Marshall
Member
Secret interrogation areas..........
I loose no sleep over this.
I loose no sleep over this.
The only way we could lose is if we continue to allow Muslims to enter our country. We can choose to commit suicide by continuing this insane policy, or we could come to the realization that Islam is way too dangerous to encourage within our own boarders, and change our imigration policies to match this reality. There is no law that says we have to ignore what religion someone is when deciding on issuing visas and citizenship documents. If we adopted a sane immigration policy, there is no way we could ultimately lose, since only a tiny minority of Americans would be happy surrendering to Islamic totalitarianism.
You speak as if we have only two options, fight our enemies by abandoning liberty or retain our liberty and succomb to our enemies. I believe, on the contrary, that we can fight our enemies without adopting the values of our enemies.
You grossly mischaracterized Washington's foreign policy, and I never advocated an anti immigration policy.silliman89 said:TRH,
I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'll try to clear up a couple of points of confusion, then I'll just let you have the last word if you like.
You combined George Washington's foreign policy with a strict anti-immigration policy.
On this point we disagree. We had just defeated the world's only super power. That's nothing to sneeze at.Washington's foreign policy was predicated on the fact the we were too small and weak to become involved in foreign entanglements in his time. That's clearly not the case today.
Then I contend that your definition of isolationism is faulty.You and I agree that Muslim fundamentalists are a threat to our country. I was discussing rules of engagement for fighting our enemy overseas. You responded by saying all we had to do is keep our enemy out of this country. To me that sounds isolationist.
I was only asking. There are many kinds of internationists, and I don't like your variety (Those who see us as a budding empire) any better than the one worlders.I would never call myself a "one-worlder", but I suppose opinions vary. I reserve terms like that for people who think the US should subjugate itself to the UN, or only operate with international permission. I think the US needs to take whatever action it deems best to protect its national interests.
You must have. Once released from the chains of the Constitution, as you would have it, it is my opinion no organization composed of human beings, no matter how noble their purpose, can be trusted as far as you can throw them. On this I agree with Lord Acton, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."Having served 5 years in the military (yes, the US military), and 10 years in the intelligence community, I have more faith in the people our government is comprised of than you seem to.
I think I've made perfectly clear what my values are. Your question served another end, I am convinced.You can call it that if you like. I called it a moral value question. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I wasn't asking you about real world current events at that time. I was asking what your values were.
Your purpose was quite obvious. You were attempting to force a choice for which you had an answer in mind.I was genuinely surprised that several people reacted as if I were trying to trap you in some way.
Iain has clarified what he meant. I agree with him.I don't see what the big deal is. Iain answered, although I'm not sure he meant to, when he said:
I think you know where I come from. Otherwise, I've been wasting my time here at the keyboard these last few days.I was actually just trying to understand where you were coming from.
No law would need to be legislated. This could be done as a matter of immigration policy rather than a law passed by Congress. It was, in fact, our policy until the early 1960s.shootinstudent said:TRH,
Yes, not only are secret prisons one form of erosion in our civil rights, but the right to religious freedom is another thing that's threatened by all the hype that comes with the war on terror. I do believe passing a law that says "No Muslims may enter the US" would be a law respecting the establishment of religion, what do you think?
No, just quietly change the immigration policy. We don't need to insult anyone by stating that Islam is evil. Nor am I saying it. It is just not particularly compatible with our culture. We can absorb those who are already citizens, and given enough time they will likely become Americanized, but for that to work we need to close the floodgates.I think the best way to lose the war is to start pushing all of our Muslim allies (like the Muslims who fight in the US Army and who are fighting on our side in Iraq as we speak) away from us by saying "All Muslims are evil", and sending the message that we want nothing to do with them. That's a good way to lose vital sources of support and intelligence with respect to fundamentalist terrorism.
I have not blamed all Muslims.I think so too. But blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few is something that our enemies do in order to propagandize against us.
To recognize that Islam has historically been a danger to Western society is not to promote religious hatred. It is merely to recognize a fact of history confirmed repeatedly over many centuries, and revealing itself to be undeniably true as we speak. If history proves anything, it is that Islam is destructive of Western society. Their history has been one of constant violent conquest and conversion by the sword. Our culture has been nearly wiped out on numerous occasions by the proponants of this "religion of peace," and we moderns have blithely welcomed them within our citadels and invited them to make themselves at home. This is the definition of insanity.You are to be commended for recognizing the dangers that secret trials and prisons present, but you shouldn't ignore the equally real danger of the rise of religious hatred and the consequent loss of freedom.
This could be done as a matter of immigration policy rather than a law passed by Congress. It was, in fact, our policy until the early 1960s.
No, just quietly change the immigration policy. We don't need to insult anyone by stating that Islam is evil. Nor am I saying it. It is just not particularly compatible with our culture. We can absorb those who are already citizens, and given enough time they will likely become Americanized, but for that to work we need to close the floodgates.
To recognize that Islam has historically been a danger to Western society is not to promote religious hatred. It is merely to recognize a fact of history confirmed repeatedly over many centuries, and revealing itself to be undeniably true as we speak. If history proves anything, it is that Islam is destructive of Western society.
