isnt any different between all of moslem?

[Flopper]

You don't need a large number of terrorists to create the kind of devastation we saw on 9-11, all you need is opportunity.

And again -- to reiterate the same state-the-obvious point yet again until it sinks in..... you don't need to immigrate to do that either. It would be insane to sit through all that process and all that time and trouble when all you needed was to be in a plane, with someone on your team trained to navigate it, in American airspace. NONE of that requires citizenship. All it takes is a passport.

This is where Argument from Emotion shoots itself in the back eighty-seven times, pausing only once to reload. Once it's thought about rationally there's no there there.

None of that changes the fact that we are talking about refugees coming from a region that is highly susceptible to terrorist activity. France were very open in welcoming those refugees, and a terrorist was able to use that opportunity in Paris to kill 120 people in an attack. It does not take a lot of terrorists to create a devistating attack, and that is a fact! Do you know how France responded to their previous open border policy?


If a terrorist were to exploit an opportunity in slipping among a group of refugees that arrives into this country unchecked then President Obama would be completely responsible for that breech in security of our borders, as I seem to remember a group of liberal democrats trying to lay blame on President George W Bush for what took place on 9-11. To put it bluntly, their actions dictate that liberal democrats like Obama never seem to take any consideration for our national security .. or even take such concerns seriously.

Once AGAIN --- this'll be at least the fourth time now, guess we'll just play this over and over until it finally sinks in --- 9/11 was not done by immigrants. The immigration process played no part in it, as it has no role in it. It is irrelevant to it.

To commit an act of terrorism you need to be physically in the place. You do NOT need citizenship. No bomb or bullet or plane stops and asks first if its operator is a citizen before it works. It isn't necessary.

Don't know how many ways it's necessary to say this before it registers ---- if you're going to commit an act of terrorism, you need certain stuff --- A plan; some equipment and/or training; a study of the target; probably some collaborators. Atop the list of things you do NOT need is "citizenship". It serves no purpose.

Of all the possible reasons to emigrate somewhere, "to commit terrorism" is not on the list. If terrorism is your mission, all that process would do is slow you down and bestow no benefit to your mission whatsoever.

And then as far as refugees --- they're in that position because they're fleeing that shit --- not because they're causing it.

We are talking about a terrorist blending in WITH refugees. The refugees in that region live among terrorists!!!! What do you think took place in Paris? You're right .... France closing its borders couldn't possibly be due to that terrorist attack. It would appear the French are more intelligent than you are.

In the 14 years since September 11, 2001, the United States has resettled 784,000 refugees from around the world. And within that population, three people have been arrested for activities related to terrorism. None of them were close to executing an attack inside the U.S.

As U.S. officials and refugee advocates point out, an attempted terrorist attack by a refugee has never happened in modern history. Not when the U.S. took in tens of thousands of Vietnamese refugees in the 1970s. Not when 125,000 Cuban “Marielitos” arrived by boat in 1980. And not in the desperate aftermath of more recent wars in Bosnia, Somalia, or Rwanda. These people like the Syrians came from war torn countries where background checks were limited.

Considering the millions of Muslims that enter the US each year with nothing more than a database security scan and the 5 million that live in the US, fear of Syrian refugees, mostly women and children seems a bit silly and obviously politically motivated.

Can Terrorists Really Infiltrate the Syrian Refugee Program?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You don't need a large number of terrorists to create the kind of devastation we saw on 9-11, all you need is opportunity.

And again -- to reiterate the same state-the-obvious point yet again until it sinks in..... you don't need to immigrate to do that either. It would be insane to sit through all that process and all that time and trouble when all you needed was to be in a plane, with someone on your team trained to navigate it, in American airspace. NONE of that requires citizenship. All it takes is a passport.

This is where Argument from Emotion shoots itself in the back eighty-seven times, pausing only once to reload. Once it's thought about rationally there's no there there.

None of that changes the fact that we are talking about refugees coming from a region that is highly susceptible to terrorist activity. France were very open in welcoming those refugees, and a terrorist was able to use that opportunity in Paris to kill 120 people in an attack. It does not take a lot of terrorists to create a devistating attack, and that is a fact! Do you know how France responded to their previous open border policy?


If a terrorist were to exploit an opportunity in slipping among a group of refugees that arrives into this country unchecked then President Obama would be completely responsible for that breech in security of our borders, as I seem to remember a group of liberal democrats trying to lay blame on President George W Bush for what took place on 9-11. To put it bluntly, their actions dictate that liberal democrats like Obama never seem to take any consideration for our national security .. or even take such concerns seriously.

