[quote]5. End illegal immigration by making border security the military's job. What good is a $400 billion defense budget if we can't secure our borders? This would also help with the war on drugs.
9. Completely reform the INS. Adopt extremely tough immigration standards. Sadly, it does not seem that much has changed on that front.<hr></blockquote>
Probably getting worse: This story is several weeks old and I am not sure what the follow up is...but I am sure that the Mexico immigration route has been taken into consideration by al'qaida and other terrorist groups:
Education. Many radical muslims are not taught the correct meaning of Islam. They are being misled by power hungry and crazy religious leaders. Muslim countries need to educate their masses about the rights and wrongs of Islam.
This is a long term solution and it must be implemented!
[quote]Education. Many radical muslims are not taught the correct meaning of Islam. They are being misled by power hungry and crazy religious leaders. Muslim countries need to educate their masses about the rights and wrongs of Islam.<hr></blockquote>
Absolutely. Even such a basic term like jihad is wildly misinterpreted by fanatics to include terrorist acts, suicide bombings. "Jihad" is an ancient spiritual term referring to an individual's ongoing struggle for self improvement.
Some Americans just don't know what they are talking about when it concerns a war. When was the last war in the US? Does anybody remember bombs exploding in the streets, blood and corpses everywhere you look? Does anybody remember there was Hitler? SDW, you need to see a doctor.
<strong>simple...if we profile, we do it right...include pro life and ex military...they are the most likely to cause domestic terror if recent history is to be used as an example....you can also target extreme left and right groups and muslims...and forcibly shut down all militias....that would be a realistic start if you want to "win the war on terror"....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see your point, but those groups don;t pose the same kind of threat that Islamic terrorits do. Equating pro-life (radical or not) with Islamic terror is a flawed concept. Ditto on the military.
The problem with the militia thing (and I assume you mean domestically) is that there is no question getting rid of them is unconstitutional. Compeltely unconstitutional. Though I don;t believe the second amendment gives us the right to carry guns "because we feel like it that day", it most certainly DOES give the right to citizens to form well organized and armed militias. No question there.
Fran--I appreciate your response. The problem I have with those points, though, is that we already ARE hated, whether we "go to the next level" or not. "Not trying to piss anyone off" won't accomplish anything.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Absolutely. Even such a basic term like jihad is wildly misinterpreted by fanatics to include terrorist acts, suicide bombings. "Jihad" is an ancient spiritual term referring to an individual's ongoing struggle for self improvement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that is not the modern meaning. The latter definition is being taught is some of our more liberal schools, HERE in th US. It is simply inaccurate in todays times. And where do you think the first definition is being taught?. Answer: Islamic madrassas in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
On a more general note, I resent the notion that anything I proposed is "radical" or unconstitutional. Those calling for an end to right wing militias....now that's radical. I certainly don't support those groups' agendas, but under the constitution, they have a clear and undeniable right to exist.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Absolutely. Even such a basic term like jihad is wildly misinterpreted by fanatics to include terrorist acts, suicide bombings. "Jihad" is an ancient spiritual term referring to an individual's ongoing struggle for self improvement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, your point? I'm pointless myself, but at least I'm honest about it. Not to get too testy, but this is a pet peeve of mine, obviously, the practical definition of "jihad" is a spiritual term meaning blow up as many infidels as you can and you'll get lots of virgin poon in the afterlife.
You can say that the definition has been hijacked (Oh look, a pun, I'm so witty!) from the religious, but the religious middle eastern leaders are the ones propelling this fanatical interpretation, NOT us, as you say, yet somehow we're the ones who keep hearing that Islam is peace. Bullshit.
If we do edumacate (yes I'ma talkin plain na) them, as you say, which again, I don't think is wrong, just trite, we'll have an inevitable hew and cry about respect for culture, the "anti-war" cause heads will turn into the "respect for culture/diversity" cause heads.
Islam is not peace, and jihad is not a "spiritual" quest untill a significant portion of Islamic leaders preach it so or a vocal body of their own devout critique it so.
We are doing it, NOT them. NOT in the Middle East, at any rate, to give Islam such idyllic license, such leeway just to pre-empt accusations of bigotry goes beyond merely idiotic, it's dangerous.
We ALL know what Middle-Eastern Islam really is today.
One thing we have to realize that I don't think most Americans have really understood is that democracy and our rights are themselves a big risk to our safety. We were willing to accept that risk when we wrote the Constitution.
A few of these things sacrifice long term prevention and peace at the expense of short term fixes to our threats.
And no more Catholic schools either . . . some of them Cthlics are listen to that thar pope and think this here war on Iraq is not so smart!!!
And no more Home schoolin neither . . . never know what kind of buuullsht ya'll gonna git from some anti-US home brewed buuuullllshiiiiiit!!
and no mosques or temples and no more circuses and no more clowns... clowns are dangerous... and no more newspapers that don't bear the official seal of approval . . and no more porn and no more 'art photos' and no more walking around without a pass!!!!!
