Islamist dies in FBI Detroit raid

Islamist dies in FBI Detroit raid

news.bbc.co.uk

The leader of a radical fundamentalist Islamic group has been shot dead in an FBI raid near the US city of Detroit, officials say.

Luqman Ameen Abdullah, 53, died in a firefight with agents in Dearborn after refusing to surrender, the FBI says.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I can't find this yet on US News Outlets but I'll update as soon as I know more.

I find the whole Islamist angle odd, seeing as they were only being raided for

conspiracy to sell stolen goods and illegal arms possession.

I suppose that may just have been the FBI's reason to bring this 'Islamist' in.

Detroit News: Detroit mosque leader killed in FBI raids

A complaint filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Detroit names Luqman Ameen Abdullah, imam of the Masjid Al-Haqq mosque in Detroit, as "a highly placed leader of a nationwide radical fundamentalist Sunni group." He was killed in a gun battle during one of the raids, according to a joint statement by federal officials.

Abdullah, 53, also known as Christopher Thomas, was the local leader of a black Muslim group that calls itself "Ummah," or the brotherhood, and wants to establish a separate state within the United States governed by Sharia law, Interim U.S. Attorney Terrence Berg and Andrew Arena, FBI special agent in charge in Detroit, said in a joint statement.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by kiwifoot]

I just saw this on yahoo! news


news.yahoo.com...


I havent seen it anywhere else yet, nothing on the tv or anything yet.

Choose your enemies wisely.

Good move FBI.

You guys and gals need to be much harder to spot from now on.

Ok, a criminal was shooting it out with the F.B.I. and was killed.

Ok, why was it needed to mention his religion or religious affiliation???

No, seriously, As I see it, it has no impact and only serves to inflame an already hot religious issue.

To be clear, the last two lines were being said to the BBC, not the OP.
*Edited to add above line for clarity sake.

[edit on 10/28/2009 by mrmonsoon]

A suspect - not a criminal was shot and killed.

The media makes it a salient fact that he was an "Islamist".

The FBI had better hope they were thoroughly within the confines of the law, or this could easily be an inspiration for blow-back.

Or perhaps there are many ways this 'event' should be scrutinized, if you care beyond the media consumption angle.

reply to post by Maxmars


reply to post by mrmonsoon


I think you're both right.

Not only could this enrage Muslims, but African Americans too.

However it should be noted that they were being raided for firearms and stolen goods, so in no way should they be made martyrs!

But the whole 'Islamist' thing reeks of MSM fearmongering!

But I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by kiwifoot]

Originally posted by Maxmars
A suspect - not a criminal was shot and killed.

The media makes it a salient fact that he was an "Islamist".

The FBI had better hope they were thoroughly within the confines of the law, or this could easily be an inspiration for blow-back.

Or perhaps there are many ways this 'event' should be scrutinized, if you care beyond the media consumption angle.

Perhaps you missed the part about the "Firefight" which implies a shootout.

Either that, or you have some bone in your body that doesn't want to believe it (i.e. take in all the FACTS of the story [since you don't even know if the story itself is factual])

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Ok, a criminal was shooting it out with the F.B.I. and was killed.

Ok, why was it needed to mention his religion or religious affiliation???

[edit on 10/28/2009 by mrmonsoon]

Durrr.. because not many people will read a headline that says "Humans killed another Human"

Are you even AWARE of the ENTERTAINMENT value of NEWS and how much PROFIT it brings?

SERIOUSLY?????

news.bbc.co.uk...

he leader of a radical fundamentalist Islamic group has been shot dead in an FBI raid near the US city of Detroit, officials say.

Luqman Ameen Abdullah, 53, died in a firefight with agents in Dearborn after refusing to surrender, the FBI says.

The agency said it was trying to arrest Mr Abdullah and 10 followers on charges including conspiracy to sell stolen goods and illegal arms possession.

Hmmmmmm....

Originally posted by Maxmars
The FBI had better hope they were thoroughly within the confines of the law

Rest assured that they were, because if they were not you would have never seen any news on this raid at all. In fact, it would have never even happened. even if it did.

There is a motive behind everything that is leaked to the media by the FBI.

For those who missed it, they seemed to have some ort of warrant? As in, he refused to surrender? And he was killed after a gunfight ensued? Do you have to wonder who fired the first shot?

