Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by LadyEagle, Jul 11, 2007.
Nice thought but abit naive'.
As with the invasion from the south of US, the Muslims are here. Deportation is not the answer. Internment IS!
It worked in WWII. It will work now. All the whiny-cry-babies aside; it will work. Internment will give US the time to sort out who is who and take appropriate action. We could then send the harmless and the innocent back to their 'homes' (be they here or over there, we can send them home).
There we go. Who cares about the Constitution?
Maybe I misread though? Are you saying that we should inter all Muslims in America, including citizens? Surely that can't be what you mean?
Internment is not against the Constitution - Habeas Corpus:
In WW2, 2/3 of those interred were US citizens.
The imprisonment and taking away of the property of Japanese-Americans was a shameful chapter in our history. It should not be repeated.
That is your opinion, MP, and you are entitled to your opinion. Some here would disagree since it has been shown it is not against the Constitution as some have argued. I do imagine that after the next major terrorist attack in the US (especially if it is nuclear), the debate on this subject will be moot.
Terrorists love it that we debate about these things, (sharia law allows no debate) and in fact, they count on it so we will continue to be distracted about political correctness and won't mount a real war on terror.
While we have the luxury of debate, politicians entertain and pander to muslims, as liberals cry foul, muslims continue plotting and importing themselves to the west so they will have sufficient numbers to do the jihad. Even so-called moderate muslims will become radicalized (either from threats of beheading or being drugged and threatened in the name of allah) in the west when the Big Jihad comes down.
I don't think you have demonstrated any such thing. That would be a SCOTUS decision. I do agree that a fearful people will do shameful and dispicable things.
Who cares what terrorists love or don't love. And how do you have inside info on what they think? And even if they don't like our liberty to dissent and discuss issues of major importance, that is their problem. We don't clamp down on liberty to please them. In the U.S., we don't fall lockstep into one way of thinking. You say that sharia law doesn't allow debate, yet criticize Americans for having it. Seems like you are for their way, not ours.
Fearmongering: another favorite pejorative of the left. But we should be fearful of terrorists in this country. They are here. It is foolish to ignore them.
It is not a matter of left or right. When we were attacked in 1941 and our Navy largely decimated, were we at any less risk? No! Yet President Roosevelt proclaimed to the nation, 'The ony thing we have to fear, is fear itself." We have come a long way from that, to the administration telling us to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape, and hide inside our taped up homes. The Bush regime has repeatedly tried to keep the nation living in fear. Shame on them.
Shocking viewpoint IMHO.
We had better beware. The same laws you so hastily support today could in the very near future be used against American Christians. Set a precedent and we may very well be next.
I am amazed what fear is doing to my country. I don't think there is much left of the land I departed from 13 years ago
Here is the full quote from Roosevelt:
Now lets put that into contemporary context. What the left wants us to do is to retreat in the name of peace. It appears the left defines peace as the absence of conflict. The right defines peace as the absence of the threat of conflict. If the treat is always looming over us their can be no peace in the lives of Americans.
The WTC was blown up on two occasions. So in the name of peace we ignored the first one. And the second one completely destroyed the WTC. That is where the philosophy of the left got us on this issue.
When the right speaks of fear we mean a realization that the enemy is among us and that they want to do it again as soon as they can. The left seems to want to ignore that fact of life so as to avoid any futher conflict. This is a pie in the sky mentality that will get more inoccent Americans killed, not because we stood up to the terroists but they will be killed by inaction. That is the most unjust type of murder in the world. To let people just die because we wanted to do nothing. I cannot comprehend the lefts position that desires to let innocent people die from inaction. It is indefensable and horrific.
The first attack on the WTC was not ignored and was the only one of the two where the alleged perpetrators were brought to justice with a conviction.
Yes. That is EXACTLY what I mean. Perhaps you should read a bit more. Jihadwatch.com is a good place to start. There are also many other sites where you may look a bit deeper into this than just the local news cast.
To be MUSLIM is to be a jihadist. It is not any different than this : To be Christian one must put their faith in the substitutionary work of Christ Jesus on the Cross. But if you SAY you are Christian just because you were born in a Christian home and that is all you know but have never placed you faith in Christ; you may claim christianity all day long but you are NOT Christian.
To be muslim is to be jihadist. And the so-called "moderates" know this. In addition, Muslims also know that their allegiance is NOT to their host country but rather it is to Islam. These 'citizens' will help to destroy this country if forced into a choice between Islam or US. And ISLAM is all about world domination.
As to your later comment about "precedent"? That precedent was set in WWII. Hence, your 'fear' that they could use it on Christians if there is precedent is not logical IMO.
Terrorism was ignored as real threat inside this country. And since they were brought to conviction it is now beyond an allegation. It is a fact.
Our government has since admitted its error. Lets bring it back so that they can turn the tables on us when they are ready.
What you call "terrorism" I would consider to be criminal acts involving the bombing of structures. In 1963 a man bombed a Baptist Church, the FBI prosecuted and the courts executed judgment and sentencing. In 1995 there was a bombing in Oklahoma City, the FBI prosecuted the perpetrators and the courts executed judgment and sentencing. In the first World Trade Center attack men bombed a building, the FBI prosecuted the perpetrators and the courts executed judgment and sentencing. The first WTC attack was not ignored as you allege, it was managed in a similar fashion as most every bombing done on American soil prior. If you consider it to be "ignored" because the bombers were foreign born, then I would think this would be a good argument for securing our borders. However, just as then our borders remain unsecured so if that's the sense that you are using "ignored" then I agree. The current leadership is ignoring the terrorist threat as they are allowing anyone with a desire to do harm to this country to enter this country.
I agree the current leadership is ignoring it as did the former. Reducing terrorists attacks as just criminal acts is an attempt to cover up the need for the concern of terrorists on America soil.
They sure did...
Perhaps you guys missed the bolded portion?
Yeesh! Don't you guys READ anything these days?