Wow, in the late 60's and early 70's there was aggression against the damn cops? I'm shocked.Must have been a Muslim thing. Or maybe just blacks sick of being rousted by the cops.
That's right, Ducky, keep on showing your racist, misogynist ass.Honestly...Please visit my site for a link of Farrakhan's latest outrageous statements!
Lousi Farrakhan? NOOOO!!
I won't soil your blog with the words I want to use to describe how I feel. I hope some day that justice is brought to the door steps of Farrakhan and Rangel
Why Judge Napalitano(Sp) keeps having Rangel on his show beats me. Sucking up to him knowing his rightous indignation is contrived, is getting really old.
o gosh do they get any more racist!!!
Islam...bringing the peace of the grave for 1300 years.
I had never heard of this incident. One more thing to hate Farrakhan & Rangel for and, believe me, it's already a long list.I hope conservativesonfire is right about justice raining on all of their miserable heads.
This is really a bad example of context which frankly speaking this Logan's blog is full of.This 1972 event has to do more with the militant African-American racial tension (Black Panthers) and little if not almost nothing to do with Muslims or Islam as Logan continuously tries to link. The Nation of Islam is not recognised by any other Muslim community and if we all remember the Malcom X story, he left because he converted to the Sunni branch of Islam and was condemned for making a schism within that NoI community.This Logan sounds like really ugly and pathetic (with all due respect to those that support him/her). Just looking at his item he uses the "Relgion of Slavery" attempt, my response is simply a "what the?". Shall we try to do a discussion on slavery? Shall we talk about America, the Spanish, the Dutch and literally the factory-production levels? Or are talking about today, how "modern day slavery" is at such high levels (via bonded labour, child workers or sex-slaves) in India and South East Asia? This IS the problem, when you have some with obvious agendas who destroy those that do wish to bring to attention the damage and risks of radical and militant Islamists, by smothering the real stories and importance with absolute trash. I wonder what this Logan's real agenda is?
Actually, what I find really amazing about this story:(1) the involvement of Farrakhan and Rangel -- and the fact that the incident doesn't get any coverage while the careers of these two men continue on with both of these men cited as "authorities."(2) no conviction for the murder of a member of the NYPD
Damien Charles,Certainly, other religions and cultures have practiced slavery.But the history of Islam shows that many Africans were targeted for enslavement. And, of course, at the present time in Africa, we see Africans being persecuted and enslaved. By Christians? I don't think so. By Muslims? Definitely.As for the Dutch and American slave trade, Muslims were involved too. I think that Logan is referring to that when he speaks of "the religion of slavery."One of the three books that most influenced Abraham Lincoln: Sufferings in Africa by Captain James Riley. There is much other writing on Islam and slavery. Has modern Islam abrogated and condemned slavery the way that Christianity has?
Duck,Or maybe just blacks sick of being rousted by the cops.There was more to the case than that. In fact, the FBI was somehow involved. I'm unsure as to the details.
If such an incident had happened in a church and two prominent leaders (church member and an elected official) were involved, the incident would at least be familiar to us. Not so in the incident cited in this post!
Farrakhan on the Fort Hood jihad attack:Farrakhan Says Fort Hood Shooter Is Not a Terrorist Just a Good Muslim...Also a video at the above link.
D Charles QC said..."This is really a bad example of context which frankly speaking this Logan's blog is full of."[...]"I wonder what this Logan's real agenda is?"A lot of people wonder what your real agenda is.Why don't you start you own blog and show us what the "real stories and importance" is/are and then no one will be "smothering" them.
Danien Charles,Warren has a great idea! You should start your own blog; I'll visit often.I'm not being sarcastic. Warren might be, though. **wink**
AOW,My "agenda" is clear and I have stated it many times. I have no problems with pointing fingers, condemning and discussing the horrors of radical and militant Islamists. My point has always been that the context and information needs to be correct, if not "spot-on" because to do otherwise makes any legitimate argument look weak or tarnished.That is all.AOW, the history of slavery is clear enough and I would be careful to assume that one group did worse (ie the Muslims) as it is cleary not the case. Also, modern day slavery, which is even more important a subject is well documented and easy to point fingers at.If I started a blog I would have no time at all for my grandchildren let alone my business. Give me a couple more years when the retirement starts but then my little yacht still would interest me more.
AOW, I noticed your comment on IBA. You should be aware that he cuts posts to suit his argument and that I goaded him into making his comments which was my point, the subject of statistics was simply a draw-card to prove my point. His constant arguments that he is better or different to say other blogs of more synical/hate levels is in fact exactly the same, but of course, the power to cut posts, avoid dialogue or debate always ends up the cowardly way out.I do not really have the time for dealing with children, especially those who just use vulgar swear words and mob-mentality, but I proved my point to him and he sulks and hides via the delete key.We mature people can agree to disagree and continue to discuss. That is what civilised and mature means.
Damien Charles,Every blog has its own tone and its own dynamics. I am "the old lady" at Infidel Bloggers Alliance. In fact, I am one of the few women to post there. Although I don't use vulgarities at my site, the guys over there do. Having grown up as what some might term "a child of the 60s," I am inured to that kind of language. I do have a wide berth of tolerance for certain things -- probably because I have been a teacher for over 4 decades.The next time that Pastorius and I speak by telephone, I'll ask him if he has deleted any stats from you and which comments of yours that he deleted.I do not really have the time for dealing with children, especially those who just use vulgar swear words and mob-mentalityAt the risk of sounding snippy, then don't go to IBA.the history of slavery is clear enough and I would be careful to assume that one group did worse (ie the Muslims) as it is cleary not the case I didn't say that Islamic slavery was worse. But clearly it did exist for centuries -- and still exists today, albeit more clandestinely. Here in America, "white guilt" is pushed on us because Americans legally held slaves for over a century. American slavery was a fact -- no denial from me (though I repudiate "white guilt" for a number of reasons). But the same people and textbooks ignore the fact of Islamic slavery. That's my "beef": the whitewash. Islam is not all sweetness and light -- and neither is any other ideology.I do have a gripe about how American slavery is presented, too. Sure, blame the slaveholders. But don't ignore that the slave trade existed in large part because of the New England shipping industry. New Englanders may not have held slaves (or many of them because there were no plantations in the North), but those same abolitionist New Englanders had ancestors who actively enslaved Africans as a business venture. Yet, because Southern ancestors (not mine -- too poor to own slaves or with objections to slavery on moral grounds) held slaves, we Southern whites today are vilified because of the institution of slavery so prevalent in the South. Follow what I'm saying? I refuse to be held accountable for the actions of those 200 years ago.-------------Anyway, the topic of this post was the persecution of a Christian family -- not the topic of slavery per se. I do, however, welcome a certain amount of tangents at my blog, so I'm not complaining.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:1. Any use of profanity or abusive language2. Off topic comments and spam3. Use of personal invective