Time to Deport The Muslims?

Flightinfo.com Non-Aviation Related Chat Message Board ^ | 29 Nov 04 | Birdstrike

[notigar]

Quit wasting your time w/ him. The very fact that he's sitting around, posting trash, means he doesn't take it seriously. You're arguing against fiction.

[SJackson]

Yep. These people move in a herd, from trashing-Muslim threads to trashing-Mexican threads.

As you know, by design, not accident

White Nationalist Group Targets Free Republic For Infiltration

Over the past few years, Free Republic has gotten less and less interesting. However, many posters and readers at Free Republic are four square behind stopping the illegal invasion from Mexico. This is one topic on which you will be allowed to post at Free Republic.
Indeed; I've posted some H. Millard articles about immigration and I do not believe they were deleted.

…………….

My experiences on FreeRepublic:

1. Hear about the site on Stormfront. Go over there, look for people I think might be interested in SF, and send them private messages about this site. Quickly banned.

2. Avoid the Jewish issue and post mainly about immigration. Was a longtime member and didn't have any problems, except when I posted an article by Sam Francis that had the word 'neo-con' in it, the thread went up to 200+ posts, mostly dumb ones, in a couple hours before being yanked. Got along fine for a while after that, eventually banned along with someone else when he uses the word 'sand-nigger' in a reply to a post I made in support of Le Pen.

3. Post about 3 articles about Islamic extremism, banned for some really retarded reason. After this I gave up on the site.

………………..

This is important: by initiating dialogues with popular posters, you'll ensure that a larger and wider range of people see your posts. Also, when THEY agree with you on something, a greater number of people there will be inclined to also do so.

At first, concentrate on initiating dialogue with them. On issues that both parties are concerned with: with FR, it'd be religion, immigration, economic rationalism, stuff like that. If you must discuss specifically WN issues, always do so in a way that they relate to their own concerns and pre-occupations.

There's many ways to generation mutual understanding, and it's the first and MOST IMPORTANT step in bringing a person's opinions closer to yours, in your own thinking influencing that of others.

Always post properly: spelling, punctuation, grammar and syntax, things like that. Most of the initial criticisms anyone in general will make of anyone else's postings on the Internet will be along these lines. When you do this, your posts will have greater weight in people's minds. It's like addressing large groups of people: if you mumble and look at the ground, you're not going to be convincing.

DON'T, for pity's sake, use terms and phrases that are commonly associated with WN. And DON'T make it obvious that you're coming from here. Oh, and DON'T post in a fashion that leads people to the conclusion that you're WN's... I notice that a whole lot of WN posts in hostile forums tend to run along the same ground.

Most people at FR are NOT so far removed from WN, after all, and it's not the body of your opinions for the most part but the 'buzz words', the 'key phrases', that encourage people to 'shut off' and not listen to what you're saying.

Hope y'all find this useful.

[Poohbah]

Gee, I thought that is why we had laws...to define who needs to stay and who needs to be punished.

Laws define what behavior is and isn't acceptable. Revoking citizenship and exiling people for being the wrong religion has never been part of American jurisprudence.

This country was founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic, and our laws and set-up certainly reflect it, as well as a number of our founders, who were men who recognized the importance of Scripture. Ergo, a Christian nation.

You made a leap of considerable illogic there. "Founded on a Judeo-Christian ethic" and "men who recognized the importance of Scripture" does not logically lead to "Ergo, a Christian nation."

Laws should be enacted which determines what makes for a good citizen. If you ain't a good citizen, we should make you leave.

Very well. I don't think you're a good citizen, and I get 50% + 1 of the the legislative branch and the President to agree with me. You are stripped of your citizenship and ejected solely by legislative fiat. If you make your rights subject to the merest whims of only 260 people (218 representatives, 51 Senators, 1 President), they aren't rights anymore, and they sure as hell aren't "inalienable."

I don't think that any of my views are alien to the Constitution,

If you had stopped immediately after the third word, your statement would have been completely factual. Unfortunately, you didn't.

Not even saying that someone has to believe the way that I do in order to stay here.

How f***ing generous of you!

But someone who does not follow the principles set forth in our Constitution, i.e. supporting treasonous acts and jihad, sure as heck shouldn't be allowed to live here.

