Correct me if I'm wrong, but this case seems to have more of the earmarks of a crime syndicate\gang operating under the auspices of a religion, as opposed to a religion operating through a criminal gang. I usually agree with Hitchen's indictments of religious fanatacism, but this example seems to miss the mark, slightly.

Hitchens makes the connection to Sharia law with the YBMB's attacking of liquor stores. Ok, that may have technically been under the auspices of Sharia law, but it seems to me that the real motivations would be much like those that lead to the other accounts of rape\murder\extortion: petty neighborhood thuggery.

You might argue that thuggery is just another form of religious extremism, and that this may as well have been a front for suicide bombers instead of mafiosos. Well there is an important difference - the root cause. Religious extremism as we have become familiar with it grows out of political dissafection and radical ideas of religious justice. Gangsters emerge from broken neighborhoods and lawlessness. This seems to be a case of the latter.

So Hitchens should stick to criticizing the police for acting too late, but instead of blaming it on a laissez-faire approach to religions (which I doubt is as much an impedement as he claims), he should realize that this gang took to long to deal with for the same reasons that hundreds of other criminal organizations in our country still thrive - endemic poverty, dangerous neighborhoods, and the shortcomings of law enforcement.

Schmitty, you miss the mark again. Hitches is faulting the criminals for being religious, he is faulting the authorities of Oakland et al based on his perception that they have afforded this group favoritism or leniency because they are affiliated with Islam, are black or arguably because they are bakers.

Read carefully, without your preconceived biases. You'll see.

Well... I think the entire purpose of my post was that I disagreed with that assesment. I don't really think the religious aspect of this affected their case much, especially since they are offshoots of the Nation of Islam, and not of Islam proper. (Had this been a mosque...eh...different story). They clearly had the place under surveillance to have responded so quickly after the assassination. I think if you looked at most criminal gangs, who go around killing people and gunning up neighborhoods, you'll find that cops have a lot of trouble pulling off raids and busts like this one.

I mean, there was no evidence that that had any reason for holding the cops up. It was just hitchens spinning yarns - "a religious gang? They only get busted NOW? Must have been clammy-handed religious Political correctness!" And how, exactly, do you think I am the biased one about anything here?

I don't buy it JW. I believe the reason Oakland had a hands off approach to these black, Muslim thugs is because they are black and Muslim.

The Bakery did not operate as a classic street gang and so would have been a lot easier to break than a street gang. And, if their interest was showing higher rates of criminal arrests and convictions, as any city's is, why not go for the low hanging fruit?

The Oakland City Council didn't want to be denounced by Farrakhan (is he still alive?) and his ilk demanding justice for Muslims being oppressed, blah, blah blah. They were intimidated by The Angry Muslim. Sounds like a real trend nowadays.

Well I'm sorry you folks 'don't buy it' but you really have no evidence on your side. No, the bakery did not operate as a traditional gang; it sounds like it operated like a mafia - hard to bring charges against because it hides behind a business.

I'm open to changing my mind about this if some police chief comes out and says that public pressure kept them from acting earlier, but it sounds to me like they acted at a pretty normal time for busting a gang - after a bunch of murders had been committed.

Look, I'm in favor of tearing down any PC wall to go after criminals. But until you show me that such a wall existed here, I'm not going to just go with your gut instincts.

black people are always discrimigated against the police aren't scared. and if you are saying because of what this 1 group of Muslims did all Muslims are bad and "thugers" then we can say all Christians are gang members murders and horrible people because that gangs and gang members are christians get it straight we know our God id real we dont carry wepons and thoes that do have got the teachings twisted and misunderstood.

Queen,

No one has suggested that the men who are the subject of this article and subsequent Fray discussions are automatically thugs because they are black and Muslim. It is not the black and Muslim part anyone has trouble with, it is the thug part - the actions of these people - which is the trouble. They would be thugs regardless of their color or religion or lack or religion as long as they acted in the same manner.

We should all be willing to denounce thugs regardless of their color or religion. Muslims should be particularly outspoken against those who are thugs in the name of Islam.