Posted on 10/23/2006 4:06:16 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
PING!
-bflr-
Yeah, me.
I am the son of a refugee from Berlin. He was at school in England when his parents left Germany for good on the day that would turn into the Night of Broken Glass. Some others in my family chose to stay, and they died.
I do.
You see neither my grandparents, nor my father, nor even any insignificant number of Jews ever threatened any Germans. In fact my family, and most other Jewish families, were Germans first just as I am an American first.
But what of the Muslims here? Are they Americans first? Will they even publicly denounce the attack on the World Trade Center? And by they I mean more than ten percent of the Muslims here. Will they tell us that Sharia Law for the United States is not only the farthest thing from their mind, but that they would oppose its implementation here? What about their book, and their tradition which celebrates death of those who do not submit?
Do we do that in Torah?
The Talmud counsels, "When someone come to kill you, kill him first." Open your eyes. This advice is for us today.
ML/NJ
"Arab and Iranian Muslims must be exterminated. Any law that remotely points in that direction is good. That you and the U.S. Government coddle Muslim scum is an insult to civilization."
He doesn't appear to exempt those muslims who came here simply to escape their Sharia-laden, woman-hating hellholes.
If this is a ping list, please add me.
The Talmud counsels, "When someone come to kill you, kill him first." Open your eyes. This advice is for us today.
Most, if not all Arab terrorists have black hair, therefore you think the Talmud says kill all people with black hair?
I don't think so.
I doubt that prescription was intended to include those who don't come to kill you but are capable of being grouped with those who do.
You've been added.
I agree.
I nominate you for the "Sophistry of the Year Award."
ML/NJ
Let me go on then.
In an effort to be brief I left out the almost total failure on the part of Muslims to integrate into US society. While Orthodox Jews are only are small fraction of the Jewish population here, one certainly sees a much larger number of yarmulkes at a baseball game (e.g.) than even people who look like they might be Muslims. I work with no Muslims and can only recall one Turkish guy who was supposedly Muslim in my nearly 40 years working at a variety of companies.
The reason "he" doesn't exclude them is they are not with us. They are against us.
And despite what our President says, Islam is not a religion of peace. It's not even a religion. It's a military organization. It must be dealt with as any enemy military organization that has attacked us. It must be dealt with as we dealt with the Japanese and the Germans. Let's not forget: we won that war.
ML/NJ
Aw shucks, it's nothing compared to your achievements. Why all that's necessary under this law you're so in love with is for Hillary to empower some FEMA bureaucrat to deem anyone with a weapon an "unlawful enemy combatant" and you think it's just fine and dandy for them to be shot just in case they might be a terrorist. Right? She didn't even go to that much trouble sending the military to incinerate women and children at Waco.
So pray tell, what is so wrong with demanding a distinction in this law between citizens versus foreigners or restricting its application to persons seized abroad?
Much of this lying crap can be answered by looking at the floor debate:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_cr/s092706.html
Mr. WARNER."We expanded this definition of ``unlawful enemy combatant'' ... It is wrong to say that this provision captures any U.S. citizens. It does not. It is only directed at aliens--aliens, not U.S. citizens-- bomb-makers, wherever they are in the world; those who provide the money to carry out the terrorism, wherever they are--again, only aliens and those who are preparing and using so many false documents."
Yeah, shoot on sight ~ no American citizen should become a UEC in the first place. Don't be tempted.
Given the extent to which the the Federal Convention debate has been ignored in interpreting the Constitution, what makes you so bloody confident as to call this "lying crap"?
The distinction in the legislation between citizens and aliens is either explicit or it isn't. The distinction between persons apprehended and held without trial on US soil versus abroad should be equally explicit. If they aren't the law should be nixed or fixed. So please explain why relying upon floor debate to interpret of these provisions is sufficiently explicit.
Since I know Lon Horiuchi personally I suspect you are out of your nut.
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.