he's 100% a terrorist. He don't have to do anything illegal, that's in his culture, so he will do it sooner or later." :rolleyes:

I guess that this could be an argument by FBI.
This thing reminds me of stuff people used to do here in ex-Yugoslavia.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

"Well, you know... he was a Muslim, therefore he's 100% a terrorist. He don't have to do anything illegal, that's in his culture, so he will do it sooner or later." :rolleyes:

Be careful not to confuse the african american islam in the us (ie NOI, etc) with the Islam largely practiced by middle eastern immigrants.

Same religion, yes, but very different backgrounds and communities.

(generally)

[Luís Henrique]

From that NY Times article: "...some leaders portrayed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org)’s counterterrorism squad of using heavy-handed tactics against Mr. Abdullah, who was not accused of terrorism."
What creative wording. I like how some leaders portray it this way. Because, you know, there is certainly nothing objective about the assertion that murdering an innocent man constitutes "heavy-handed tactics" on behalf of the FBI. What a load of shit.

Political correctness leads to things like that.


Then again, from some of the sentiments I've been reading from a few of the opportunistic 'leftists' around here who happen to have a penchant for white male identity politics (paraded as the antithesis of identity politics, per usual), I wouldn't be particularly surprised to hear support for this action. Or perhaps to hear that the left should have been mobilizing protests against the victim's congregation a long time ago. :rolleyes:

Well, we once had the murder of a nun in Brazil praised as a victory for atheism, so I doubt nothing. I would like to see the responses of religious atheists to this act of barbarism, certainly.

It seems to me, though, that this is more a political assassination than an act of discrimination.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Be careful not to confuse the african american islam in the us (ie NOI, etc) with the Islam largely practiced by middle eastern immigrants.

Same religion, yes, but very different backgrounds and communities.

(generally)

Which of them is 100% terrorist?

Luís Henrique

[9]

Political correctness leads to things like that.
I'd hardly attribute the slanted phraseology and reporting of bourgeois newspapers to "political correctness", but I digress...



It seems to me, though, that this is more a political assassination than an act of discrimination.
I would argue that it is absolutely both. And, in fact, I tend to be of the opinion that discrimination (racism, sexism, etc.) is virtually always political. If this man had been a white Christian pastor, the FBI could absolutely not have acted in this manner. It is the fact that this man was a Muslim that enabled the FBI to carry out the assassination, because he must have been a "terrorist", in the same way that state-sanctioned repression against Jews was often justified in many parts of Europe throughout the earlier 20th century because they must have been "communists", just as blacks throughout the US are imprisoned en masse because they must be "criminals", just as non-white immigrants are vilified in the West because they must be "illegals taking our jobs", just as Western colonialism and the brutal repression which accompanies it was/is justified because "we are bringing Christian/Western values to the heathen savages".
Discrimination is always rationalized with some political justification; discrimination always has a political motive. It is always a political matter.

[Luís Henrique]

Discrimination is always rationalized with some political justification; discrimination always has a political motive. It is always a political matter.

Sure. But I doubt this assassination was actually motivated by the FBI's hatred of Black people. And about they not doing those things to White pastors, they actually made something like that at Wako, didn't they?

Luís Henrique

[9]

Sure. But I doubt this assassination was actually motivated by the FBI's hatred of Black people.

In my previous comment, I said this:


Discrimination is always rationalized with some political justification; discrimination always has a political motive.So no, it's typically not that the bourgeoisie acts a certain way because of some irrational hatred for an oppressed group, but that it seeks to engender irrational hatred toward an oppressed group in order for it to be able to act a certain way. So, the ruling classes of various European nations throughout the last several centuries did not engender anti-Semitism out of some irrational hatred toward the Jews (to use this example again); rather, they engendered irrational hatred toward the Jews among the broader population for reasons that were thoroughly political and had virtually nothing to do with genuine irrational hatred. Which isn't to say the European bourgeoisie of this time didn't genuinely hate the Jews; rather, it is to say that their actions weren't motivated by their irrational hatred but instead by their rational class interests and in typical opportunistic fashion.



...And about they not doing those things to White pastors, they actually made something like that at Wako, didn't they? My comment was not intended to imply that the only people killed by the US government are members of oppressed groups and minorities; this is clearly not the case. However, "taking out" radical members of an ethnic group which is seen by the majority of the population as threatening or sinister or violent or somehow less important than (in the West) white men causes far less of a public uproar and is far easier for the state to justify to the public than "taking out" a member of the "majority" ethnic group of that nation could ever be.

[Luís Henrique]

So no, it's typically not that the bourgeoisie acts a certain way because of some irrational hatred for an oppressed group, but that it seeks to engender irrational hatred toward an oppressed group in order for it to be able to act a certain way.

This certainly makes more sence. In this case, I think we can agree that Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah's assassination was a political assassination, which the FBI perhaps believes is something that they can get along with, because they trust the general population's prejudices against Blacks and Muslisms?

In any case, I think it is more productive to denounce this for what it is - the murder of an oppositionist.


So, the ruling classes of various European nations throughout the last several centuries did not engender anti-Semitism out of some irrational hatred toward the Jews (to use this example again); rather, they engendered irrational hatred toward the Jews among the broader population for reasons that were thoroughly political and had virtually nothing to do with genuine irrational hatred. Which isn't to say the European bourgeoisie of this time didn't genuinely hate the Jews; rather, it is to say that their actions weren't motivated by their irrational hatred but instead by their rational class interests and in typical opportunistic fashion.

The difference here being that deep anti-Semitic feelings in Europe predate the existence of a modern bourgeoisie; more than engendering that, European bourgeoisie took and redefined it to its own ends.

Luís Henrique

[9]

The difference here being that deep anti-Semitic feelings in Europe predate the existence of a modern bourgeoisie; more than engendering that, European bourgeoisie took and redefined it to its own ends.


Well, I think we are essentially in agreement on this. One thing I do want to add, though, is that what you are talking about above is typical, and I tried to emphasize it a bit in my earlier comments. Not about sentiments predating the modern bourgeoisie necessarily, but of the bourgeoisie opportunistically exploiting latent or preexisting racism and chauvinistic sentiments to its advantage. It is supremely good at doing this, and we appear to be in agreement on that point.

[RedStarOverChina]

It's a dog-eat-dog world out there.

[Tyrlop]

Well thank fuck that assassinating political opposition is only done by Barbaric African countries and Uncivilized Asians. Thank god for American freedom.
:rolleyes:
And anarchists in the 1800's

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Which of them is 100% terrorist?

Luís Henrique

I got the impression from his post that he was describing the stereotypical views some americans have towards people from the middle east, or middle eastern culture in general.

Not a lot of people think of the black community as 100% terrorist.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

And anarchists in the 1800's

When we do it its funny.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Political correctness leads to things like that.

haha what??

I've seen a lot of ridiculous criticisms of PC, but to blame political bias in bourgeois journalism on political corrrectness is a new one

[khetancorn]

yes it's truth and in a court filing, the fbi said abdullah, also known as christopher thomas, was an imam of a black muslim radical group named Ummah whose primary mission is to establish an islamic state within the us.