Once AGAIN --- this'll be at least the fourth time now, guess we'll just play this over and over until it finally sinks in --- 9/11 was not done by immigrants. The immigration process played no part in it, as it has no role in it. It is irrelevant to it.

To commit an act of terrorism you need to be physically in the place. You do NOT need citizenship. No bomb or bullet or plane stops and asks first if its operator is a citizen before it works. It isn't necessary.

Don't know how many ways it's necessary to say this before it registers ---- if you're going to commit an act of terrorism, you need certain stuff --- A plan; some equipment and/or training; a study of the target; probably some collaborators. Atop the list of things you do NOT need is "citizenship". It serves no purpose.

Of all the possible reasons to emigrate somewhere, "to commit terrorism" is not on the list. If terrorism is your mission, all that process would do is slow you down and bestow no benefit to your mission whatsoever.

And then as far as refugees --- they're in that position because they're fleeing that shit --- not because they're causing it.

We are talking about a terrorist blending in WITH refugees. The refugees in that region live among terrorists!!!! What do you think took place in Paris? You're right .... France closing its borders couldn't possibly be due to that terrorist attack. It would appear the French are more intelligent than you are.

This ain't your thread; you don't get to dictate what it's about. It was never established that the OP was referring to refugees. That's why I've been referring to "immigrants".

Maybe you should invest in a book called "How to Read".

First, anyone who resides from another country who wishes to enter our nation with the intent to live in the United States is by definition an immigrant. It's quite amazing if you ever made it past the 5th grade. Here, let me help you:

im·mi·grant
ˈiməɡrənt/
noun

1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

I originally responded that we should not look to the individual's religion or faith itself in determining who is allowed into the United States, but according to the region they are coming from, as some regions are more susceptible to terrorists and terrorist activities. Many of those concerns were with "current" events that included President Obama's desire to bring Muslim refugees into our borders, who will also be living in this country. These refugees come from areas with a lot of terrorist activities, and going unchecked, can allow for terrorist or terrorist sympathizers to filter in with the masses and enter as well. You were the one who interjected and felt you had to go on and on and on with your BS response.


To further back my point of terrorist sympathizers infiltrating among Muslium refugees, here are just two recent discoveries below that were uncovered. Which leads to question, how many more might have already successfully entered our borders?


Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, was arrested today by FBI and Homeland Investigations agents. According to the Department of Justice, he is a Palestinian born in Iraq who came to the United States as a refugee in November of 2009 and was given legal permanent residence status in 2011.
Authorities ID man arrested in Houston during terror-related investigation


Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab is a Palestinian born in Iraq, who came to the United States as an Iraqi refugee in October 2012. Between October 2012 and November 2013, while living in Arizona and Wisconsin, he communicated over social media with numerous other individuals about his intent to return to Syria to fight for terrorist organizations. In those communications, according to the complaint, Al-Jayab discussed his previous experience with firearms and with fighting against the regime in Syria. On Nov. 9, 2013, he flew from Chicago to Turkey, and then traveled to Syria. Between November 2013 and January 2014, Al-Jayab allegedly reported on social media that he was in Syria fighting with various terrorist organizations, including Ansar al-Islam, a designated foreign terrorist organization since 2004. He returned to the United States on Jan. 23, 2014, and settled in Sacramento.
California Man Arrested for Making False Statements in a Terrorism Investigation | OPA | Department of Justice.


So what I had discussed was possible, had indeed already happened. Care to again say that I was completely wrong in my concerns over refugees and terrorists?

 

[Flopper]

And again -- to reiterate the same state-the-obvious point yet again until it sinks in..... you don't need to immigrate to do that either. It would be insane to sit through all that process and all that time and trouble when all you needed was to be in a plane, with someone on your team trained to navigate it, in American airspace. NONE of that requires citizenship. All it takes is a passport.

This is where Argument from Emotion shoots itself in the back eighty-seven times, pausing only once to reload. Once it's thought about rationally there's no there there.

None of that changes the fact that we are talking about refugees coming from a region that is highly susceptible to terrorist activity. France were very open in welcoming those refugees, and a terrorist was able to use that opportunity in Paris to kill 120 people in an attack. It does not take a lot of terrorists to create a devistating attack, and that is a fact! Do you know how France responded to their previous open border policy?