Can I hear a loud YES for occupationalÂ*profiling in airports? All clowns, porn models and postal workers must be strip searched. They are a lethal bunch if you ask me.
And now back to the scheduled bitching programming.
Comments
I do too. John Ashcroft has other ideas:
<a href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0 " target="_blank">http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.asp?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0 </a>
There is a leaked link to the entire text of the "Patriot Act II" on this site. It is ugly reading.
9. Completely reform the INS. Adopt extremely tough immigration standards. Sadly, it does not seem that much has changed on that front.<hr></blockquote>
Probably getting worse: This story is several weeks old and I am not sure what the follow up is...but I am sure that the Mexico immigration route has been taken into consideration by al'qaida and other terrorist groups:
<a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021123-42336600.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.washtimes.com/national/20021123-42336600.htm</a>;
[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
[QB
Freedom rocks. State control does not rock.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
I agree at 100 %. Democratia is not just limited to the right to vote.
This is a long term solution and it must be implemented!
Absolutely. Even such a basic term like jihad is wildly misinterpreted by fanatics to include terrorist acts, suicide bombings. "Jihad" is an ancient spiritual term referring to an individual's ongoing struggle for self improvement.
Throw away your television (© RHCP)
[ 02-14-2003: Message edited by: costique ]</p>
<strong>simple...if we profile, we do it right...include pro life and ex military...they are the most likely to cause domestic terror if recent history is to be used as an example....you can also target extreme left and right groups and muslims...and forcibly shut down all militias....that would be a realistic start if you want to "win the war on terror"....g</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see your point, but those groups don;t pose the same kind of threat that Islamic terrorits do. Equating pro-life (radical or not) with Islamic terror is a flawed concept. Ditto on the military.
The problem with the militia thing (and I assume you mean domestically) is that there is no question getting rid of them is unconstitutional. Compeltely unconstitutional. Though I don;t believe the second amendment gives us the right to carry guns "because we feel like it that day", it most certainly DOES give the right to citizens to form well organized and armed militias. No question there.
Fran--I appreciate your response. The problem I have with those points, though, is that we already ARE hated, whether we "go to the next level" or not. "Not trying to piss anyone off" won't accomplish anything.
<strong>
Absolutely. Even such a basic term like jihad is wildly misinterpreted by fanatics to include terrorist acts, suicide bombings. "Jihad" is an ancient spiritual term referring to an individual's ongoing struggle for self improvement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that is not the modern meaning. The latter definition is being taught is some of our more liberal schools, HERE in th US. It is simply inaccurate in todays times. And where do you think the first definition is being taught?. Answer: Islamic madrassas in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
On a more general note, I resent the notion that anything I proposed is "radical" or unconstitutional. Those calling for an end to right wing militias....now that's radical. I certainly don't support those groups' agendas, but under the constitution, they have a clear and undeniable right to exist.
<strong>
Absolutely. Even such a basic term like jihad is wildly misinterpreted by fanatics to include terrorist acts, suicide bombings. "Jihad" is an ancient spiritual term referring to an individual's ongoing struggle for self improvement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, your point? I'm pointless myself, but at least I'm honest about it. Not to get too testy, but this is a pet peeve of mine, obviously, the practical definition of "jihad" is a spiritual term meaning blow up as many infidels as you can and you'll get lots of virgin poon in the afterlife.
You can say that the definition has been hijacked (Oh look, a pun, I'm so witty!) from the religious, but the religious middle eastern leaders are the ones propelling this fanatical interpretation, NOT us, as you say, yet somehow we're the ones who keep hearing that Islam is peace. Bullshit.
If we do edumacate (yes I'ma talkin plain na) them, as you say, which again, I don't think is wrong, just trite, we'll have an inevitable hew and cry about respect for culture, the "anti-war" cause heads will turn into the "respect for culture/diversity" cause heads.
Islam is not peace, and jihad is not a "spiritual" quest untill a significant portion of Islamic leaders preach it so or a vocal body of their own devout critique it so.
We are doing it, NOT them. NOT in the Middle East, at any rate, to give Islam such idyllic license, such leeway just to pre-empt accusations of bigotry goes beyond merely idiotic, it's dangerous.
We ALL know what Middle-Eastern Islam really is today.
A few of these things sacrifice long term prevention and peace at the expense of short term fixes to our threats.
And no more Home schoolin neither . . . never know what kind of buuullsht ya'll gonna git from some anti-US home brewed buuuullllshiiiiiit!!
and no mosques or temples and no more circuses and no more clowns... clowns are dangerous... and no more newspapers that don't bear the official seal of approval . . and no more porn and no more 'art photos' and no more walking around without a pass!!!!!
I say we make 'em all wear clown patches!!!
Can I hear a loud YES for occupationalÂ*profiling in airports? All clowns, porn models and postal workers must be strip searched. They are a lethal bunch if you ask me.
And now back to the scheduled bitching programming.