A Principal. (end of discussion.)
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 question isn't whether one religion is better than another. The question is whether it is acceptable to punish the innocent along with the guilty. If you say that it is, then you should suffer Koresh's punishment, because you are both Christians, regardless of whether his actions violated Christian principles.
If not, then you have no basis for saying that someone who happens to be a Muslim may be punished for the teachings of Islam (even accepting your description of it), if that person is completely free and innocent of crime whatsoever.
So when are you going to submit yourself for punishment for child rape and plural marriage?
Islam is the enemy
No, people who think that are the enemy.
If you need a constitution to tell you that the first order of business of a nation is survival, I pity you.
Our Constitution and our legal system is based on the principal that people are to be treated as individuals and punished for their own actions, not the actions of other members of some group they happen to be a member of.
Are you willing to throw this principal away and start treating people primarily based on their membership in a particular group?
Sorry, ALL Muslims most certainly DO NOT think that is what the Koran says or requires. And there certainly are Christian sects who think that their Christianity requires them to do that.
By the way, if it could have been proven that "all the Japanese" were in fact a deadly threat, say, individually carrying biological weapons in their bodies, I would have no problem with killing them. It's an ultra-far fetched scenario, but the principle is, survival always comes first. Period.
If, as you claim, Jihad has over 200 million soldiers, we are screwed.
..................
It's neo-Nazi/KKK day today.
Students Wear KKK Outfits At Halloween Dance, Community Concerned
To be a Muslim is to be a Jihadist. Jihad is the core, core tenet of Islam. If you are Muslim, by default you are a jihadist which makes you a purveyor of terrorism against the infidel commanded by Allah. If you don't somehow support (publicly or privately) this core tenet you are not a true Muslim. If you know any Muslim who says he doesn't support jihad is a liar or not a true Muslim. The real test comes when you ask him to convert to a religion or belief that promotes peace not death, war, murder, and destruction of others. If they don't then the odds are that they are lying about their claims of being for peace.
FC
In wartime, absolutely. It has been so with EVERY wartime leader, including Washington, who was NOT a president at the time, but who nevertheless violated any number of "civil rights" to prosecute the war.
No but islam is responsible for all these atrocities.
Then if, as you concede, not every Muslim is responsible, to punish them for the acts of the guilty is immoral and wrong.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all the terrorists you hear about today are.....MUSLIMS!
FC
The government is more than capable of fighting the war on terror without throwing away Americans' Constitutional rights.
But, like I said, are you comfortable with President Hillary having the power to determine which Americans should be interned?
I did not use the word Japs first. Wildhorse did. I simply used his words and added the word Nips as they were also known back then.
Talk to Wildhorse about his racism not me.
FC
A Principal. (end of discussion.)
Our Constitution also deals with people treated as groups that are a danger to our country.
You need to have the balance of individual and group.
FC
If the government has proof that an individual Muslim has broken the law, I have no problem with nailing the SOB.
you are Muslim, by default you are a jihadist which makes you a purveyor of terrorism against the infidel commanded by Allah.
Until and unless a Muslim actually violates the law, this point is irrelvant, even if it is true.
If you don't somehow support (publicly or privately) this core tenet you are not a true Muslim.
Who is and isn't a true Muslim is irrelevant to this discussion.
If you know any Muslim who says he doesn't support jihad is a liar or not a true Muslim.
Unless I have evidence to the contrary, if someone tells me that they are a Muslim and that they do not support jihad, I have no reason not to believe them.
The real test comes when you ask him to convert to a religion or belief that promotes peace not death, war, murder, and destruction of others. If they don't then the odds are that they are lying about their claims of being for peace.
Nonsense. Why should a law-abiding Muslim in any way be pressured to convert religions?
You are treating people like liberals do- you seem to think of people as members of a group first, individuals second.
Alter Kaker is right. But then, so are you. The Nazis were what they said they were: nationalist socialists. They were leftwinger totalitarians with aspects of the right wing thrown in: nationalism, attached importance to a strong military, xenophobia, some degree of free enterprise (at least, regarding large corporations) etc.
Not that these are bad things in and of themselves, in moderation. But in excess, which they certainly were in Nazi Germany, they are terrible. Conservatives formed a coalition with the Nazis to bring them to power (Nazis were the single largest party, but did not have a majority), originally, thinking they could control them. They couldn't. They eventually tried to stop them, but it was too late.
All of the worst dog attacks I hear about these days are caused by pit bulls. So, following your logic, I guess I should be nervous around chihuahuas.
Well said.
So now you're an expert on who is and who is not a real Muslim??? And, amazingly, you're parroting the Osama bin Laden answer. Wow. Tell me, do you listen to your master Osama's opinion about everything or just this subject?
About 16 percent of Muslims globally are engaged in jihad operations. There is a much greater percentage that are supporting it. A small minority (10 percent at least) are not for it. Do you think that the Jihadis here in America and abroad don't have a support network? Or are all of them just lone individuals acting in concert coincidentally to destroy the infidels in Europe, Israel, Africa, Asia, and America?
I think your numbers are crap. But let's pretend they were correct. In fact, let's assume every Muslim in the world, except one was involved, and that one person was completely and absolutely innocent. In that case it would be evil and unjust to punish that person. Period. That's all I'm saying. And if you don't understand why the Government shouldn't be punishing innocent people, then there's nothing more to discuss.
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.