Can't We Get Along?

[mattskramer]

To understand what a Fifth Column is think of "the enemy within our midst". That is essentially a Fifth Column - a group which aids and abets the enemy from within their own country. There is an Islamic Fifth Column in the United States which is aiding and abetting the islamofacist terrorists. This goes far beyond "free speech" - it is seditious and must be stopped. CAIR is in denial or else it is complicitous.

Read all about it:

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040407-092859-5549r.htm
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=825
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=5270

Another nice selection. I'm sure that if I cared to continue playing this game, I could come up with some links that give a different perspective. It is an endless cycle.

Yes, there are probably some small groups of radical militant fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the USA. Likewise, there are probably some anti-American militia groups that would like to bomb a federal building. Let us demand access to those groups & their info. There are probably some ultra fundamentalist Christian groups who cheer those who murder abortion clinic doctors. More would probably do the same if they had the courage. We better have the government infiltrate such groups. Where do we draw the line between privacy & free speech & free assembly on one hand and security on the other?

I have an idea. Let's simply round up all of the American Muslims and put them in little more than concentration camps, as we did with the Japanese in WWII, until this "war" is over.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Another nice selection. I'm sure that if I cared to continue playing this game, I could come up with some links that give a different perspective. It is an endless cycle.

Yes, there are probably some small groups of radical militant fundamentalist Islamic terrorists in the USA. Likewise, there are probably some anti-American militia groups that would like to bomb a federal building. Let us demand access to those groups & their info. There are probably some ultra fundamentalist Christian groups who cheer those who murder abortion clinic doctors. More would probably do the same if they had the courage. We better have the government infiltrate such groups. Where do we draw the line between privacy & free speech & free assembly on one hand and security on the other?

I have an idea. Let's simply round up all of the American Muslims and put them in little more than concentration camps, as we did with the Japanese in WWII, until this "war" is over.

If there were such radical groups in existence within the Christian churches, I'll bet you would be jumping all over to investigate those, wouldn't you? The liberal media would be screeching bloody murder. The ACLU would be demanding legal intervention. The Democrats would be up and bellowing on their hind legs in the Senate. Give me a break.

 

[mattskramer]

If there were such radical groups in existence within the Christian churches, I'll bet you would be jumping all over to investigate those, wouldn't you?

I believe that such groups exist - though the groups may be small. How much reasonable suspicion must there be, that such radical groups exist, before such groups lose their rights to privacy and free speech? I have reason to believe that there are radical violent groups in America that claim to be Christian. Likewise, I have reason to believe that there are small terrorist groups in America that claim to be practicing Islam. How much evidence or suspicion must there be before such groups (Churches or Mosques) may be forced to be "opened and exposed"?

Oh. Is it your belief that the only "religious" groups posing a dangerous threat to America are the groups that claim to follow Islam?

My previous question remains: Where do we draw the line between privacy & free speech & free assembly on one hand and security on the other?

 

[kurtsprincess]

If there were such radical groups in existence within the Christian churches, I'll bet you would be jumping all over to investigate those, wouldn't you?

I believe that such groups exist - though the groups may be small. How much reasonable suspicion must there be, that such radical groups exist, before such groups lose their rights to privacy and free speech? I have reason to believe that there are radical violent groups in America that claim to be Christian. Likewise, I have reason to believe that there are small terrorist groups in America that claim to be practicing Islam. How much evidence or suspicion must there be before such groups (Churches or Mosques) may be forced to be "opened and exposed"?

Oh. Is it your belief that the only "religious" groups posing a dangerous threat to America are the groups that claim to follow Islam?

My previous question remains: Where do we draw the line between privacy & free speech & free assembly on one hand and security on the other?

Maybe when one of those radical Christian groups decide to wage war on Americans by killing 3,000+ innocent men, women and children.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Matt, don't you grow weary of getting your ass beaten by girls?

 

[William Joyce]

Matt, you make some good observations about the history of the world's religion, and how they're all guilty of violence at times.