Wow, can you say overreaching political correctness? The point that he was Islamist is a very real part of the story, and not fear mongering at all.

Take the knee jerk reactionism away and *read* the story, stop reading *into* it.

reply to post by RestingInPieces


I read your reply, it made me sick.

It is dead on.

Line three

There seems to be some confusion regarding the facts. And some interesting inferences being drawn by those who note them.

While Federal law stipulates that the FBI need not execute specific warrants to arrest suspects, being sought and detained by them does not mean you are guilty.

They sought to forcefully restrain a suspect - the firefight was caused by that action. That crime (resisting arrest) is separate from the cause they had for 'requesting' his surrender.

And yes, I find it ironic that some would justify the label "Islamist" and the presumption of guilt as telling of purposeful implication.

I don't doubt the story - only the tellers. I confess that I start with a bias to believe that the intent is to offer news for consumption. Which is why I don't like it when the headline reads like a caricature of law enforcement heroism versus backward or wrong-thinking 'different' people.

Originally posted by Maxmars
There seems to be some confusion regarding the facts. And some interesting inferences being drawn by those who note them.

While Federal law stipulates that the FBI need not execute specific warrants to arrest suspects, being sought and detained by them does not mean you are guilty.

They sought to forcefully restrain a suspect - the firefight was caused by that action. That crime (resisting arrest) is separate from the cause they had for 'requesting' his surrender.

And yes, I find it ironic that some would justify the label "Islamist" and the presumption of guilt as telling of purposeful implication.

I don't doubt the story - only the tellers. I confess that I start with a bias to believe that the intent is to offer news for consumption. Which is why I don't like it when the headline reads like a caricature of law enforcement heroism versus backward or wrong-thinking 'different' people.

I see all of your points, and I do agree with your statements. It is certainly a mistake to presume guilt, because we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

The points that I see being made in the story are about the fact that he was instigating violence against the U.S., jihad, and wanting Shariah Law. The reason I think all of this is important in the story is the simple fact he was stated to be a leader, and I believe we all know how dangerous cult types of personalities can be, regardless of their religion.

However, I do think also even though there was no mention of a warrant specifically, that the legal channels had been followed, based on a few quotes from the article.

Ten followers listed in a criminal complaint

In a court filing, the FBI said Abdullah

No one was charged with terrorism....FBI agent Gary Leone said in an affidavit

said the FBI had briefed him about Wednesday's raids and told him they were the result of a two-year investigation.

Those above statments quoted from the story wold lead a logical person to infer there were warrants involved. Certainly an assumption, but an educated one, no?

Arrest is based on probable cause, and at the very least, investigation is based on reasonable suspicion.

If they had been investigating this for two years or more, I can also reasonably assume they have recorded evidence, which I am certain will come out later.

Regardless of the fact that he resisted arrest and this was not one of the crimes probably listed on the warrant, he did resist, and he fired first according to the story.

Abdullah refused to surrender, fired a weapon and was killed by gunfire from agents, FBI spokeswoman Sandra Berchtold said.

I do have one difference of opinion in that they were not requesting his surrender, they did have very right to demand it. That what arrest is by it's very definition, and hence why people that have the powers of arrest do.

I do also believe news is offered for consumption, I think that's a given, but I also feel the basis of consumption can be an important one. If it is consumption for sensationalism, that's one thing. I personally do not feel this story was written for that purpose, hence my replies.

I do think that we as a nation have to let go of some of the political correctness, and realize there are people who take their religions so fanatically, they think it is ok to cut off peoples' heads.

These are extremists, and by no means am I classifying Islamists as all being extreme, but simply pointing out the fact that they are intolerant of people that disagree with them based on religion. That is the story, and the cause for his apparent violence, and indeed, the basis behind the investigation as I read the story.

News for consumption for educating, warning, or advising, is far different from news based on consumption for ratings or sensationalism. I just do not see this story being based for either.

Originally posted by Maxmars
There seems to be some confusion regarding the facts. And some interesting inferences being drawn by those who note them.

While Federal law stipulates that the FBI need not execute specific warrants to arrest suspects, being sought and detained by them does not mean you are guilty.

