isnt any different between all of moslem?

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

All I really needed to do was give "two" refugees with terrorist intentions to prove my point, among those discivered by our government. Remember, it was first discussed that there wasn't any refugees that could possibly be terrorists, it was an impossibility until I came forward with two. You honestly think that's the most our government has found? Might I also add those refugees that have been named, are among those that are "known" to our intelligence agency. In comparison we have 3 incidence in this nation that might possibly be attributed to home grown terrorists: the Boston marathon bombing, Fort Hood, and San Bernardino. Yet, inviting refugees from known hostile regions, risking bringing more of those terrorists inside our borders, to mingle with "homegrown" terrorist sympathizers that might already be here is a safe gamble? It doesn't even make common sense!!

This is precisely why
75% of Americans believe we are now heading in the WRONG direction,
40% believe terrorism is their biggest concern,
60% say military action is needed
With only 13% against direct intervention
CNN and NBC polls

Closing doors to terrorist regions that support terrorist activities is not proven to increase friction among Muslims. I didn't say I support suspending travel to all Muslim nations, and such action is no different than restricting travel to Germany during World War II. We must enforce our borders, and the only majority you will find that stands opposed to that are strictly among democrat voters themselves.

So 2 refugees arrested out of 500,000 proves your point. Why not 1 refugee? You're totally ignoring the fact we allow millions of Muslims every year to enter the country for business, pleasure, and education and their vetting is less that of immigrants and far less than refugees. You're also ignoring the fact most our terrorism is not even Islam terrorism.

Rooting our nation's immigration policy in religious bigotry and discrimination will not make America great again. However, it's very likely to be viewed by Muslim extremist both in the US and abroad as provocation to strike back. By refusing to grant visa's to American Muslim family members abroad, we may very well increase the terrorist threat in the US.

Dozens have been arrested for false documents, terrorism and ties to terrorist groups trying to enter the US or already here.

There have hundreds of arrest and have charged lying to the FBI or

Show me where this religious bigotry is? Where have I endorsed it? Was it hatred of Germans that forbid open travel between the United State and Germany during World War II? What about when we sent their ambassadors out of the country? Was it hatred that compelled the president to do so? This is where the left begins with their outright blatant lies, simply because someone has come up with a policy solution they don't happen to agree with. In fact the left will use terms such as "religious bigotry" so loosely and often as if it's some form of "tool" to be used on a personal checklist for a lack of finding an adequate defense of their position. I have very serious doubts that you would even know what religious bigotry actually looks like. Either you are capable in defending your position without the need to cry wolf when such views fail, or you can't.

I very specificially said we need to close off regions, that happen to be Muslim, because they are hostile, and promote terrorist activities within their own borders. We have nations in Europe that have already taken such a stand to close their borders, nations like France, Switzerland, and Hungary. I have already provided proof, that you can't refute, how our current system of vetting refugees does not work. While all previous responses on this thread, prior to disclosure of these individuals, would have everyone believe a terrorist couldn't POSSIBLY enter the United States through our compassion to take in refugees.

Here are further examples I can list.
Two Iraqi refugees living in Bowling Green, Ky - Waad Ramadan Alwan, 30, and Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 23, were found in 2011 of conspiring to arm al Qaeda and other jihadists in Iraq with Stinger missiles, sniper rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers as well as cash from within the United States. Of the two, Alwan was involved with a plot to kill U.S soldiers with explosive devices in Iraq before he came into the United States. What happened to the system?

Fazliddin Kurbanov, a Russian-speaking truck driver a refugee from Uzbekistan, was arrested in 2013. He was determined to carry out an attack on U.S. Soil, as well as money to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was identified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. The FBI is also investigating dozens of terrorists that have made it into this country as refugees. "I wouldn't be surprised if there were many more than that," said House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul. "And these are trained terrorists in the art of bombmaking that are inside the United States"
Exclusive: 'Dozens' of Terrorists May Be in US as Refugees


Tightening our borders against those regions which are more susceptible to high terrorist activities and allow for training camps within their borders, is not religious bigotry. We have limited civilian travel between the United States and those nations who seek to harm us before under a state of war. As with the defeat of Nazi Germany, we have reopened our doors once the threat that has influenced a nation or region has changed.

What is surprising, however, is the apparent lack of concern from the left of those innocent lives we have already lost in this country due to these terrorist acts. September 11, Fort Hood, the Boston Bombing, San Bernardino .... how many lives will we lose before liberals DO decide to take our national security seriously?

Comparing the war on terror, specifically Islamic terrorism with WWII is not a valid comparison. In WWII, we stoppled travel from Germany because we were at war with Germany. We are not at war with any country today. We are waging a war against a philosophy that knows no boundary. In WWII, US causalities were in the thousands and tens of thousand a month. Today, causalities within the US in our fight against Islamic terrorism are very low. In 2015, 19 died in 2 Islamic terrorist attacks in the US. In 2014, 7 died in 5 attacks.

Which nations are you suggesting that we stop immigration?

World War II was a devious war, as Hitler made allies on one hand while using those nation's unguarded truce to issue his Blitzkrieg. Hitler believed in the idea of creating a third empire, Greece being the first with Rome the second. This is the reason why the Nazis would referred to themselves as being the third reich. Islamic terrorist extremists believe in their own form of world dominance through the spread of their extreme Islamic view of the Koran. Their "view" is to cleanse the world of those infidels that don't accept their interpretation of their faith. Both believed in spreading their vision through the force of world dominance. By sheer military definition, when you use an airliner to purposely attack a nation like a missile, with the sole intent and purpose of inflicting massive casualties, it is considered an act of war. When the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-Boat to intentionally kill innocent civilians, that was an act of war. We ARE today at war with a militant extremist group that is well organized with a hierarchy military based structure, one with terrorist training camps, who uses their view of the Koran to deliberately kill and behead innocent civilians to further their cause of expanding their faith dominance over the world. These extremists can not be negotiated or reasoned with, their intent is clear and its to further bloodshed.

To compare casualties between Workd War II and today as a basis, is invalid. Our technology today is much more advanced, with no need to carpet bomb a city, no need to send hundreds of bombers in order to inflict damage and cut supply lines. Outside of the German V-2 rocket, there was no missile technology to deliver a warhead payload. Today we have cruise missiles and trident subs that can do the same job without the need to place an entire air fleet of pilots, defensive machine gunners, and target bombardiers constantly deep in harms way in an exchange of bombs to guns.

Our nation should not allow refugees from regions that harbor terrorists and has terrorist camps. When they take a stand to show they are aggressively working to overthrow such groups, and refuse to provide for terrorist extremists a safe refuge, only then will we begin to relax our borders to them.

Why worry about training camps abroad. According to Trump we have lots of them operating in the US. It's kind of strange with all these camps right here in the US we only had two Islamic terrorist attacks last year.

I'd like to see an actual link that supports the talk of these training camps in the United States. Do you have one?

I've exposed a breech in our vetting of refugees that enter our borders. I have also supplied links to back it up. I provided the concerns of Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCau, and his concerns of dozens more terrorists "trained in the art of bomb making" having successfully infiltrated through the system. Why are you concerned about what's going on inside the United States, when we don't even have an adequate front-line defense that's remotely capable of rooting through the many foreign applicants and keeping the terrosist extremists OUT of the country to begin with? Again, I see that liberal democrats are simply not willing to take protecting our homeland seriously.

I'm concern about terrorist acts in the United States because I live here. Most terrorist acts in the US are perpetrated by homegrown terrorist, not immigrants or refugees.

According to US News and World Report:
Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. It's a well know fact that most terrorist attacks in the US are not Islamic terrorist attacks.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Washington's Blog

You can't equate school shootings to terrorism. Unlike muslim terrorist extremist , there is no unified connection to any of these shootings they are all made by individuals each with their own motive. The vast difference here, is the capability of dozens of terrorists that have successfully infiltrated our borders, are trained with art of bomb making ( a key factor admitted through our nation's intelligence ) able to inflict a lot more damage with each attack, and all DURING the Obama administration. Your source is dated, only as current as the middle of the Bush administration at best. More importantly, NONE of what you just stated refutes the fact we have a problem with terrorists using the refugees situation to infiltrate this nation unchecked !!