Well, since you most assuredly do not conform to the standard set forth in your first clause, don't let the door hit you in the fundament as you egress.

Thank you for defending this great nation.

As an eight-year veteran of the USMC, I'm sorry defending this nation included protecting your worthless Biblical beast of burden.

[NJ_gent]

"If deportation becomes US policy and is carried out by law enforcement agencies. where's the thuggery in that. It could be the law of the land."

That idea is based upon the faulty premise that any law enacted in the US is inherently legitimate and can never result in 'thuggery' on the part of its enforcers. We always stand on the edge of totalitarianism; it takes vigilance to ensure we don't go over it.

"It's apparent that you and your buds regard the poster's ideas as more of a threat to yoor way of life than the barbarians that seek the overthrow of western civilization. Now who's being shortsighted?"

Terrorists can destroy our buildings, kill our people, and damage our economy, but it takes Americans to destroy America.

[Poohbah]

Our founding Fathers saw America as a Christian nation. Anyone who is here who is not a Christian is a guest. Guests who do not honor your home and heritage need to leave.

As a Catholic (and, hence, a "non-Christian" by some folks' reasoning, including some of the Founding Fathers), I hereby invite you to try and make me leave.

[506trooper]

I have no problem fighting those who are Jihadists or those who support them, but not all Muslims agree with the interpretations of the Koran by some of the more extreme religious leaders.

I also have a problem with a religion that promotes servitude for half of the population (If I tried that on my wife, she'd kick my @$$ from here to Spokane and back).

This, to the fanatics, is a continuation of The Crusades, and their regressive belief won't let them accept anything else. Those have to be contained (PC verbiage)

But this is a far different world from 1095. There is mass communication, and many Muslims have seen that Christianity is not out to destroy them, and can live in peace together.

Many Muslims only support or pretend to support the radicals because they are terrified of what might happen if they don't. That's why there are religious police in many ME countries....they keep the population in control through fear.

As these people are exposed to another view, they will change, and their religion will change. In fact it already has. The Koran, I believe, does not allow sects, but there are, for example Shiite, and Sunni.

It took 28 years for the Berlin wall to come down.

The WOT is not going to be easy, or short, but it will be won.
We will have to defend ourselves vigorously and get the dagger away from our throat, but always trying to make sure we get only the one holding the dagger. It's the American way.

[Birdstrike]

"...Terrorists can destroy our buildings, kill our people, and damage our economy, but it takes Americans to destroy America...."


I agree. But let's not not needlesly cede the destruction of our buildings, lives, and economic vitality to terrorism simply because it comes dressed in sheep's clothing of "religion" seeking Constitutional protections. This isn't a religion in the traditional sense; it's a destructive orthodoxy that has already killed thousands of our citizens and would kill thousands more. I want more than an "America" in spirit left standing.

[Birdstrike]

"..As these people are exposed to another view, they will change, and their religion will change...'


That remains to be seen and seems like quite a reach. But I agree with much of your post. In the meantime, Jihad is still their clarion call and it has not been revoked. If we as a nation have difficulty sorting the good guys from the bad and decide that there is a legitimate purpose served in selective deportations - then I don't understand how we wouldn't want to support that. It doesn't make us any less Americans - it may well be the prudent and reasonable thing to do in light of this unprecedented threat.

[NJ_gent]

"This isn't a religion in the traditional sense"

The President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the US military, who happens to be a very religious individual himself, has stated his belief otherwise on numerous occassions.

"I want more than an "America" in spirit left standing."

As do I, which is why I support basic, simple, common-sense solutions to our security issues that make us more secure without turning us into the animals trying to kill us.

[horizondb]

I have yet seen "right" sit idly by. The measures that are suggested while seemingly justified will become a pitfall in our basic freedom. Once opened is vary hard to close and keep close. As in the case with the Japanese in WWII. There where instances of Japanese serviceman's families being put into camps while they fought for this country in Europe. That policy was enacted out of fear not rational thought. Today we recognize this fact. Lets not travel down the same path the history has proved to be incorrect. I have no problem in deporting any alien that commits a crime or imposes a threat to our system or way of life.