Our culture has been nearly wiped out on numerous occasions by the proponants of this "religion of peace," and we moderns have blithely welcomed them within our citadels and invited them to make themselves at home. This is the definition of insanity.
For the moment I will concede this point to you. Regardless, adjustments in immigration policy hardly amount to establishing an official religion in the United States, and would thus not be barred by the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.shootinstudent said:How do you think Congressional policy is made? Hint: Congress does things by statute....so no, you can't change a "policy" of Congress without passing something.
You are both right and wrong. National origins were historically selected at least partially based on the religions previlent therein. The point is that religion was considered an important factor in making our immigration policy, and ought to be again.National origin and religion are not the same thing. You are confusing past policies limiting immigration from certain countries with limiting immigration based on religion.
A weak claim, indeed.You could not be more wrong. If you're genuinely interested in the subject, I have a boat load of primary sources that you can look through in order to see this for yourself. The "West" that the Arab conquerors took over was a deeply sick, feudal, and violent place, which is why the Muslim armies were welcomed by both Christians and Jews wherever they went. Conversely, the spread of Nazi and before that western totalitarian philosophy since the late 1800's in the Muslim world has wreaked havoc on those societies. If anything, you could make a weak claim that Western culture has threatened and is now destroying the Muslim world via the influence of sick, twisted western philosophies.
If we weren't there, they wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't need to decipher the regional peculiarities of the various cultural experiences of Islamic peoples."They" are not all one people. It's not insane, but certainly incorrect and likely dangerous to our mission against terrorism, to view the Muslim world in this light. The mistake we're making isn't inviting Muslims to America. It's being so ignorant of what is happening in the Muslim world that we can't combat terrorism effectively...because we don't know enough to recognize potential allies nor to identify the most dangerous elements.
You are both right and wrong. National origins were historically selected at least partially based on the religions previlent therein. The point is that religion was considered an important factor in making our immigration policy, and ought to be again.
A weak claim, indeed.
If we weren't there, they wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't need to decipher the regional peculiarities of the various cultural experiences of Islamic peoples.
silliman89 said:Well, I certainly meant to be good natured. None of us has to be on this forum, it's supposed to be enjoyable. I hadn't meant to be an attacker at all, but I may have a problem with that. My wife sometimes says the same thing.
I was referring to the islamic fundamentalist "terrorists" as enemies. It may have been an exageration to say they surrounded us. But they are to the east and west of us. I think they would be very happy to see our society collapse into anarchy, and would try to perpetuate it.
The key phrase there is "and mind their own business."mercedesrules said:My point is that I don't think a libertarian anarchy (anarcho-capitalism) would have any enemies of the sort we are discussing. I hesitate to describe that type of anarchy to you; most here have at least heard of it. Why would anyone want to attack a bunch of well-armed, widely-dispersed, self-governors that only trade and mind their own business? No one has attacked Switzerland - even with all of that money!
Let's take Osama Bin Laden as an example. Let's suppose we put him on trial for 9/11. What evidence is there? His own admission that he was responsible on his video tapes? He can say that was simply propaganda he was fabricating for recruitment purposes. All other evidence is the result of illegal search and seizure. The case would be thrown out of court for insufficient evidence.
Certainly you were a LOT less likely to get in trouble for killing prisoners in WW2. In a lot of the personal accounts I have read it was commonplace.
I'd rather they got a 9mm hole in the back of the head, but I'm sure someone would call that a war crime.
The Real Hawkeye said:The key phrase there is "and mind their own business."
How ofter are Swiss citizens targeted by terrorists? Wonder why?mercedesrules said:Why?
I would hope I could do the same, although "cheerfully" wouldn't be a word I'd use to describe my mindset in that setting.I would cheerfully inflict great amounts of pain on someone I felt had designs on another 9/11 if that meant that I could save the lives of innocent people.
How ofter are Swiss citizens targeted by terrorists?
The Real Hawkeye said:How ofter are Swiss citizens targeted by terrorists? Wonder why?
On that point, yes, we agree, so long as you remove the word anarchists, because the Swiss are not that, though their government is small, decentralized, limited, and heavily checked. I do believe that some level of government is necessary, but the least of it the better. It needs to be heavily checked, however, or it will certainly expand in power ad infinitum, until it inevitably becomes totalitarian in nature, i.e., or it will take the road ours took with the election of Honest Abe Lincoln. Today we see the result of that path, and it will only get worse with time.mercedesrules said:So, we agree?
'Cause that was the point I was making: that a continent full of peaceful libertarian anarchists wouldn't stir up hatred overseas.
Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody ...
Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators this week to allow CIA exemptions to a proposed ban on the torture of terrorism suspects in U.S. custody
The Real Hawkeye said:On that point, yes, we agree, so long as you remove the word anarchists, because the Swiss are not that, though their government is small, decentralized, limited, and heavily checked. I do believe that some level of government is necessary, but the least of it the better. It needs to be heavily checked, however, or it will certainly expand in power ad infinitum, until it inevitably becomes totalitarian in nature, i.e., or it will take the road ours took with the election of Honest Abe Lincoln. Today we see the result of that path, and it will only get worse with time.