If a terrorist were to exploit an opportunity in slipping among a group of refugees that arrives into this country unchecked then President Obama would be completely responsible for that breech in security of our borders, as I seem to remember a group of liberal democrats trying to lay blame on President George W Bush for what took place on 9-11. To put it bluntly, their actions dictate that liberal democrats like Obama never seem to take any consideration for our national security .. or even take such concerns seriously.

Once AGAIN --- this'll be at least the fourth time now, guess we'll just play this over and over until it finally sinks in --- 9/11 was not done by immigrants. The immigration process played no part in it, as it has no role in it. It is irrelevant to it.

To commit an act of terrorism you need to be physically in the place. You do NOT need citizenship. No bomb or bullet or plane stops and asks first if its operator is a citizen before it works. It isn't necessary.

Don't know how many ways it's necessary to say this before it registers ---- if you're going to commit an act of terrorism, you need certain stuff --- A plan; some equipment and/or training; a study of the target; probably some collaborators. Atop the list of things you do NOT need is "citizenship". It serves no purpose.

Of all the possible reasons to emigrate somewhere, "to commit terrorism" is not on the list. If terrorism is your mission, all that process would do is slow you down and bestow no benefit to your mission whatsoever.

And then as far as refugees --- they're in that position because they're fleeing that shit --- not because they're causing it.

We are talking about a terrorist blending in WITH refugees. The refugees in that region live among terrorists!!!! What do you think took place in Paris? You're right .... France closing its borders couldn't possibly be due to that terrorist attack. It would appear the French are more intelligent than you are.

This ain't your thread; you don't get to dictate what it's about. It was never established that the OP was referring to refugees. That's why I've been referring to "immigrants".

Maybe you should invest in a book called "How to Read".

First, anyone who resides from another country who wishes to enter our nation with the intent to live in the United States is by definition an immigrant. It's quite amazing if you ever made it past the 5th grade. Here, let me help you:

im·mi·grant
ˈiməɡrənt/
noun

1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

I originally responded that we should not look to the individual's religion or faith itself in determining who is allowed into the United States, but according to the region they are coming from, as some regions are more susceptible to terrorists and terrorist activities. Many of those concerns were with "current" events that included President Obama's desire to bring Muslim refugees into our borders, who will also be living in this country. These refugees come from areas with a lot of terrorist activities, and going unchecked, can allow for terrorist or terrorist sympathizers to filter in with the masses and enter as well. You were the one who interjected and felt you had to go on and on and on with your BS response.


To further back my point of terrorist sympathizers infiltrating among Muslium refugees, here are just two recent discoveries below that were uncovered. Which leads to question, how many more might have already successfully entered our borders?


Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, was arrested today by FBI and Homeland Investigations agents. According to the Department of Justice, he is a Palestinian born in Iraq who came to the United States as a refugee in November of 2009 and was given legal permanent residence status in 2011.
Authorities ID man arrested in Houston during terror-related investigation


Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab is a Palestinian born in Iraq, who came to the United States as an Iraqi refugee in October 2012. Between October 2012 and November 2013, while living in Arizona and Wisconsin, he communicated over social media with numerous other individuals about his intent to return to Syria to fight for terrorist organizations. In those communications, according to the complaint, Al-Jayab discussed his previous experience with firearms and with fighting against the regime in Syria. On Nov. 9, 2013, he flew from Chicago to Turkey, and then traveled to Syria. Between November 2013 and January 2014, Al-Jayab allegedly reported on social media that he was in Syria fighting with various terrorist organizations, including Ansar al-Islam, a designated foreign terrorist organization since 2004. He returned to the United States on Jan. 23, 2014, and settled in Sacramento.
California Man Arrested for Making False Statements in a Terrorism Investigation | OPA | Department of Justice.


So what I had discussed was possible, had indeed already happened. Care to again say that I was completely wrong in my concerns over refugees and terrorists?

The problem with using regions as a method of keeping out Islamic terrorist is that Islamic terrorism is not limited to just a few middle eastern countries. For example, Indonesia, who has the largest Muslim population in world has had a number of terrorist events. Likewise there's India with a Muslim population of over 174 million Muslims and also a major US trading partner. Then there's Pakistan with 178 million Muslims also with strong ties to terrorism, and also a key ally in the Afghanistan war. Even European countries are having more and more terrorist attacks and increasing numbers of Muslims.