Also you left out proof behind your statement of these "training camps in the United States".

 

[Flopper]

So 2 refugees arrested out of 500,000 proves your point. Why not 1 refugee? You're totally ignoring the fact we allow millions of Muslims every year to enter the country for business, pleasure, and education and their vetting is less that of immigrants and far less than refugees. You're also ignoring the fact most our terrorism is not even Islam terrorism.

Rooting our nation's immigration policy in religious bigotry and discrimination will not make America great again. However, it's very likely to be viewed by Muslim extremist both in the US and abroad as provocation to strike back. By refusing to grant visa's to American Muslim family members abroad, we may very well increase the terrorist threat in the US.

Dozens have been arrested for false documents, terrorism and ties to terrorist groups trying to enter the US or already here.

There have hundreds of arrest and have charged lying to the FBI or

Comparing the war on terror, specifically Islamic terrorism with WWII is not a valid comparison. In WWII, we stoppled travel from Germany because we were at war with Germany. We are not at war with any country today. We are waging a war against a philosophy that knows no boundary. In WWII, US causalities were in the thousands and tens of thousand a month. Today, causalities within the US in our fight against Islamic terrorism are very low. In 2015, 19 died in 2 Islamic terrorist attacks in the US. In 2014, 7 died in 5 attacks.

Which nations are you suggesting that we stop immigration?

World War II was a devious war, as Hitler made allies on one hand while using those nation's unguarded truce to issue his Blitzkrieg. Hitler believed in the idea of creating a third empire, Greece being the first with Rome the second. This is the reason why the Nazis would referred to themselves as being the third reich. Islamic terrorist extremists believe in their own form of world dominance through the spread of their extreme Islamic view of the Koran. Their "view" is to cleanse the world of those infidels that don't accept their interpretation of their faith. Both believed in spreading their vision through the force of world dominance. By sheer military definition, when you use an airliner to purposely attack a nation like a missile, with the sole intent and purpose of inflicting massive casualties, it is considered an act of war. When the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-Boat to intentionally kill innocent civilians, that was an act of war. We ARE today at war with a militant extremist group that is well organized with a hierarchy military based structure, one with terrorist training camps, who uses their view of the Koran to deliberately kill and behead innocent civilians to further their cause of expanding their faith dominance over the world. These extremists can not be negotiated or reasoned with, their intent is clear and its to further bloodshed.

To compare casualties between Workd War II and today as a basis, is invalid. Our technology today is much more advanced, with no need to carpet bomb a city, no need to send hundreds of bombers in order to inflict damage and cut supply lines. Outside of the German V-2 rocket, there was no missile technology to deliver a warhead payload. Today we have cruise missiles and trident subs that can do the same job without the need to place an entire air fleet of pilots, defensive machine gunners, and target bombardiers constantly deep in harms way in an exchange of bombs to guns.

Our nation should not allow refugees from regions that harbor terrorists and has terrorist camps. When they take a stand to show they are aggressively working to overthrow such groups, and refuse to provide for terrorist extremists a safe refuge, only then will we begin to relax our borders to them.

Why worry about training camps abroad. According to Trump we have lots of them operating in the US. It's kind of strange with all these camps right here in the US we only had two Islamic terrorist attacks last year.

I'd like to see an actual link that supports the talk of these training camps in the United States. Do you have one?

I've exposed a breech in our vetting of refugees that enter our borders. I have also supplied links to back it up. I provided the concerns of Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCau, and his concerns of dozens more terrorists "trained in the art of bomb making" having successfully infiltrated through the system. Why are you concerned about what's going on inside the United States, when we don't even have an adequate front-line defense that's remotely capable of rooting through the many foreign applicants and keeping the terrosist extremists OUT of the country to begin with? Again, I see that liberal democrats are simply not willing to take protecting our homeland seriously.

I'm concern about terrorist acts in the United States because I live here. Most terrorist acts in the US are perpetrated by homegrown terrorist, not immigrants or refugees.

According to US News and World Report:
Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. It's a well know fact that most terrorist attacks in the US are not Islamic terrorist attacks.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Washington's Blog

consider all the threats that have been stopped before they can be carried out.

In the US anti-terrorism spending is 50,000 greater than any other cause of death and the US per capita spending on anti-terrorism is 5 times greater than any other country. For that amount of money, there has be a lot of terrorist plot foiled, real or imaginary.

 

[Flopper]

So 2 refugees arrested out of 500,000 proves your point. Why not 1 refugee? You're totally ignoring the fact we allow millions of Muslims every year to enter the country for business, pleasure, and education and their vetting is less that of immigrants and far less than refugees. You're also ignoring the fact most our terrorism is not even Islam terrorism.

Rooting our nation's immigration policy in religious bigotry and discrimination will not make America great again. However, it's very likely to be viewed by Muslim extremist both in the US and abroad as provocation to strike back. By refusing to grant visa's to American Muslim family members abroad, we may very well increase the terrorist threat in the US.

Dozens have been arrested for false documents, terrorism and ties to terrorist groups trying to enter the US or already here.

There have hundreds of arrest and have charged lying to the FBI or

Comparing the war on terror, specifically Islamic terrorism with WWII is not a valid comparison. In WWII, we stoppled travel from Germany because we were at war with Germany. We are not at war with any country today. We are waging a war against a philosophy that knows no boundary. In WWII, US causalities were in the thousands and tens of thousand a month. Today, causalities within the US in our fight against Islamic terrorism are very low. In 2015, 19 died in 2 Islamic terrorist attacks in the US. In 2014, 7 died in 5 attacks.

Which nations are you suggesting that we stop immigration?

World War II was a devious war, as Hitler made allies on one hand while using those nation's unguarded truce to issue his Blitzkrieg. Hitler believed in the idea of creating a third empire, Greece being the first with Rome the second. This is the reason why the Nazis would referred to themselves as being the third reich. Islamic terrorist extremists believe in their own form of world dominance through the spread of their extreme Islamic view of the Koran. Their "view" is to cleanse the world of those infidels that don't accept their interpretation of their faith. Both believed in spreading their vision through the force of world dominance. By sheer military definition, when you use an airliner to purposely attack a nation like a missile, with the sole intent and purpose of inflicting massive casualties, it is considered an act of war. When the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-Boat to intentionally kill innocent civilians, that was an act of war. We ARE today at war with a militant extremist group that is well organized with a hierarchy military based structure, one with terrorist training camps, who uses their view of the Koran to deliberately kill and behead innocent civilians to further their cause of expanding their faith dominance over the world. These extremists can not be negotiated or reasoned with, their intent is clear and its to further bloodshed.

To compare casualties between Workd War II and today as a basis, is invalid. Our technology today is much more advanced, with no need to carpet bomb a city, no need to send hundreds of bombers in order to inflict damage and cut supply lines. Outside of the German V-2 rocket, there was no missile technology to deliver a warhead payload. Today we have cruise missiles and trident subs that can do the same job without the need to place an entire air fleet of pilots, defensive machine gunners, and target bombardiers constantly deep in harms way in an exchange of bombs to guns.

Our nation should not allow refugees from regions that harbor terrorists and has terrorist camps. When they take a stand to show they are aggressively working to overthrow such groups, and refuse to provide for terrorist extremists a safe refuge, only then will we begin to relax our borders to them.

Why worry about training camps abroad. According to Trump we have lots of them operating in the US. It's kind of strange with all these camps right here in the US we only had two Islamic terrorist attacks last year.

I'd like to see an actual link that supports the talk of these training camps in the United States. Do you have one?

I've exposed a breech in our vetting of refugees that enter our borders. I have also supplied links to back it up. I provided the concerns of Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCau, and his concerns of dozens more terrorists "trained in the art of bomb making" having successfully infiltrated through the system. Why are you concerned about what's going on inside the United States, when we don't even have an adequate front-line defense that's remotely capable of rooting through the many foreign applicants and keeping the terrosist extremists OUT of the country to begin with? Again, I see that liberal democrats are simply not willing to take protecting our homeland seriously.

