terrorists

Was thinking today (that could be dangerous)...the current
administration has said that eradicating terrorism, wherever it's found,
is a strong priority now...well, how about the Ku Klux Klan? There's a
terrorist crew, if there ever was one...who knows how many blacks were
murdered by them, and I would imagind that Jews, Native Americans, and
most likely other non white groups were also terrorized by them as well.
Of course, many promionent white citizens have been members over the
years, so maybe they didn't think of themselves as terrorists...however,
I'm not sure what else they should be called. I wouldn't mind at all if
they were put out of business...Hstick

I was thinking today (could be a dangerous habit)...the current
administration has said that they want to eradicate terrorism, wherever
it's found...well, how about going after the Ku Klux Klan? There's a
terrorist organization, if there ever was one, and they say they are
Christians, as well. Who knows how many blacks were murdered by them
over the years, as well as Jews, Native Americans, and other non white
groups. Of course, many prominent white citizens were (are) members, so
perhaps they will not be high on the Bush hit list. However, they are,
indeed, a fundamentalist religious terrorist group, and they have been
operating, rather openly, in our land for many years...perhaps Uncle Sam
should start rooting out terrorism at home, and make this a safer
country, for citizens of all races and beliefs...Hstick

[Neil wrote:]
> Was thinking today (that could be dangerous)...the current
>administration has said that eradicating terrorism, wherever it's
>found, is a strong priority now...well, how about the Ku Klux Klan?
>There's a terrorist crew, if there ever was one...who knows how many
>blacks were murdered by them, and I would imagine that Jews, Native
>Americans, and most likely other non white groups were also terrorized
>by them as well. Of course, many promionent white citizens have been
>members over the years, so maybe they didn't think of themselves as
>terrorists...however, I'm not sure what else they should be called. I
>wouldn't mind at all if they were put out of business...Hstick

If by "put[ting] them out of business" you mean prosecuting people who
bomb churches, or who burn crosses on other people's lawns for that
matter, I wholeheartedly agree. As far as I know, however, the KKK
today pretty much meets in private and occasionally marches in public.
I hope you would not support banning those activities, no matter how
repugnant the KKK's views are.

If you _would_ outlaw the KKK, would you also outlaw black groups that
preach inferiority of whites? I would far rather they pedal their trash
to deaf ears than drive them underground. It is better to know what
people's perceived grievances are, even if we conclude they are
illegitimate.

Germany bans the swastika, and I consider that a serious mistake. The
neo-nazis there feed off their sense of unjust persecution, and use it
to recruit new members. The world is the ultimate loser, IMHO.

JdL

--- In metatuning@y..., "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@a...> wrote:
<snip>
> If you _would_ outlaw the KKK, would you also outlaw black groups
> that preach inferiority of whites? I would far rather they pedal
> their trash to deaf ears than drive them underground. It is better
> to know what people's perceived grievances are, even if we conclude
> they are illegitimate.
<snip>
> JdL

Good point. It is a good idea to be able to keep your eye on those who
would deprive us of our lives or freedoms. Speaking of which, with the
broad general powers given the new Office of Homeland Security (sounds
like a title out of 1984) we'd better keep a close watch on them. A
website devoted to their activities would be a good thing. They might
have a hard time justifying closing it down.

John Starrett

Since the FBI and the CIA don't like each other (or worse) they need a
Homeland Director to combine their info with law enforcement. This lack of
communication, quite usual in other fields, proved disastrous when the
terrorists had sway on 9/11.

Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 10/6/01 11:17 PM, "John A. deLaubenfels" <jdl@...> wrote:

> If by "put[ting] them out of business" you mean prosecuting people who
> bomb churches, or who burn crosses on other people's lawns for that
> matter, I wholeheartedly agree. As far as I know, however, the KKK
> today pretty much meets in private and occasionally marches in public.
> I hope you would not support banning those activities, no matter how
> repugnant the KKK's views are.

Actually, if you're looking for justice in that neck of the woods, why don't
you do a little web search on the Mississippi Sovereignty Commission. It
makes for very good reading. Bunch of KKKers in the 60s or so, sealed up
about 100,000 pages of KKK documentation to be opened no sooner than 2027,
when most of them would be dead. A Mississippi judge overturned this a few
years ago. Justice is being served with cake and coffee; the man who shot
Medgar Evers is now in jail. Six of the people who were acquitted in that
church bombing, in Alabama I think, were all sentenced to life in prison.
Contained in those pages are official memos, the ordering of a lot of hate
crimes. Most of the people who are being sentenced thanks to the MSC are
all in their sixties.

Having been raised by, and having forever rebelled against, the fists and
manipulations of someone who was in the KKK since age 3, I'm taking great
pleasure in every case they're prosecuting.

Marc Jones