Stopping travel into the US from a country would have serious repercussion. Such an action would likely affect trade agreements, reciprocal travel agreements, and agreements on information sharing such terrorist activities. Other major powers such as China and Russia would certainly benefit from such actions.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

None of that changes the fact that we are talking about refugees coming from a region that is highly susceptible to terrorist activity. France were very open in welcoming those refugees, and a terrorist was able to use that opportunity in Paris to kill 120 people in an attack. It does not take a lot of terrorists to create a devistating attack, and that is a fact! Do you know how France responded to their previous open border policy?


If a terrorist were to exploit an opportunity in slipping among a group of refugees that arrives into this country unchecked then President Obama would be completely responsible for that breech in security of our borders, as I seem to remember a group of liberal democrats trying to lay blame on President George W Bush for what took place on 9-11. To put it bluntly, their actions dictate that liberal democrats like Obama never seem to take any consideration for our national security .. or even take such concerns seriously.

Once AGAIN --- this'll be at least the fourth time now, guess we'll just play this over and over until it finally sinks in --- 9/11 was not done by immigrants. The immigration process played no part in it, as it has no role in it. It is irrelevant to it.

To commit an act of terrorism you need to be physically in the place. You do NOT need citizenship. No bomb or bullet or plane stops and asks first if its operator is a citizen before it works. It isn't necessary.

Don't know how many ways it's necessary to say this before it registers ---- if you're going to commit an act of terrorism, you need certain stuff --- A plan; some equipment and/or training; a study of the target; probably some collaborators. Atop the list of things you do NOT need is "citizenship". It serves no purpose.

Of all the possible reasons to emigrate somewhere, "to commit terrorism" is not on the list. If terrorism is your mission, all that process would do is slow you down and bestow no benefit to your mission whatsoever.

And then as far as refugees --- they're in that position because they're fleeing that shit --- not because they're causing it.

We are talking about a terrorist blending in WITH refugees. The refugees in that region live among terrorists!!!! What do you think took place in Paris? You're right .... France closing its borders couldn't possibly be due to that terrorist attack. It would appear the French are more intelligent than you are.

This ain't your thread; you don't get to dictate what it's about. It was never established that the OP was referring to refugees. That's why I've been referring to "immigrants".

Maybe you should invest in a book called "How to Read".

First, anyone who resides from another country who wishes to enter our nation with the intent to live in the United States is by definition an immigrant. It's quite amazing if you ever made it past the 5th grade. Here, let me help you:

im·mi·grant
ˈiməɡrənt/
noun

1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

I originally responded that we should not look to the individual's religion or faith itself in determining who is allowed into the United States, but according to the region they are coming from, as some regions are more susceptible to terrorists and terrorist activities. Many of those concerns were with "current" events that included President Obama's desire to bring Muslim refugees into our borders, who will also be living in this country. These refugees come from areas with a lot of terrorist activities, and going unchecked, can allow for terrorist or terrorist sympathizers to filter in with the masses and enter as well. You were the one who interjected and felt you had to go on and on and on with your BS response.


To further back my point of terrorist sympathizers infiltrating among Muslium refugees, here are just two recent discoveries below that were uncovered. Which leads to question, how many more might have already successfully entered our borders?


Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, was arrested today by FBI and Homeland Investigations agents. According to the Department of Justice, he is a Palestinian born in Iraq who came to the United States as a refugee in November of 2009 and was given legal permanent residence status in 2011.
Authorities ID man arrested in Houston during terror-related investigation


Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab is a Palestinian born in Iraq, who came to the United States as an Iraqi refugee in October 2012. Between October 2012 and November 2013, while living in Arizona and Wisconsin, he communicated over social media with numerous other individuals about his intent to return to Syria to fight for terrorist organizations. In those communications, according to the complaint, Al-Jayab discussed his previous experience with firearms and with fighting against the regime in Syria. On Nov. 9, 2013, he flew from Chicago to Turkey, and then traveled to Syria. Between November 2013 and January 2014, Al-Jayab allegedly reported on social media that he was in Syria fighting with various terrorist organizations, including Ansar al-Islam, a designated foreign terrorist organization since 2004. He returned to the United States on Jan. 23, 2014, and settled in Sacramento.
California Man Arrested for Making False Statements in a Terrorism Investigation | OPA | Department of Justice.


So what I had discussed was possible, had indeed already happened. Care to again say that I was completely wrong in my concerns over refugees and terrorists?