I'm concern about terrorist acts in the United States because I live here. Most terrorist acts in the US are perpetrated by homegrown terrorist, not immigrants or refugees.

According to US News and World Report:
Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. It's a well know fact that most terrorist attacks in the US are not Islamic terrorist attacks.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Washington's Blog

You can't equate school shootings to terrorism. Unlike muslim terrorist extremist , there is no unified connection to any of these shootings they are all made by individuals each with their own motive. The vast difference here, is the capability of dozens of terrorists that have successfully infiltrated our borders, are trained with art of bomb making ( a key factor admitted through our nation's intelligence ) able to inflict a lot more damage with each attack, and all DURING the Obama administration. Your source is dated, only as current as the middle of the Bush administration at best. More importantly, NONE of what you just stated refutes the fact we have a problem with terrorists using the refugees situation to infiltrate this nation unchecked !!

Also you left out proof behind your statement of these "training camps in the United States".

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". What makes an attack terrorism is the motivation for the attack. School shooting can certainly be a terrorist attacks, but most aren't because the motivation doesn't usually meet the legal requirement.

If terrorist were using refugee status to enter the US, you would expect at least one terrorist attack by a refugee over the years. The fact is there have been exactly zero such attacks. Of the 784,000 refugees who entered the country over the last 14 years, there have been only 3 arrested for planning terrorist activities. It's also worth noting that two of these planned activities were outside the country and the third was judged barely creditable.

There is no evidence to support the belief that refugees are a significant threat. There is only fear, supposition, and of course politics. It's a replay of the Ebola health worker scare. Sometimes one has to wonder what happened to the home of brave.

This Chart Is The Perfect Rebuttal To Governors Who Won’t Take In Syrian Refugees

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Dozens have been arrested for false documents, terrorism and ties to terrorist groups trying to enter the US or already here.

There have hundreds of arrest and have charged lying to the FBI or

World War II was a devious war, as Hitler made allies on one hand while using those nation's unguarded truce to issue his Blitzkrieg. Hitler believed in the idea of creating a third empire, Greece being the first with Rome the second. This is the reason why the Nazis would referred to themselves as being the third reich. Islamic terrorist extremists believe in their own form of world dominance through the spread of their extreme Islamic view of the Koran. Their "view" is to cleanse the world of those infidels that don't accept their interpretation of their faith. Both believed in spreading their vision through the force of world dominance. By sheer military definition, when you use an airliner to purposely attack a nation like a missile, with the sole intent and purpose of inflicting massive casualties, it is considered an act of war. When the Lusitania was sunk by a German U-Boat to intentionally kill innocent civilians, that was an act of war. We ARE today at war with a militant extremist group that is well organized with a hierarchy military based structure, one with terrorist training camps, who uses their view of the Koran to deliberately kill and behead innocent civilians to further their cause of expanding their faith dominance over the world. These extremists can not be negotiated or reasoned with, their intent is clear and its to further bloodshed.

To compare casualties between Workd War II and today as a basis, is invalid. Our technology today is much more advanced, with no need to carpet bomb a city, no need to send hundreds of bombers in order to inflict damage and cut supply lines. Outside of the German V-2 rocket, there was no missile technology to deliver a warhead payload. Today we have cruise missiles and trident subs that can do the same job without the need to place an entire air fleet of pilots, defensive machine gunners, and target bombardiers constantly deep in harms way in an exchange of bombs to guns.

Our nation should not allow refugees from regions that harbor terrorists and has terrorist camps. When they take a stand to show they are aggressively working to overthrow such groups, and refuse to provide for terrorist extremists a safe refuge, only then will we begin to relax our borders to them.

Why worry about training camps abroad. According to Trump we have lots of them operating in the US. It's kind of strange with all these camps right here in the US we only had two Islamic terrorist attacks last year.

I'd like to see an actual link that supports the talk of these training camps in the United States. Do you have one?

I've exposed a breech in our vetting of refugees that enter our borders. I have also supplied links to back it up. I provided the concerns of Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCau, and his concerns of dozens more terrorists "trained in the art of bomb making" having successfully infiltrated through the system. Why are you concerned about what's going on inside the United States, when we don't even have an adequate front-line defense that's remotely capable of rooting through the many foreign applicants and keeping the terrosist extremists OUT of the country to begin with? Again, I see that liberal democrats are simply not willing to take protecting our homeland seriously.

I'm concern about terrorist acts in the United States because I live here. Most terrorist acts in the US are perpetrated by homegrown terrorist, not immigrants or refugees.

According to US News and World Report:
Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. It's a well know fact that most terrorist attacks in the US are not Islamic terrorist attacks.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Washington's Blog

You can't equate school shootings to terrorism. Unlike muslim terrorist extremist , there is no unified connection to any of these shootings they are all made by individuals each with their own motive. The vast difference here, is the capability of dozens of terrorists that have successfully infiltrated our borders, are trained with art of bomb making ( a key factor admitted through our nation's intelligence ) able to inflict a lot more damage with each attack, and all DURING the Obama administration. Your source is dated, only as current as the middle of the Bush administration at best. More importantly, NONE of what you just stated refutes the fact we have a problem with terrorists using the refugees situation to infiltrate this nation unchecked !!

Also you left out proof behind your statement of these "training camps in the United States".

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". What makes an attack terrorism is the motivation for the attack. School shooting can certainly be a terrorist attacks, but most aren't because the motivation doesn't usually meet the legal requirement.

If terrorist were using refugee status to enter the US, you would expect at least one terrorist attack by a refugee over the years. The fact is there have been exactly zero such attacks. Of the 784,000 refugees who entered the country over the last 14 years, there have been only 3 arrested for planning terrorist activities. It's also worth noting that two of these planned activities were outside the country and the third was judged barely creditable.

There is no evidence to support the belief that refugees are a significant threat. There is only fear, supposition, and of course politics. It's a replay of the Ebola health worker scare. Sometimes one has to wonder what happened to the home of brave.

This Chart Is The Perfect Rebuttal To Governors Who Won’t Take In Syrian Refugees

Our nation thought itself immune to the kind of terrorist attacks that often took place in Europe, so there was no need to take a more secured approach, all that changed with 9-11. This is why the left failes at national security, they'd rather wait til AFTER a devistating attack happens, after the terrorist extremists have already found a way into this country, before they decide perhaps something might have to be done about this. It's that approach that led to so many attacks under the Clinton administration and leading up to 9-11. The liberal democrats didn't find it an issue worth any real concern to instill any strict preventive measures, until after the towers fell.

 

[Indofred]

Many American men go to Asia, especially Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam to have sex with little boys.
Are all Americans perverted child sex queer monsters, and should all be banned from ever leaving the United states, just in case they ass sex a boy?

If you can answer that in the positive, you can consider banning all Muslims from the US.

If my post is a silly stereotype, why do the pro Muslim ban people think their position isn't based on a similar misconception?

 

[Indofred]

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives"

Indonesia: Second Greatest Crime of Century: 1958: The First CIA Attempt

In their authoritative book about the CIA entitledThe Invisible Government, Washington correspondents Thomas Ross and David Wise related how the U.S. supplied a right-wing rebel force in Indonesia with arms and a small air force of B-26 bombers in an attempt to overthrow Sukarno. The attempt failed, but not before one of the American pilots, Allen Lawrence Pope, was captured by loyalist forces.

Ah, the US is a terrorist state, so ALL Americans should be barred from all countries.
After all, if one American is a terrorist, they all must be, so a ban is reasonable.

Do you agree, or doesn't the stereotype work because you know a lot of Americans who aren't terrorists?

If so, perhaps you should get to know the vast majority of Muslims, that's the billion + who want nothing to do with extremism.

 

[dani67]

Many American men go to Asia, especially Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam to have sex with little boys.
Are all Americans perverted child sex queer monsters, and should all be banned from ever leaving the United states, just in case they ass sex a boy?

If you can answer that in the positive, you can consider banning all Muslims from the US.

If my post is a silly stereotype, why do the pro Muslim ban people think their position isn't based on a similar misconception?

i was in thailand.most of the sex tourist was american.