I'm not making this out to be a hate crime. The major problem I have with the author is with the preempted forced renunciation of "anything". This is a vary dangerous path. For consequences we only have to look at the former Soviet Union and there required public declarations. Religion is the oldest and most used reason for war. It is always based out of emotion and not reason. Jihad is religious war. Propagated from emotion not reason. The best way to combat a war based from emotion is with a well reasoned plan. Which brings us back to the last time we made an emotional decision in regards to the Japanese. Deportation may vary well be a good tool to use, but one used as an opening move.

[SJackson]

I'm not making this out to be a hate crime. The major problem I have with the author is with the preempted forced renunciation of "anything". This is a vary dangerous path.

Hate crime, no, it smacks of genocide.

[Birdstrike]

" This isn't a religion in the traditional sense" - The President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the US military, who happens to be a very religious individual himself, has stated his belief otherwise on numerous occassions..."


Um. OK. But that doesn't make it so. There is nothing inherently religious about Jihad. It is a document of hate and the "religion" that purports it is really making a mockery of religion and should be an affront to all religions. But I get your point.

"I want more than an "America" in spirit left standing. -As do I, which is why I support basic, simple, common-sense solutions to our security issues that make us more secure without turning us into the animals trying to kill us."

I hope that "basic simple common sense solutions" will do the job. I'm afraid they won't. This threat may require us to think outside of the box in a way we have never had to before. Obviously I recognize that mass deportation isn't the answer. But there's a point between mass deportations and open borders that we must find and enforce.

[Zionist Conspirator]

try Samuel... You are no expert you know... The fact that you are kosher doesn't make you any expert on Judaism... It makes you a smug person without any self-criticism...But not an expert by any means...

Well not everyone is blessed with your awe-inspiring humility, Piti. Show some understanding of us lesser mortals.

[Birdstrike]

"..The best way to combat a war based from emotion is with a well reasoned plan..."


Possibly the author posed the piece due to the absence of any such plan. We continue to be hit, our borders remain porus, and we are not safe. I can understand his intentions while I also agree with much of your reasoning. This is going to be the toughest thing we've ever had to face.

[Tribune7]

Under the best of circumstances that argument might buy you time with some.

But it's not an arugment. It's a condition. It means that everybody must understand that the Constituion won't protect fanactism.

And if one is a fanatic it would mean that in order to live here one must confess that a part of the Koran is not absolute which is something a fanactic would have trouble with.

[notigar]

I think the Irish invasion was worse. Lousy Mics.

[Blzbba]

"Who said anything about jack booted thugs? If deportation becomes US policy and is carried out by law enforcement agencies. where's the thuggery in that."


The thuggery is in the forceful entering of homes and rounding up of people based on their faith for deportation. "Jack booted" is a reference to the fact that this would require military action. Unless you think the Muslims would simply line up for your form of discrimination?



"Now who's being shortsighted?"


You, for expressing all this concern about some shadowy Islamic movement to take over the country, while probably voting for a President who's gone out of his way to make entering this country easier for those who'd do us harm. It's impossible to take Bush seriously on the WOT as he continues to bend over backwards to ease up our southern borders. Or perhaps you think that only law-abiding, nice Mexicans would possibly cross?

[MineralMan]

Hear this:

You cannot deport US Citizens, especially ones born here. It cannot be done, under our constitution. You can jail criminals, but they have to be criminals, meaning they have committed a criminal act.

We do not deport or jail people in this nation for their religious beliefs. The minute we start doing that, there is no USA any longer.

I think you need to consider what you're saying, but substitute Baptist, or Catholic, or whatever sect of Christianity you claim membership in. It sounds pretty ugly then, doesn't it.

[horizondb]

Hate crime, no, it smacks of genocide. I wouldn't call it genocide as the author didn't call for the killing of anyone just the deportation. IMO he does not feel that the Muslim community in this nation has not spoken out loudly enough against the fundamentalist that attack us. So his solution to this is to make them speak out with the threat of deportation. Not only is that line of logic fundamentally flawed it is juvenile. Like a school yard bully threatening you to proclaim he is the best or get beat up.

[MineralMan]

"What is with newbie nazis arguing for deportation of folks they don't approve. While the newbies argue that Muslims are the target of their bile, implicit in their posts is a threat to everyone.
"

Well, as an atheist, I've heard from people who think I shouldn't be here, either. I'm a little sensitive about this issue. Hatred, based solely on the religion of an individual, is obscene, un-American, and just plain wrong.

Look at individuals, not classes of people...that's my advice.