Cao’s favorite tactic: cut and run

Actually, it has nothing to do with a hatred of Muslims, and Cao’s not broadcasting a fantasy.. It does, however, have to do with the fact that they WERE Muslim.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2109053

“The group has been under surveillance for some time and was infilitrated by a government informant who allegedly led them to believe he was an Islamic radical, a Justice Department official said.”

If the group wasn’t Muslim, then how did they get infiltrated by a government official purporting to be a radical Muslim?

You said, “Now, the fact that, as of this writing, there have been no reports that the seven men arrested in Miami are linked with the Nation of Islam in any way really doesn’t seem to matter to Cao. She’s perfectly willing to broadcast this fantasy.”

Now that I’ve shown you the article that disputes your claim, will you retract? I bet not.

You really need to pay better attention, Kit. Cao was trying to insinuate that the Miami seven were linked with the Nation of Islam, not Muslims in general.

I am quite certain you’ve never bothered to look into the matter — can’t have those inconvenient facts mucking up a good hate, right? — but there are some very significant differences between NOI and the Muslim religion.

You could try reading for comprehension, Kit. I haven’t claimed the seven weren’t Muslim — although there are likely some Muslims who would dispute any claim that they were. If there is significant evidence that the seven are linked to the Nation of Islam, then I invite you and/or Cao to present it. But Cao herself admits that her claim is mere ‘supposition’.

The ABC News article you cite says nothing whatsoever about the Nation of Islam, Kit. Your claim that you’ve “shown [me] the article that disputes [my] claim” is another falsehood.

I asked a simple question, and Cao turned tail and fled rather than give an answer. She’s quite clearly afraid to admit that she is, in fact, doing all she can to spread religious hatred of Muslims.

Would you, Kit, want Americans to see the arrest of the Miami seven as an indictment of an entire religion?

You’re the one who fled and wrote you stupidity over here, I think it’s called BAIT AND SWITCH.

While you’re hiding under your bed when the 4th of July fireworks are going off, we’ll be on the radio, hehehehe

So I hope you have fun talking to yourself and bitching in your little lavendar slice of dementia

I attempted to post a reply to your last comment, Cao, and the reply did not appear. I’ll try again, and we’ll see if you have the courage to allow the conversation to continue.

And I’ll note that — once again — you haven’t answered the question.

Do you want these arrests to be seen as an indictment of a particular religion?

Since you like to whine that no one ever answers your “simple questions,” here you go.

Yes.

Yes, I think the entire religion of Islam needs to be indicted. That includes the “Nation of Islam,” and every other offshoot of it. Those who like to think of Islam as a “peaceful religion” are either uninformed or willfully sticking their head in the sand in the face of one of the greatest threats to the human race in history.

I realize you won’t be able to contain your glee at my answer, and I probably just gave you your next post, but that’s okay. I’m always up for more hits, especially because the people who come here and play tinfoil tea party with you are even worse at debate than you are.

By the way, your search engine is nonoperational. You might want to check your code.

It appears that you are deleting my comments as soon as they are posted, Cao. If this is so, your claim that I “fled” the discussion is a lie.

“Yes, I think the entire religion of Islam needs to be indicted.”

Why? By themselves, religions do nothing. People carry out acts of terrorism. And acts of terrorism have been carried out by adherents of many religions — including Christianity.

That being the case, what justification can you give for singling out Islam for a special indictment? And what would you suggest as the practical consequences of singling out Muslims in this way?

The search engine works on the home page, but not the individual post pages. I am still trying to determine why this is.

Here is the connection between Battiste and the Nation of Islam, meathead. Oh, and I’m sorry about your comments being deleted but I’m getting inundated with trackback spam – over 1,000 a day—and if some legitimate comments get blown away, and yours is one of them, I don’t consider it a significant loss. I, unlike Kender, don’t refuse to publish your comments on purpose, although it’s an amusing thought.

Batiste (the ‘moses-like figure’ who is the leader of the Miami 7) grew up in Chicago and, as a young man, joined the Guardian Angels, a beret-wearing citizens’ crime prevention group. In 1994 he told his father, a former preacher, that he was “joining the Muslims” but his beliefs bear little relation to orthodox Islam.

A close friend said his teachings came from the Moorish Science Temple of America, an early 20th century religion founded by the Noble Drew Ali, a wandering African-American circus magician who claimed to have been raised by Cherokee Indians and to have learnt “high magic” in Egypt. Ali went on to style himself an “angel” and prophet of Allah.

Noble Drew Ali (neé Timothy Drew) and his Moorish Science Temple of America was the progenitor of several bizarre Black Muslim sects, including Louis Farrakhan’s Nation Of Islam.

In fact, Moorish Science was the religion of choice for another al Qaeda fan, Clement Rodney Hampton-Ell — aka Dr. Rashid.

Dr. Rashid was convicted for his part in planning to blow up bridges and tunnels and landmarks around New York City.

The plot was ambitious. The cell wanted to create a “Day of Terror,” with a series of near-simultaneous bombings across New York City. At various stages, the plot looked at tunnels, federal buildings, courthouses and the United Nations as targets. The final list was narrowed down to five, including the U.N., the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, the George Washington Bridge and the Manhattan Federal Building, which housed the FBI’s New York offices. It would be a highly synchronized attack, a style now considered an al Qaeda trademark.

Sound familiar?

Dr. Rashid is currently serving a 35 year prison sentence at the Federal Supermax Prison in Florence, Colorado.

But I guess you and The Times would rather consider him a harmless kook, too.

So how do you like me NOW, lol??? It seems that you’re so devastatingly uninformed and stupid, you’re not able to put two coherent thoughts together or ‘connect the dots’. I’m just glad the rest of us aren’t in the same boat.