 

[Flopper]

There have hundreds of arrest and have charged lying to the FBI or
Why worry about training camps abroad. According to Trump we have lots of them operating in the US. It's kind of strange with all these camps right here in the US we only had two Islamic terrorist attacks last year.

I'd like to see an actual link that supports the talk of these training camps in the United States. Do you have one?

I've exposed a breech in our vetting of refugees that enter our borders. I have also supplied links to back it up. I provided the concerns of Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCau, and his concerns of dozens more terrorists "trained in the art of bomb making" having successfully infiltrated through the system. Why are you concerned about what's going on inside the United States, when we don't even have an adequate front-line defense that's remotely capable of rooting through the many foreign applicants and keeping the terrosist extremists OUT of the country to begin with? Again, I see that liberal democrats are simply not willing to take protecting our homeland seriously.

I'm concern about terrorist acts in the United States because I live here. Most terrorist acts in the US are perpetrated by homegrown terrorist, not immigrants or refugees.

According to US News and World Report:
Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. It's a well know fact that most terrorist attacks in the US are not Islamic terrorist attacks.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Washington's Blog

You can't equate school shootings to terrorism. Unlike muslim terrorist extremist , there is no unified connection to any of these shootings they are all made by individuals each with their own motive. The vast difference here, is the capability of dozens of terrorists that have successfully infiltrated our borders, are trained with art of bomb making ( a key factor admitted through our nation's intelligence ) able to inflict a lot more damage with each attack, and all DURING the Obama administration. Your source is dated, only as current as the middle of the Bush administration at best. More importantly, NONE of what you just stated refutes the fact we have a problem with terrorists using the refugees situation to infiltrate this nation unchecked !!

Also you left out proof behind your statement of these "training camps in the United States".

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". What makes an attack terrorism is the motivation for the attack. School shooting can certainly be a terrorist attacks, but most aren't because the motivation doesn't usually meet the legal requirement.

If terrorist were using refugee status to enter the US, you would expect at least one terrorist attack by a refugee over the years. The fact is there have been exactly zero such attacks. Of the 784,000 refugees who entered the country over the last 14 years, there have been only 3 arrested for planning terrorist activities. It's also worth noting that two of these planned activities were outside the country and the third was judged barely creditable.

There is no evidence to support the belief that refugees are a significant threat. There is only fear, supposition, and of course politics. It's a replay of the Ebola health worker scare. Sometimes one has to wonder what happened to the home of brave.

This Chart Is The Perfect Rebuttal To Governors Who Won’t Take In Syrian Refugees

Our nation thought itself immune to the kind of terrorist attacks that often took place in Europe, so there was no need to take a more secured approach, all that changed with 9-11. This is why the left failes at national security, they'd rather wait til AFTER a devistating attack happens, after the terrorist extremists have already found a way into this country, before they decide perhaps something might have to be done about this. It's that approach that led to so many attacks under the Clinton administration and leading up to 9-11. The liberal democrats didn't find it an issue worth any real concern to instill any strict preventive measures, until after the towers fell.

Policies have to be built on known facts not superstitions and fears. Do you really think any congress, Republican or Democrat would have approve the patriot act had it not been for 911 or the billions in federal expenditures to fight terrorism? What Republican president proposed major programs to protect the US from terrorism? As the saying goes, we all have 20/20 hindsight.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I'd like to see an actual link that supports the talk of these training camps in the United States. Do you have one?

I've exposed a breech in our vetting of refugees that enter our borders. I have also supplied links to back it up. I provided the concerns of Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCau, and his concerns of dozens more terrorists "trained in the art of bomb making" having successfully infiltrated through the system. Why are you concerned about what's going on inside the United States, when we don't even have an adequate front-line defense that's remotely capable of rooting through the many foreign applicants and keeping the terrosist extremists OUT of the country to begin with? Again, I see that liberal democrats are simply not willing to take protecting our homeland seriously.

I'm concern about terrorist acts in the United States because I live here. Most terrorist acts in the US are perpetrated by homegrown terrorist, not immigrants or refugees.

According to US News and World Report:
Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. It's a well know fact that most terrorist attacks in the US are not Islamic terrorist attacks.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Washington's Blog

You can't equate school shootings to terrorism. Unlike muslim terrorist extremist , there is no unified connection to any of these shootings they are all made by individuals each with their own motive. The vast difference here, is the capability of dozens of terrorists that have successfully infiltrated our borders, are trained with art of bomb making ( a key factor admitted through our nation's intelligence ) able to inflict a lot more damage with each attack, and all DURING the Obama administration. Your source is dated, only as current as the middle of the Bush administration at best. More importantly, NONE of what you just stated refutes the fact we have a problem with terrorists using the refugees situation to infiltrate this nation unchecked !!

Also you left out proof behind your statement of these "training camps in the United States".

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". What makes an attack terrorism is the motivation for the attack. School shooting can certainly be a terrorist attacks, but most aren't because the motivation doesn't usually meet the legal requirement.

If terrorist were using refugee status to enter the US, you would expect at least one terrorist attack by a refugee over the years. The fact is there have been exactly zero such attacks. Of the 784,000 refugees who entered the country over the last 14 years, there have been only 3 arrested for planning terrorist activities. It's also worth noting that two of these planned activities were outside the country and the third was judged barely creditable.

There is no evidence to support the belief that refugees are a significant threat. There is only fear, supposition, and of course politics. It's a replay of the Ebola health worker scare. Sometimes one has to wonder what happened to the home of brave.

This Chart Is The Perfect Rebuttal To Governors Who Won’t Take In Syrian Refugees

Our nation thought itself immune to the kind of terrorist attacks that often took place in Europe, so there was no need to take a more secured approach, all that changed with 9-11. This is why the left failes at national security, they'd rather wait til AFTER a devistating attack happens, after the terrorist extremists have already found a way into this country, before they decide perhaps something might have to be done about this. It's that approach that led to so many attacks under the Clinton administration and leading up to 9-11. The liberal democrats didn't find it an issue worth any real concern to instill any strict preventive measures, until after the towers fell.

Policies have to be built on known facts not superstitions and fears. Do you really think any congress, Republican or Democrat would have approve the patriot act had it not been for 911 or the billions in federal expenditures to fight terrorism? What Republican president proposed major programs to protect the US from terrorism? As the saying goes, we all have 20/20 hindsight.

You response is as if we never had a terrorist attack in this country, as if an attempt on the trade towers were never made? The reason we even had a proposal to push the Patriot Act was due to the fact we had a president willing to take action to put protective measures in place to keep another terrorists attack of any scale from taking place again, unlike his predecessor. That's the difference between a president willing to take action vs. one that didn't do much of anything at all.

Seriously, what preventive action has President. Clinton ever proposed or pushed into action?


Here is a list of terror attacks that occurred during the Clinton Administration

January 25, 1993
Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 directly into traffic waiting to enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, which killed two CIA employees.

February 26, 1993
Islamic terrorists attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers by detonating truck bombs in the underground parking garage. The attack fails to topple the twin towers but kills six and injures over 1,000.

December 24, 1994
In what could have been a preview of 9/11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who plan to crash the plane in Paris. The hijacking ended with few casualties as French law-enforcement takes control of the situation.
• You don't think that in itself was enough for President Clinton to show any concern over whether our own airport security was adequate?

January 6, 1995, a large-scale Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific is dismantled when a laptop computer is fortuitously discovered in a Manila apartment by authorities after a fire.

June 25, 1996
The Khobar Towers are bombed by Hezbollah with Iranian backing. Nineteen U.S. servicemen perish and 372 are wounded.

August 7, 1998
Al Qaeda bombs the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, killing 225 and wounding 4,000.

December 14, 1998
Ahmed Ressam is captured on the border between the U.S. and Canada. He later confessed to planning to bomb LAX airport as part of the 2000 millenium plots.

October 12, 2000
Al Qaeda bombs the USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding 40 near Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.


Ignoring the threat and our vulnerabilities by making the conscience deliberate choice to be "reactive" to attacks AFTER they happen, rather than being active in preventing them is what caused 9-11 in the FIRST place. NO changes in security measures, no increased airport monitoring or screenings, no preventive measures were taken AT ALL by President Clinton. We ignored the signs then, just as we are making excuses for them now (well it hasn't happened YET excuse).