My perspective is that "religion" in most manifestations today is a front for racial and ethnic battles. Races and ethnicities, by contrast, don't get along because they compete with each other --- just as individuals do --- for scarce resources.

It's that simple, and that complicated.

 

[mattskramer]

Maybe when one of those radical Christian groups decide to wage war on Americans by killing 3,000+ innocent men, women and children.

It is difficult to understand your perspective in specific terms when you don't answer a straight question with a straight answer. Based on your comment, am I correct in the following conclusion:

It is your opinion that:

If some politicians think that a few American religious leaders who claim to be followers of a particular faith, might be calling for a "war on Americans" - (other Americans), then the US government is justified in invading all buildings representative of that religion for the sake of national security. The US government is even justified in "infiltrating" similar buildings where those who oppose to the "war on Americans" may be truly practicing the faith.

Note: Radical "Christian" groups in America have killed many other Americans under the banner of Christianity. White Supremacists who claim to follow Biblical instruction have assaulted, terrorized, and killed Blacks. Self-righteous "Christians", possibly with influence and material help from small Christian groups have stalked, terrorized, and murdered abortion providers.

Since some self-professed followers of Christianity have not recently declared war on 3000+ Americans at one time, and may not have killed 3000+ Americans, Christian churches don't warrant government investigation.

Is that your position? If not, please clarify it and answer my question: Where do we draw the line between privacy & free speech & free assembly on one hand and security on the other?

 

[mattskramer]

Matt, don't you grow weary of getting your ass beaten by girls?

Your question is fallacious in nature. It assumes facts not in evidence. It would be as if I were to ask you if you have quit abusing your family yet.

 

[mattskramer]

Matt, you make some good observations about the history of the world's religion, and how they're all guilty of violence at times.

My perspective is that "religion" in most manifestations today is a front for racial and ethnic battles. Races and ethnicities, by contrast, don't get along because they compete with each other --- just as individuals do --- for scarce resources.

It's that simple, and that complicated.

Thanks Willaim. Nice puppy.

 

[kurtsprincess]

It is difficult to understand your perspective in specific terms when you don't answer a straight question with a straight answer. Based on your comment, am I correct in the following conclusion:

It is your opinion that:

If some politicians think that a few American religious leaders who claim to be followers of a particular faith, might be calling for a "war on Americans" - (other Americans), then the US government is justified in invading all buildings representative of that religion for the sake of national security.

Yes.

The US government is even justified in "infiltrating" similar buildings where those who oppose to the "war on Americans" may be truly practicing the faith.

Yes.

Note: Radical "Christian" groups in America have killed many other Americans under the banner of Christianity. White Supremacists who claim to follow Biblical instruction have assaulted, terrorized, and killed Blacks. Self-righteous "Christians", possibly with influence and material help from small Christian groups have stalked, terrorized, and murdered abortion providers.

I expect my government to take action if this is happening.

Since some self-professed followers of Christianity have not recently declared war on 3000+ Americans at one time, and may not have killed 3000+ Americans, Christian churches don't warrant government investigation.

My position on this is that perhaps the bombing of the Twin Towers is what directed our government to take a more in-depth view of radical religious groups. And, until there is a radical event such as 9/11 perpetrated by a radical Christian group, they are doing what they deem necessary in the meantime.

Is that your position? If not, please clarify it and answer my question: Where do we draw the line between privacy & free speech & free assembly on one hand and security on the other?

Let's see.....when the right to free assembly, free speech and privacy impinges upon the rights of the majority's security and safety. I don't like my privacy being invaded any more than anyone else, in fact, I don't like it at all..........not by my government, my neighbors or anyone. However, I'm also cognizant that my government cannot protect me from what they are not aware of. How else can they plan and prepare for my safety and security if they don't investigate all possibilities. I guess I have faith that the government will not willy-nilly invade my privacy and that they will have a darn good reason if they decide to look into my activities.

I would rather be safe than sorry.

I guess I'm more pissed off at the terrorists than the government about all this invasion of privacy. I haven't seen any restrictions on freedom of speech or freedom of assembly.