What exactly are you claiming, Cao? That because Batiste belongs to a sect that predates the founding of the Nation of Islam, his alleged plot must be the work of the present-day NOI?

Timothy Drew died in 1929. What is his connection to today’s NOI, or to the alleged plot hatched by the seven in Miami?

What actual, documented connections exist between Batiste and the NOI?

Do the NOI also ”[borrow] tenets from Judaism and Christianity as well as Islam”? That’s from the same Sunday Times article you cribbed your unsourced information from. Quite clearly, you prefer to ignore any facts that do not match your preconceived notions.

I’m not interested in defending the Miami seven. Let’s try them for whatever crimes they are accused of, and mete out punishment according to our laws. I’m not particularly fond of the Nation of Islam, either. However, claiming a connection between Batiste’s band and the NOI where no evidence for one exists is, quite simply, dishonest. Sticking to the facts just isn’t your strong suit, Cao; you seem compelled to inject your fantasies into almost every discussion you take part in.

And let us not lose sight of the fact that all of your ranting has at its core one purpose: to evade a simple question. Do you want these arrests to be seen as an indictment of a particular religion?

”...what justification can you give for singling out Islam for a special indictment? And what would you suggest as the practical consequences of singling out Muslims in this way?”

I started to reply to you, but then realized that nothing I say will matter to you. People debate to learn from each other, to take another look at viewpoints they haven’t thought of or might not understand fully, or to convince the others around them. But that’s not why you debate. I won’t evade the question, though.

The justification for indicting Islam is everywhere. It’s in the hundreds of terror attacks and taped beheadings and their dancing while draped in the entrails of Israelis. This is not me saying, “Hey I don’t like this religion so let’s get rid of it.” I have no problem with people being able to worship in the way they want. however, when their basic ideology teaches death to all who oppose them, then I have a problem. The issue with Islam is quite simply that it teaches dominance, control, and ruling over all who are not Islamic.

You mention Christianity as an example of a religion that has done horrifying things in history, but I submit to you that the perpetrators of the Inquisition were not Christian, but Catholic. If your definition of “Christian” is simply a belief set that considers Jesus Christ to be a central figure of their system, then you could claim the Inquisition was committed by “Christians.” However, the actual definition of Christian is much more narrow. The Christians who stood in the arena and were torn apart by lions, or who hid for years in the Catacombs beneath Rome…they would never have committed the Inquisition. In fact, many actual Christians were killed during the Inquisition by the Catholic Church (which, if you study it in depth, is actually one of the most corrupt organizations in the world. before you ask – no, they should not be indicted because they do not openly teach that slaughtering people in barbaric manners is good).

The “Reformation,” or so-called Protestant Inquisition, was also not carried out by Christians. Martin Luther, contrary to the glorified historical hand-me-downs, was really not a Christian at all, quite frankly, but a neo-Catholic.

Sorry to go on so long, but here’s the bottom line: You’re right in that PEOPLE commit acts, not religions. However, then you also need to concede the point that the PEOPLE in charge of Islam DO teach the massacre of whoever refuses to abide by Islamic tenets. It is a third-world religion and ideology that demands control over the whole world. Are you willing to live under sharia rule? I’m not, and I am extremely unapologetic about the fact.

What are the practical concerns for “singling out Muslims”? Come on, that’s a loaded question and then some. Your debate skills really do suck.

Islam is the only religion in this country that is allowed in public schools. Hell, it’s TAUGHT in some schools, whether parents want it or not. It’s the only religion completely immune to ridicule and scorn from the society as a whole. Why is this? Because as a country, we’re scared of what they’ll do. Either that or we’re so stupid we don’t see what the future certainly holds.

I’ve ranted enough. I’ve been civil, so I’m hoping (probably in vain) that you’ll do the same.

“This is not me saying, ‘Hey I don’t like this religion so let’s get rid of it.’”

Frankly, Kit, your denial is not credible — not given that you are on record as having spoken approvingly of the bombing of a mosque.

“You mention Christianity as an example of a religion that has done horrifying things in history…”

Wrong. I said that acts of terrorism have been carried out by adherents of many religions — including Christianity. Religions don’t commit crimes. People do. Read for comprehension, dear.

“However, then you also need to concede the point that the PEOPLE in charge of Islam DO teach the massacre of whoever refuses to abide by Islamic tenets.”

Who are “the PEOPLE in charge of Islam”, Kit? How does one determine who is “in charge” of Islam? There is no Islamic Pope. So who, specifically, are you referring to — and why do you choose them, and not others?

Oh, that’s right, I forgot. You’re a practitioner of what I call “invincible ignorance”. When facts are presented that contradict your views, you simply ignore the facts.

There are indeed Muslim clerics that use passages from the Qu’ran to incite violence. The same can be, and has been, done by Christian clergy using the Bible. Those would be folks who are “in charge of” Christianity, right?

“What are the practical concerns for “singling out Muslims”? Come on, that’s a loaded question and then some. Your debate skills really do suck.”

Yet you are the one who finds it necessary to duck the question. What would you suggest (aside from bombing mosques) as the practical consequences of singling out Muslims in this way? Are you in agreement with Cao, who tells us that "We need to kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out"?

practical consequences? I apparently misunderstood your question. You’re asking me about practical steps to take to single out Muslims? Am I right?

What I understood you to mean is “What will be the backlash of us doing anything to Muslims?” I wasn’t dodging your question, I simply misunderstood.

“You’re asking me about practical steps to take to single out Muslims? Am I right?”

Yes. You’ve made it clear that we must single out Islam for special attention — but as we both seem to agree, a religion is an intangible. Singling out Islam can only mean singling out Muslims.

We know that there is at least one tactic you find acceptable: bombing mosques. What else should good, upstanding Americans be doing here at home to fight the Muslim Menace?