It doesn't matter what "hindsight" we can look to or find as an excuse, if we aren't willing to LEARN from what history has just shown us. To STILL brush them off as mere "scare tactics" just demonstrates a real lack of commitment and concern by the left to keep Americans safe. There is no greater disappointment than to know the events that led to the tragedy of 9-11 wasn't enough to instill a desire by some to want to protect our homeland, to expose and evolve past our vulnerabilities to implement tighter measures that adapt our security to new threats. All I hear are excuses not to.

Yet it's far easier for the left to place blame when it suits them, while they are among the party that's not willing to change our measures of security. Insisting on a mindset that is unwillingness to learn from history and change it, and we WILL be doomed to repeat it. It really comes down to a matter of "time", and these extremists are apparently the ones that are far more persistent in their efforts to inflict harm than the left is in preventing them.

 

[Flopper]

I'm concern about terrorist acts in the United States because I live here. Most terrorist acts in the US are perpetrated by homegrown terrorist, not immigrants or refugees.

According to US News and World Report:
Of the more than 300 American deaths from political violence and mass shootings since 9/11, only 33 have come at the hands of Muslim-Americans, according to the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. It's a well know fact that most terrorist attacks in the US are not Islamic terrorist attacks.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil by Group, From 1980 to 2005, According to FBI Database

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Soil Washington's Blog

You can't equate school shootings to terrorism. Unlike muslim terrorist extremist , there is no unified connection to any of these shootings they are all made by individuals each with their own motive. The vast difference here, is the capability of dozens of terrorists that have successfully infiltrated our borders, are trained with art of bomb making ( a key factor admitted through our nation's intelligence ) able to inflict a lot more damage with each attack, and all DURING the Obama administration. Your source is dated, only as current as the middle of the Bush administration at best. More importantly, NONE of what you just stated refutes the fact we have a problem with terrorists using the refugees situation to infiltrate this nation unchecked !!

Also you left out proof behind your statement of these "training camps in the United States".

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". What makes an attack terrorism is the motivation for the attack. School shooting can certainly be a terrorist attacks, but most aren't because the motivation doesn't usually meet the legal requirement.

If terrorist were using refugee status to enter the US, you would expect at least one terrorist attack by a refugee over the years. The fact is there have been exactly zero such attacks. Of the 784,000 refugees who entered the country over the last 14 years, there have been only 3 arrested for planning terrorist activities. It's also worth noting that two of these planned activities were outside the country and the third was judged barely creditable.

There is no evidence to support the belief that refugees are a significant threat. There is only fear, supposition, and of course politics. It's a replay of the Ebola health worker scare. Sometimes one has to wonder what happened to the home of brave.

This Chart Is The Perfect Rebuttal To Governors Who Won’t Take In Syrian Refugees

Our nation thought itself immune to the kind of terrorist attacks that often took place in Europe, so there was no need to take a more secured approach, all that changed with 9-11. This is why the left failes at national security, they'd rather wait til AFTER a devistating attack happens, after the terrorist extremists have already found a way into this country, before they decide perhaps something might have to be done about this. It's that approach that led to so many attacks under the Clinton administration and leading up to 9-11. The liberal democrats didn't find it an issue worth any real concern to instill any strict preventive measures, until after the towers fell.

Policies have to be built on known facts not superstitions and fears. Do you really think any congress, Republican or Democrat would have approve the patriot act had it not been for 911 or the billions in federal expenditures to fight terrorism? What Republican president proposed major programs to protect the US from terrorism? As the saying goes, we all have 20/20 hindsight.

You response is as if we never had a terrorist attack in this country, as if an attempt on the trade towers were never made? The reason we even had a proposal to push the Patriot Act was due to the fact we had a president willing to take action to put protective measures in place to keep another terrorists attack of any scale from taking place again, unlike his predecessor. That's the difference between a president willing to take action vs. one that didn't do much of anything at all.

Seriously, what preventive action has President. Clinton ever proposed or pushed into action?


Here is a list of terror attacks that occurred during the Clinton Administration

January 25, 1993
Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 directly into traffic waiting to enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, which killed two CIA employees.

February 26, 1993
Islamic terrorists attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers by detonating truck bombs in the underground parking garage. The attack fails to topple the twin towers but kills six and injures over 1,000.

December 24, 1994
In what could have been a preview of 9/11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who plan to crash the plane in Paris. The hijacking ended with few casualties as French law-enforcement takes control of the situation.
• You don't think that in itself was enough for President Clinton to show any concern over whether our own airport security was adequate?

January 6, 1995, a large-scale Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific is dismantled when a laptop computer is fortuitously discovered in a Manila apartment by authorities after a fire.

June 25, 1996
The Khobar Towers are bombed by Hezbollah with Iranian backing. Nineteen U.S. servicemen perish and 372 are wounded.

August 7, 1998
Al Qaeda bombs the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, killing 225 and wounding 4,000.

December 14, 1998
Ahmed Ressam is captured on the border between the U.S. and Canada. He later confessed to planning to bomb LAX airport as part of the 2000 millenium plots.

October 12, 2000
Al Qaeda bombs the USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding 40 near Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.


Ignoring the threat and our vulnerabilities by making the conscience deliberate choice to be "reactive" to attacks AFTER they happen, rather than being active in preventing them is what caused 9-11 in the FIRST place. NO changes in security measures, no increased airport monitoring or screenings, no preventive measures were taken AT ALL by President Clinton. We ignored the signs then, just as we are making excuses for them now (well it hasn't happened YET excuse).

It doesn't matter what "hindsight" we can look to or find as an excuse, if we aren't willing to LEARN from what history has just shown us. To STILL brush them off as mere "scare tactics" just demonstrates a real lack of commitment and concern by the left to keep Americans safe. There is no greater disappointment than to know the events that led to the tragedy of 9-11 wasn't enough to instill a desire by some to want to protect our homeland, to expose and evolve past our vulnerabilities to implement tighter measures that adapt our security to new threats. All I hear are excuses not to.

Yet it's far easier for the left to place blame when it suits them, while they are among the party that's not willing to change our measures of security. Insisting on a mindset that is unwillingness to learn from history and change it, and we WILL be doomed to repeat it. It really comes down to a matter of "time", and these extremists are apparently the ones that are far more persistent in their efforts to inflict harm than the left is in preventing them.

I counted 6 planned or attempted terrorist attacks in the US of which only one was successfully killing 2 people over a period of 8 years.

The Clinton administration was far more concerned with domestic terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 dead and hundreds of causality. There was legislation, reorganization of the FBI, and greatly enhanced security of federal buildings across the country. Islamic terrorist attacks in the US were about as common as elephants attacks.

 

[aris2chat]

You can't equate school shootings to terrorism. Unlike muslim terrorist extremist , there is no unified connection to any of these shootings they are all made by individuals each with their own motive. The vast difference here, is the capability of dozens of terrorists that have successfully infiltrated our borders, are trained with art of bomb making ( a key factor admitted through our nation's intelligence ) able to inflict a lot more damage with each attack, and all DURING the Obama administration. Your source is dated, only as current as the middle of the Bush administration at best. More importantly, NONE of what you just stated refutes the fact we have a problem with terrorists using the refugees situation to infiltrate this nation unchecked !!

Also you left out proof behind your statement of these "training camps in the United States".

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". What makes an attack terrorism is the motivation for the attack. School shooting can certainly be a terrorist attacks, but most aren't because the motivation doesn't usually meet the legal requirement.

If terrorist were using refugee status to enter the US, you would expect at least one terrorist attack by a refugee over the years. The fact is there have been exactly zero such attacks. Of the 784,000 refugees who entered the country over the last 14 years, there have been only 3 arrested for planning terrorist activities. It's also worth noting that two of these planned activities were outside the country and the third was judged barely creditable.

There is no evidence to support the belief that refugees are a significant threat. There is only fear, supposition, and of course politics. It's a replay of the Ebola health worker scare. Sometimes one has to wonder what happened to the home of brave.

