Posted on 11/09/2005 7:02:46 AM PST by NativeNewYorker
Berlin (dpa) - A far-right party in Germany said Wednesday that foreigners living in the country should be put into ``collection camps'' and then expelled if French-style violence breaks out.
The National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), which last year won 9.2 per cent of the vote in Saxony state and has 12 seats in the regional parliament, called for laws aimed at reducing the population of resident foreigners.
Germany has about 7.3 million foreigners who comprise some 9 per cent of the total population.
``If riots are organised like in France then collection camps and vigilantes must be organised in time to protect life and property,'' said the NPD.
The operative word here is "survival." There are no rights when a society's very survival is at stake. Hard choices must be made.
All Muslims most certainly don't believe that any more than all "Christians" believe in the "one true Catholic church" or any other politicized agenda. There are varieties within Islam as different as denominations among Protestants, and some groups of them are pretty dangerous, too. (various "freeman" Montana Christian sects).
Yep. And CITIZENS rights are violated all the time during wartime. George Washington confiscated property, as did Jefferson Davis. Wartime is wartime, and (clue) the constitution is substantially suspended when your very survival is at issue.
a residency visa doesn't make them a citizen. It's a good move for France, though.
The winners of this episode: (1) LePen will pick up around 35 percent of the vote in the next election...without alot of effort. (2) The German NPD will pick up 30 percent of the East Germany vote and likely 5 percent of the western part of the country. They might just get into the Bundestag.
The losers: (1) Count on the foreign visa approval business to triple in issues, (2) fewer Muslims will be relocating to Europe, and (3) even less business chances for young Muslim punks.
So, what, are every single Muslim in the world responsible for these? No, of course not. These are acts of individuals. You punish the individuals responsible. To do otherwise is to commit injustice.
I have a friend who once worked with an Azerbajani who immigrated to this country. As this Azerbajani grew up the Muslim community move in with a small amount of people. They were friendly and cordial in those small numbers. As their numbers grew they became more and more hostile and aggressive. At a certain point in the Muslim growth demographic they started rioting, burning down buildings and cars, and forcing conversions and murder those that refused. His family literally ran down the street from the Muslim mob on foot to get away from them. Some of his family members couldn't run fast enough and their fate is unknown.
And I've known Muslims who want nothing of the Jihadis, and want to be left alone to practice their religion in peace, as is their rights as Americans. But, of course, they've have to put up with death threats, near assaults and other things in the last few years from brain-dead jerk offs who have the same idiotic "kill all the Muslims" attitude that you are expressing here.
There are currently 22 conflicts in the world in which 100% of them all involve Muslims. I guess with the burning of Europe it can now be 23. All these Muslims are engaged in Jihad against the infidels. You are an infidel and they look forward to you converting or murdering you and/or your descendants.
Again, if you insist on treating every person who belongs to a particular group, then you are no better than a Hitler or a Stalin. And if you believe that every Muslim in the world wants to kill me, your or anyone else, then you need to actually get out some education or go see someone about your paranoia.
Maybe they Muslims would want you as a Dhimmi instead to be a vocal supporter of the Dhimmi rights of infidels which are subservient to the rights of Muslims. I could definitely see you promoting Dhimmitude.
Don't be an ass. People are individuals. If you want to lump all Muslims together because someone else who is a Muslim does something wrong, then you have to treat everyone like that. If I assume you are a Christian, does that mean that I can hold you responsible for the crimes of a David Koresh?
Bat Yeor has a great book to start your learning. It's called "The Decline of Eastern Christianity und Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude".
I've read Bat Yo'er's work. I must have missed the part where she advocated treating the innocent as guilty, and abdicating any sense of justice when it came to Muslims... Hmmmm...
I think you have a very good point there.
I guess I must be one of those brave Europeans that saw what was coming and decided to make my life here.
So if we know someone adheres to a political system that is incompatible with our own, that they plan to eventiually commit terrorist acts against this country, and that they voluntarily renounce their citizenship by adhereing to that other system, we still have to wait until they kill lots of people before we can deport them?
Makes no sense. All moslems are terrorists. It's what their scriptures command them to be.
Islam is the enemy and must be crushed before it crushes us
A loyalty oath is useless when it comes to moslems. Their religion commands them to lie if they can gain advantage by it
Do you understand what happens foreign nationals or those that are naturalized citizens in other countries and the country they are in is at war with the country they are from? Much worse than getting interned and having your property confiscated. By and large our treatment of the Japanese in this country on the West during WWII was a cakewalk compared to any other nation in how they have treated their foreigners (citizens or not) during their times of war. Go check out what other countries have done.
If the Feds had done their investigations by the book how long do you think that would have taken? Probably not until the war was over. The Leftist attorneys would have had a field day appealing and re-appealing their convictions if the Feds did get any.
Do you think that it's not okay to suspend Habeus Corpus during war? Maybe the rules never change during times of danger for you. If a guy broke into your house whom intended to murder you and rob your home would you first respect his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by letting him take your life and your property? Would you not take drastic and draconian actions to stop this outlaw? What if you had a wife that stepped in between you and the outlaw and had done that? Would you push her aside, and if necessary knock her out with a punch or tie her up, in order to save her life, your life, your children's life, your home, car and other worldly belongings?
I don't think the government should ever have carte blanche but you do what you have to do in order to win. I whole-heartedly believe in individual liberty and I never want to see if taken away. Our government did what it had to do to win and they didn't murder dissenting or interned Japs/Nips (citizens or foreign nationals). They took the prudent, balanced road, not the extreme road. These Japs did not reveal who the saboteurs or spies were but our intel agencies knew they existed within the Japanese communities on the West Coast. If the Japs had done this then the internment would not have occurred. If the Muslims in this country would do the same then we will not have to do it in the future. We can't do it now because the Leftist ACLU and associated Leftist organs are protecting them. They both want to take away your liberty, your life (if you don't agree with them), and your pursuit of happiness.
I'd say 10 percent may 20 at the most.
Well, you and the court'd be wrong. As Korematsu is recognized to be in today's society.
There is "reasonable doubt" that a person may commit a violent crime in wartime, that supercedes constitutional protections.
(Really?? And where in the Constitution do you find this unlimited grant of Power to the Government?) We're talking about innocent people here, who've done nothing. It isn't a case of "reasonable doubt," it is a case of "there's not the slightest scintilla of evidence they did anything wrong." They relocated infants and children, for Christ's sakes.
The first rule in wartime is to survive.
So anything goes? How about genocide? If FDR decided to kill all the Japanese, would that have been okay with you?
Nope! Someone will hit the snooze button.
Sadly, it will take a lot of people dying before Europe stirs from its multicultural slumber.
Key point here being that Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons (nor any other Judeo-Christian or near Judeo-Christian religion) are not commanded to overthrow this country and replace it with a theocracy. ONLY the moslems are commanded to fight against us forever or until they win.
Islam is the enemy.
So, you're comfortable with giving the government to power to determine which American citizens are "potentially dangerous?"
I'll keep that in mind if Hilary wins in 2008.
No but islam is responsible for all these atrocities.
No, of course not. These are acts of individuals. You punish the individuals responsible. To do otherwise is to commit injustice.
These are the organized acts of a political system hellbent on our destriuction. That system (Islam) must be destroyed. To do otherwise is to commit suicide
You've never actually read the koran have you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.