They sought to forcefully restrain a suspect - the firefight was caused by that action. That crime (resisting arrest) is separate from the cause they had for 'requesting' his surrender.

And yes, I find it ironic that some would justify the label "Islamist" and the presumption of guilt as telling of purposeful implication.

I don't doubt the story - only the tellers. I confess that I start with a bias to believe that the intent is to offer news for consumption. Which is why I don't like it when the headline reads like a caricature of law enforcement heroism versus backward or wrong-thinking 'different' people.

I agree, I find it hard not to look at every story from a position of distrust for the story tellers, and their agenda.

Although I also appreciate those members that bring a less paranoid opinion to the table!

Yep that's you Libertygal!


[edit on 28-10-2009 by kiwifoot]

And just as I expected, the fact that recordings have been made was released, and the article originally linked in this thread seems to have been incomplete. Here is the story from Fox news, I believe the main difference is the last few lines, and a part in the story about a 43 page complaint.

www.foxnews.com...

"The complaint shows the FBI built its case with the help of confidential sources close to Abdullah who recorded conversations."


The rest of this article? Yes, sensationalism and ratings.




[edit on 28-10-2009 by Libertygal]

Originally posted by Maxmars
A suspect - not a criminal was shot and killed.

The media makes it a salient fact that he was an "Islamist".

He WAS a criminal.

online.wsj.com...
Luqman Ameen Abdullah, 53 years old, who had previously been known as Christopher Thomas, refused to surrender. He shot a police dog before he was fatally shot by authorities, the U.S. attorney's office in Detroit said in a statement.

Refusing to surrender to the FBI and shooting a police dog are both crimes he is guilty to. His affiliation and involvement in the criminal enterprise he was wanted for are only justified by his refusal to surrender to the authorities. It would be considered an admission of guilt in any court.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by IAF101]

Well, assuming the jury has spoken, he must be guilty of the charges that they were bringing against him. OF course there will never be a defense offered up will there?

Certainly after two years and FBI informants build a case, it is not without cause that they set out to detain him. There's the time and expense to justify, as well as the security consultants and informants which need to be compensated, The subject obviously knew that brandishing a weapon (even in his own defense) would constituent cause to use lethal force. So assuming he was a fundamentalist extremist quasi hostile potential terrorist, they had every cause to infiltrate his circle of acquaintances to assess the situation. It takes time and money... all that would be wasted if he were just a blowhard loud mouth pain in the butt. I'm sure the FBI new what they were doing. I don't think that means that he was guilty; only that he was worthy of further investigation. The investigation led to his attempted arrest. Now he can be said to be a martyr. Even if he had no cause other than to be an opportunistic criminal who peddled stolen goods over state lines.

I find it amusing that those who see my concern for due process as some kind of 'attitude' towards the accused. Too bad really. I'm not challenging the facts, I am telling you that you can't be guilty of anything in this country unless the Justice systems process declares it so. It works both to protect us and empower us. It is as much a responsibility as a right. Innocent until proven guilty means that editorially this piece of journalism is meant to reinforce the meme that all things Islamic (not Islamist) are suspect. It's a real bias that we see frequently both in our communities and the leadership; and such bias has led to the worst atrocities imaginable.

I for one would rather not see extremists of any sort operate in our country. Occasionally, the extremists have proven to be the one's with the badges. I prefer to scrutinize their actions to ensure this doesn't happen (since it's done in our name), but that's a personal position.

I do know that every time a case is made sloppily, or via barely ethical practices, we give said extremists yet another tool to muster support; especially from those who must constantly live with the effects on their communities, The truly sad part is that even if the case was made well (and I don't say it wasn't), and the facts bear out the execution of proper law enforcement, it still can and usually does end up getting described otherwise by some parts of the media.

This perpetuates the divide, creates the conflict, and generates more news consumption.

I probably would feel differently if there were more than a handful of media owners in the world.

But that's just me.

Headlines like that trouble me, not because they are intending to manipulate and create a consent to accept their spin on every event, but instead I am concerned they could be doing just that. Which I always hoped the profession of journalism was devoted to avoiding.

I'm an idealist. Sue me.

[edit on 28-10-2009 by Maxmars]

The whole article reminds me of something from the movie V For Vendetta, especially those fabricated news.