This Chart Is The Perfect Rebuttal To Governors Who Won’t Take In Syrian Refugees

Our nation thought itself immune to the kind of terrorist attacks that often took place in Europe, so there was no need to take a more secured approach, all that changed with 9-11. This is why the left failes at national security, they'd rather wait til AFTER a devistating attack happens, after the terrorist extremists have already found a way into this country, before they decide perhaps something might have to be done about this. It's that approach that led to so many attacks under the Clinton administration and leading up to 9-11. The liberal democrats didn't find it an issue worth any real concern to instill any strict preventive measures, until after the towers fell.

Policies have to be built on known facts not superstitions and fears. Do you really think any congress, Republican or Democrat would have approve the patriot act had it not been for 911 or the billions in federal expenditures to fight terrorism? What Republican president proposed major programs to protect the US from terrorism? As the saying goes, we all have 20/20 hindsight.

You response is as if we never had a terrorist attack in this country, as if an attempt on the trade towers were never made? The reason we even had a proposal to push the Patriot Act was due to the fact we had a president willing to take action to put protective measures in place to keep another terrorists attack of any scale from taking place again, unlike his predecessor. That's the difference between a president willing to take action vs. one that didn't do much of anything at all.

Seriously, what preventive action has President. Clinton ever proposed or pushed into action?


Here is a list of terror attacks that occurred during the Clinton Administration

January 25, 1993
Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 directly into traffic waiting to enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, which killed two CIA employees.

February 26, 1993
Islamic terrorists attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers by detonating truck bombs in the underground parking garage. The attack fails to topple the twin towers but kills six and injures over 1,000.

December 24, 1994
In what could have been a preview of 9/11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who plan to crash the plane in Paris. The hijacking ended with few casualties as French law-enforcement takes control of the situation.
• You don't think that in itself was enough for President Clinton to show any concern over whether our own airport security was adequate?

January 6, 1995, a large-scale Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific is dismantled when a laptop computer is fortuitously discovered in a Manila apartment by authorities after a fire.

June 25, 1996
The Khobar Towers are bombed by Hezbollah with Iranian backing. Nineteen U.S. servicemen perish and 372 are wounded.

August 7, 1998
Al Qaeda bombs the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, killing 225 and wounding 4,000.

December 14, 1998
Ahmed Ressam is captured on the border between the U.S. and Canada. He later confessed to planning to bomb LAX airport as part of the 2000 millenium plots.

October 12, 2000
Al Qaeda bombs the USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding 40 near Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.


Ignoring the threat and our vulnerabilities by making the conscience deliberate choice to be "reactive" to attacks AFTER they happen, rather than being active in preventing them is what caused 9-11 in the FIRST place. NO changes in security measures, no increased airport monitoring or screenings, no preventive measures were taken AT ALL by President Clinton. We ignored the signs then, just as we are making excuses for them now (well it hasn't happened YET excuse).

It doesn't matter what "hindsight" we can look to or find as an excuse, if we aren't willing to LEARN from what history has just shown us. To STILL brush them off as mere "scare tactics" just demonstrates a real lack of commitment and concern by the left to keep Americans safe. There is no greater disappointment than to know the events that led to the tragedy of 9-11 wasn't enough to instill a desire by some to want to protect our homeland, to expose and evolve past our vulnerabilities to implement tighter measures that adapt our security to new threats. All I hear are excuses not to.

Yet it's far easier for the left to place blame when it suits them, while they are among the party that's not willing to change our measures of security. Insisting on a mindset that is unwillingness to learn from history and change it, and we WILL be doomed to repeat it. It really comes down to a matter of "time", and these extremists are apparently the ones that are far more persistent in their efforts to inflict harm than the left is in preventing them.

I counted 6 attempts are planned Islamic terrorist attacks in the US of which only one was successfully killing 2 people over a period of 8 years.

The Clinton administration was far more concerned with domestic terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 dead and hundreds of causality. There was legislation, reorganization of the FBI, and greatly enhanced security of federal buildings across the country.

You were not looking

66 arrested in America over ISIS and they include refugees

 

[Flopper]

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". What makes an attack terrorism is the motivation for the attack. School shooting can certainly be a terrorist attacks, but most aren't because the motivation doesn't usually meet the legal requirement.

If terrorist were using refugee status to enter the US, you would expect at least one terrorist attack by a refugee over the years. The fact is there have been exactly zero such attacks. Of the 784,000 refugees who entered the country over the last 14 years, there have been only 3 arrested for planning terrorist activities. It's also worth noting that two of these planned activities were outside the country and the third was judged barely creditable.

There is no evidence to support the belief that refugees are a significant threat. There is only fear, supposition, and of course politics. It's a replay of the Ebola health worker scare. Sometimes one has to wonder what happened to the home of brave.

This Chart Is The Perfect Rebuttal To Governors Who Won’t Take In Syrian Refugees

Our nation thought itself immune to the kind of terrorist attacks that often took place in Europe, so there was no need to take a more secured approach, all that changed with 9-11. This is why the left failes at national security, they'd rather wait til AFTER a devistating attack happens, after the terrorist extremists have already found a way into this country, before they decide perhaps something might have to be done about this. It's that approach that led to so many attacks under the Clinton administration and leading up to 9-11. The liberal democrats didn't find it an issue worth any real concern to instill any strict preventive measures, until after the towers fell.

Policies have to be built on known facts not superstitions and fears. Do you really think any congress, Republican or Democrat would have approve the patriot act had it not been for 911 or the billions in federal expenditures to fight terrorism? What Republican president proposed major programs to protect the US from terrorism? As the saying goes, we all have 20/20 hindsight.

You response is as if we never had a terrorist attack in this country, as if an attempt on the trade towers were never made? The reason we even had a proposal to push the Patriot Act was due to the fact we had a president willing to take action to put protective measures in place to keep another terrorists attack of any scale from taking place again, unlike his predecessor. That's the difference between a president willing to take action vs. one that didn't do much of anything at all.

Seriously, what preventive action has President. Clinton ever proposed or pushed into action?


Here is a list of terror attacks that occurred during the Clinton Administration

January 25, 1993
Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 directly into traffic waiting to enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, which killed two CIA employees.

February 26, 1993
Islamic terrorists attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers by detonating truck bombs in the underground parking garage. The attack fails to topple the twin towers but kills six and injures over 1,000.

December 24, 1994
In what could have been a preview of 9/11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who plan to crash the plane in Paris. The hijacking ended with few casualties as French law-enforcement takes control of the situation.
• You don't think that in itself was enough for President Clinton to show any concern over whether our own airport security was adequate?

January 6, 1995, a large-scale Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific is dismantled when a laptop computer is fortuitously discovered in a Manila apartment by authorities after a fire.

June 25, 1996
The Khobar Towers are bombed by Hezbollah with Iranian backing. Nineteen U.S. servicemen perish and 372 are wounded.

August 7, 1998
Al Qaeda bombs the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, killing 225 and wounding 4,000.

December 14, 1998
Ahmed Ressam is captured on the border between the U.S. and Canada. He later confessed to planning to bomb LAX airport as part of the 2000 millenium plots.

October 12, 2000
Al Qaeda bombs the USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding 40 near Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.


Ignoring the threat and our vulnerabilities by making the conscience deliberate choice to be "reactive" to attacks AFTER they happen, rather than being active in preventing them is what caused 9-11 in the FIRST place. NO changes in security measures, no increased airport monitoring or screenings, no preventive measures were taken AT ALL by President Clinton. We ignored the signs then, just as we are making excuses for them now (well it hasn't happened YET excuse).

It doesn't matter what "hindsight" we can look to or find as an excuse, if we aren't willing to LEARN from what history has just shown us. To STILL brush them off as mere "scare tactics" just demonstrates a real lack of commitment and concern by the left to keep Americans safe. There is no greater disappointment than to know the events that led to the tragedy of 9-11 wasn't enough to instill a desire by some to want to protect our homeland, to expose and evolve past our vulnerabilities to implement tighter measures that adapt our security to new threats. All I hear are excuses not to.

Yet it's far easier for the left to place blame when it suits them, while they are among the party that's not willing to change our measures of security. Insisting on a mindset that is unwillingness to learn from history and change it, and we WILL be doomed to repeat it. It really comes down to a matter of "time", and these extremists are apparently the ones that are far more persistent in their efforts to inflict harm than the left is in preventing them.

I counted 6 attempts are planned Islamic terrorist attacks in the US of which only one was successfully killing 2 people over a period of 8 years.

The Clinton administration was far more concerned with domestic terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 dead and hundreds of causality. There was legislation, reorganization of the FBI, and greatly enhanced security of federal buildings across the country.

You were not looking

66 arrested in America over ISIS and they include refugees

You didn't read my reply. It was addressing the Clinton presidency.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You can't equate school shootings to terrorism. Unlike muslim terrorist extremist , there is no unified connection to any of these shootings they are all made by individuals each with their own motive. The vast difference here, is the capability of dozens of terrorists that have successfully infiltrated our borders, are trained with art of bomb making ( a key factor admitted through our nation's intelligence ) able to inflict a lot more damage with each attack, and all DURING the Obama administration. Your source is dated, only as current as the middle of the Bush administration at best. More importantly, NONE of what you just stated refutes the fact we have a problem with terrorists using the refugees situation to infiltrate this nation unchecked !!

Also you left out proof behind your statement of these "training camps in the United States".

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". What makes an attack terrorism is the motivation for the attack. School shooting can certainly be a terrorist attacks, but most aren't because the motivation doesn't usually meet the legal requirement.

If terrorist were using refugee status to enter the US, you would expect at least one terrorist attack by a refugee over the years. The fact is there have been exactly zero such attacks. Of the 784,000 refugees who entered the country over the last 14 years, there have been only 3 arrested for planning terrorist activities. It's also worth noting that two of these planned activities were outside the country and the third was judged barely creditable.

There is no evidence to support the belief that refugees are a significant threat. There is only fear, supposition, and of course politics. It's a replay of the Ebola health worker scare. Sometimes one has to wonder what happened to the home of brave.

This Chart Is The Perfect Rebuttal To Governors Who Won’t Take In Syrian Refugees

Our nation thought itself immune to the kind of terrorist attacks that often took place in Europe, so there was no need to take a more secured approach, all that changed with 9-11. This is why the left failes at national security, they'd rather wait til AFTER a devistating attack happens, after the terrorist extremists have already found a way into this country, before they decide perhaps something might have to be done about this. It's that approach that led to so many attacks under the Clinton administration and leading up to 9-11. The liberal democrats didn't find it an issue worth any real concern to instill any strict preventive measures, until after the towers fell.

Policies have to be built on known facts not superstitions and fears. Do you really think any congress, Republican or Democrat would have approve the patriot act had it not been for 911 or the billions in federal expenditures to fight terrorism? What Republican president proposed major programs to protect the US from terrorism? As the saying goes, we all have 20/20 hindsight.

You response is as if we never had a terrorist attack in this country, as if an attempt on the trade towers were never made? The reason we even had a proposal to push the Patriot Act was due to the fact we had a president willing to take action to put protective measures in place to keep another terrorists attack of any scale from taking place again, unlike his predecessor. That's the difference between a president willing to take action vs. one that didn't do much of anything at all.

Seriously, what preventive action has President. Clinton ever proposed or pushed into action?


Here is a list of terror attacks that occurred during the Clinton Administration

January 25, 1993
Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 directly into traffic waiting to enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, which killed two CIA employees.

February 26, 1993
Islamic terrorists attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers by detonating truck bombs in the underground parking garage. The attack fails to topple the twin towers but kills six and injures over 1,000.

December 24, 1994
In what could have been a preview of 9/11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who plan to crash the plane in Paris. The hijacking ended with few casualties as French law-enforcement takes control of the situation.
• You don't think that in itself was enough for President Clinton to show any concern over whether our own airport security was adequate?

January 6, 1995, a large-scale Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific is dismantled when a laptop computer is fortuitously discovered in a Manila apartment by authorities after a fire.

June 25, 1996
The Khobar Towers are bombed by Hezbollah with Iranian backing. Nineteen U.S. servicemen perish and 372 are wounded.

August 7, 1998
Al Qaeda bombs the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, killing 225 and wounding 4,000.

December 14, 1998
Ahmed Ressam is captured on the border between the U.S. and Canada. He later confessed to planning to bomb LAX airport as part of the 2000 millenium plots.

October 12, 2000
Al Qaeda bombs the USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding 40 near Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.


Ignoring the threat and our vulnerabilities by making the conscience deliberate choice to be "reactive" to attacks AFTER they happen, rather than being active in preventing them is what caused 9-11 in the FIRST place. NO changes in security measures, no increased airport monitoring or screenings, no preventive measures were taken AT ALL by President Clinton. We ignored the signs then, just as we are making excuses for them now (well it hasn't happened YET excuse).

It doesn't matter what "hindsight" we can look to or find as an excuse, if we aren't willing to LEARN from what history has just shown us. To STILL brush them off as mere "scare tactics" just demonstrates a real lack of commitment and concern by the left to keep Americans safe. There is no greater disappointment than to know the events that led to the tragedy of 9-11 wasn't enough to instill a desire by some to want to protect our homeland, to expose and evolve past our vulnerabilities to implement tighter measures that adapt our security to new threats. All I hear are excuses not to.

Yet it's far easier for the left to place blame when it suits them, while they are among the party that's not willing to change our measures of security. Insisting on a mindset that is unwillingness to learn from history and change it, and we WILL be doomed to repeat it. It really comes down to a matter of "time", and these extremists are apparently the ones that are far more persistent in their efforts to inflict harm than the left is in preventing them.

I counted 6 planned or attempted terrorist attacks in the US of which only one was successfully killing 2 people over a period of 8 years.

The Clinton administration was far more concerned with domestic terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 dead and hundreds of causality. There was legislation, reorganization of the FBI, and greatly enhanced security of federal buildings across the country. Islamic terrorist attacks in the US were about as common as elephants attacks.

Had the Clinton Presidency been "paying attention", added security measures could have been taken.

Dec 24 1994
• French commercial flight 8969 hijacked by terrorists.

Increased airport security response would have been basic common sense. After all, what added security measures had the administration made based on the attempts Islamic terrorists were making? Had they even attempted to look at breeches and vulnerabilities of our nation's security and take ANY additional measures as a response?

Answer - None.

January 6, 1995
• Yet another plot against commercial airliners, through an attempt to bomb 11 over the pacific. A pattern of vulnerability becoming more common, and still NO added precautions taken by the Clinton administration.

Had the Clinton administration used common sense by simply "paying attention" to those vulnerabilities that had existed in our airport security, based on those continued efforts made by terrorists, 9-11 could have been prevented.

Again. I can't emphasis this enough. Liberal Democrats have a very poor record in looking at were our vulnerabilities are, and seeking to implement additional measures to keep American citizens safe. (whether it's the failure to provide additional airport security under Clinton, or a real lack of showing any concern for those terrorists infiltrating our borders from among refugees under Obama).

It's just an inconvenient truth.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Many American men go to Asia, especially Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam to have sex with little boys.
Are all Americans perverted child sex queer monsters, and should all be banned from ever leaving the United states, just in case they ass sex a boy?

If you can answer that in the positive, you can consider banning all Muslims from the US.

If my post is a silly stereotype, why do the pro Muslim ban people think their position isn't based on a similar misconception?

I don't advocate banning everyone that happens to be Muslim from entering the United States, however we need to look at those regions which harbor terrorists in their country and intelligence evidence reveals training camps within those regions. We need to be looking to the protection of our citizens, not blindly opening our borders to all including those slipping in from among them who's mission is strictly repeating the amount of devastation we saw on 9-11.

Did we allow commercial travel between the United Statees and Germany during World War II? Was our embassies still operational in Berlin? Is it discriminatory to refuse Germans or even the Japanese entry from their homelands while we were at war with a group meant to inflict harm on our nation? Likewise, do we not have a WAR against certain extremists within certain regions of the world, that threaten our way of life in the United States and would inflict destruction when given the opportunity?

Why is it exactly, that liberal democrats have not a single plan or proposal in place for any additional security measures to protect their own citizens?

 

[dannyboys]

BREAKING!
I just saw a muslim cleric jerk-off on a little blond haired ten year old girl in the swimming pool! I teared up. Such an important muslim community role model willing to offer her his 'life's essence! I need a Kleenex.

 

[Indofred]

however we need to look at those regions which harbor terrorists in their country

Without playing daft bastards here, start with your own, then look at why people attack you.

America harbours terrorists, many from your own CIA, and things like 9/11 were direct results of US attacks on other countries.
Many dispute that, claiming America was an innocent victim, but I disagree.
If you look at the history of terrorism in the US, apart from home grown terrorists, right or left wing, the rest were all from countries you were interfering in at the time.
There was no Islamic terrorism in the US until you started major support for Israel, and the few that happened were against Israeli targets in the US.
To understand how to stop terrorism, you have to understand why it started.

That doesn't defend terrorist action against civilians; just explains it.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

however we need to look at those regions which harbor terrorists in their country

Without playing daft bastards here, start with your own, then look at why people attack you.

America harbours terrorists, many from your own CIA, and things like 9/11 were direct results of US attacks on other countries.
Many dispute that, claiming America was an innocent victim, but I disagree.
If you look at the history of terrorism in the US, apart from home grown terrorists, right or left wing, the rest were all from countries you were interfering in at the time.
There was no Islamic terrorism in the US until you started major support for Israel, and the few that happened were against Israeli targets in the US.
To understand how to stop terrorism, you have to understand why it started.

That doesn't defend terrorist action against civilians; just explains it.

Islamic extremists believe in killing those infidels that don't accept their faith. Simply look at the perception given to those Muslims which leave that faith to pursue Christianity. No exactly a warm welcome, in fact many are killed for it. Isreal only reinforces that fact, as they don't accept a nation who's faith is contrary to theirs, and they NEVER will. Terrorists didn't think twice about beheading a row of Christians kneeling before them. They are not willing to accept anyone's faith that lies in contradiction to theirs. So yes I'm quite familiar with the perceptions of these terrorists, and those actions behind where their motives lie.

 

[Soheil]

Ban no muslims.
Banning is irrational and doesn't work.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

The legal definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force and violence against person or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives". What makes an attack terrorism is the motivation for the attack. School shooting can certainly be a terrorist attacks, but most aren't because the motivation doesn't usually meet the legal requirement.

If terrorist were using refugee status to enter the US, you would expect at least one terrorist attack by a refugee over the years. The fact is there have been exactly zero such attacks. Of the 784,000 refugees who entered the country over the last 14 years, there have been only 3 arrested for planning terrorist activities. It's also worth noting that two of these planned activities were outside the country and the third was judged barely creditable.

There is no evidence to support the belief that refugees are a significant threat. There is only fear, supposition, and of course politics. It's a replay of the Ebola health worker scare. Sometimes one has to wonder what happened to the home of brave.

This Chart Is The Perfect Rebuttal To Governors Who Won’t Take In Syrian Refugees

Our nation thought itself immune to the kind of terrorist attacks that often took place in Europe, so there was no need to take a more secured approach, all that changed with 9-11. This is why the left failes at national security, they'd rather wait til AFTER a devistating attack happens, after the terrorist extremists have already found a way into this country, before they decide perhaps something might have to be done about this. It's that approach that led to so many attacks under the Clinton administration and leading up to 9-11. The liberal democrats didn't find it an issue worth any real concern to instill any strict preventive measures, until after the towers fell.

Policies have to be built on known facts not superstitions and fears. Do you really think any congress, Republican or Democrat would have approve the patriot act had it not been for 911 or the billions in federal expenditures to fight terrorism? What Republican president proposed major programs to protect the US from terrorism? As the saying goes, we all have 20/20 hindsight.

You response is as if we never had a terrorist attack in this country, as if an attempt on the trade towers were never made? The reason we even had a proposal to push the Patriot Act was due to the fact we had a president willing to take action to put protective measures in place to keep another terrorists attack of any scale from taking place again, unlike his predecessor. That's the difference between a president willing to take action vs. one that didn't do much of anything at all.

Seriously, what preventive action has President. Clinton ever proposed or pushed into action?


Here is a list of terror attacks that occurred during the Clinton Administration

January 25, 1993
Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 directly into traffic waiting to enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, which killed two CIA employees.

February 26, 1993
Islamic terrorists attempt to bring down the World Trade Center towers by detonating truck bombs in the underground parking garage. The attack fails to topple the twin towers but kills six and injures over 1,000.

December 24, 1994
In what could have been a preview of 9/11, Air France Flight 8969 is hijacked by Islamic terrorists who plan to crash the plane in Paris. The hijacking ended with few casualties as French law-enforcement takes control of the situation.
• You don't think that in itself was enough for President Clinton to show any concern over whether our own airport security was adequate?

January 6, 1995, a large-scale Islamist plot to bomb 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific is dismantled when a laptop computer is fortuitously discovered in a Manila apartment by authorities after a fire.

June 25, 1996
The Khobar Towers are bombed by Hezbollah with Iranian backing. Nineteen U.S. servicemen perish and 372 are wounded.

August 7, 1998
Al Qaeda bombs the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania, killing 225 and wounding 4,000.

December 14, 1998
Ahmed Ressam is captured on the border between the U.S. and Canada. He later confessed to planning to bomb LAX airport as part of the 2000 millenium plots.

October 12, 2000
Al Qaeda bombs the USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors and wounding 40 near Aden, Yemen.

Between 1993 and 2000, everyone who was paying any attention knew that the threat from Islamic terrorism was grave and getting worse. The catastrophic losses that occurred on Septimeber 11, 2001, could just as easily have happened in 1993, when the first plot to destroy the World Trade Center was carried off successfully, but the terrorists had miscalculated the effect of their explosives, or in 1995, when the plot to destroy eleven American airplanes in flight was thwarted by counter-intelligence work in the Philippines. What did the Clinton administration do in response to this grave threat? Essentially nothing. Worse, Clinton tried to sweep the problem under the rug, lest it disrupt the surface calm and prosperity for which he was eager to claim credit.


Ignoring the threat and our vulnerabilities by making the conscience deliberate choice to be "reactive" to attacks AFTER they happen, rather than being active in preventing them is what caused 9-11 in the FIRST place. NO changes in security measures, no increased airport monitoring or screenings, no preventive measures were taken AT ALL by President Clinton. We ignored the signs then, just as we are making excuses for them now (well it hasn't happened YET excuse).

It doesn't matter what "hindsight" we can look to or find as an excuse, if we aren't willing to LEARN from what history has just shown us. To STILL brush them off as mere "scare tactics" just demonstrates a real lack of commitment and concern by the left to keep Americans safe. There is no greater disappointment than to know the events that led to the tragedy of 9-11 wasn't enough to instill a desire by some to want to protect our homeland, to expose and evolve past our vulnerabilities to implement tighter measures that adapt our security to new threats. All I hear are excuses not to.

Yet it's far easier for the left to place blame when it suits them, while they are among the party that's not willing to change our measures of security. Insisting on a mindset that is unwillingness to learn from history and change it, and we WILL be doomed to repeat it. It really comes down to a matter of "time", and these extremists are apparently the ones that are far more persistent in their efforts to inflict harm than the left is in preventing them.

I counted 6 attempts are planned Islamic terrorist attacks in the US of which only one was successfully killing 2 people over a period of 8 years.

The Clinton administration was far more concerned with domestic terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing that left 168 dead and hundreds of causality. There was legislation, reorganization of the FBI, and greatly enhanced security of federal buildings across the country.

You were not looking

66 arrested in America over ISIS and they include refugees

"President Obama insists that 'slamming the door' on Syrian refugees fleeing ISIS would be a betrayal of American values."

What values is he speaking of? That this Kenyan refugee terrorist could have been his son?

Refugee: 21-year-old Abdurahman Yasin Daud, who was born at a refugee camp in Kenya and arrived in the US when he was nine. He faces trial next year.....

I say slam the door hard and fast on all Muslims as they belong to an ideology that will ultimately attack American values.....