The problem with using regions as a method of keeping out Islamic terrorist is that Islamic terrorism is not limited to just a few middle eastern countries. For example, Indonesia, who has the largest Muslim population in world has had a number of terrorist events. Likewise there's India with a Muslim population of over 174 million Muslims and also a major US trading partner. Then there's Pakistan with 178 million Muslims also with strong ties to terrorism, and also a key ally in the Afghanistan war. Even European countries are having more and more terrorist attacks and increasing numbers of Muslims.

Stopping travel into the US from a country would have serious repercussion. Such an action would likely affect trade agreements, reciprocal travel agreements, and agreements on information sharing such terrorist activities. Other major powers such as China and Russia would certainly benefit from such actions.

So now your post is equating all Muslims as terrorists? Don't let some of these liberals see your line of reasoning.

Actually there are a few regions that promote terrorism, that survelence and intelligence reveal training camps. We can make use of the same extensive background checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake, while forbidding those regions that are encouraging terrorist activities. There won't be any reprocussions, as that is the condition and standard by which countries must meet if they desire travel and entry from these locations. Countries in Eurooe have already taken such measures well ahead of us, in closing off their borders to certain hostile regions, we would only be standing along with them putting pressure on those countries which harbor and encourage terrorist activities.
Is this not the exact kind of "unity" and stand that Obama has been preaching to the American people with regard to a united coalition against these extremists? This is where the rubber meets the road, to see if this president is all talk, or is he really interested in only preserving and establishing his own "self image" with the Muslim community. Actions do after all, speak FAR more than a well rehearsed presidential speech that touts his own popularity and ego. This is also a test to see which side Hillary will find herself standing on through her open campaign on national policy. Are Democrats demonstrating a real concern for national security? Look at their record and those policies they are currently pushing.

 

[Pogo]

And again -- to reiterate the same state-the-obvious point yet again until it sinks in..... you don't need to immigrate to do that either. It would be insane to sit through all that process and all that time and trouble when all you needed was to be in a plane, with someone on your team trained to navigate it, in American airspace. NONE of that requires citizenship. All it takes is a passport.

This is where Argument from Emotion shoots itself in the back eighty-seven times, pausing only once to reload. Once it's thought about rationally there's no there there.

None of that changes the fact that we are talking about refugees coming from a region that is highly susceptible to terrorist activity. France were very open in welcoming those refugees, and a terrorist was able to use that opportunity in Paris to kill 120 people in an attack. It does not take a lot of terrorists to create a devistating attack, and that is a fact! Do you know how France responded to their previous open border policy?


If a terrorist were to exploit an opportunity in slipping among a group of refugees that arrives into this country unchecked then President Obama would be completely responsible for that breech in security of our borders, as I seem to remember a group of liberal democrats trying to lay blame on President George W Bush for what took place on 9-11. To put it bluntly, their actions dictate that liberal democrats like Obama never seem to take any consideration for our national security .. or even take such concerns seriously.

Once AGAIN --- this'll be at least the fourth time now, guess we'll just play this over and over until it finally sinks in --- 9/11 was not done by immigrants. The immigration process played no part in it, as it has no role in it. It is irrelevant to it.

To commit an act of terrorism you need to be physically in the place. You do NOT need citizenship. No bomb or bullet or plane stops and asks first if its operator is a citizen before it works. It isn't necessary.

Don't know how many ways it's necessary to say this before it registers ---- if you're going to commit an act of terrorism, you need certain stuff --- A plan; some equipment and/or training; a study of the target; probably some collaborators. Atop the list of things you do NOT need is "citizenship". It serves no purpose.

Of all the possible reasons to emigrate somewhere, "to commit terrorism" is not on the list. If terrorism is your mission, all that process would do is slow you down and bestow no benefit to your mission whatsoever.

And then as far as refugees --- they're in that position because they're fleeing that shit --- not because they're causing it.

We are talking about a terrorist blending in WITH refugees. The refugees in that region live among terrorists!!!! What do you think took place in Paris? You're right .... France closing its borders couldn't possibly be due to that terrorist attack. It would appear the French are more intelligent than you are.

This ain't your thread; you don't get to dictate what it's about. It was never established that the OP was referring to refugees. That's why I've been referring to "immigrants".

Maybe you should invest in a book called "How to Read".

First, anyone who resides from another country who wishes to enter our nation with the intent to live in the United States is by definition an immigrant. It's quite amazing if you ever made it past the 5th grade. <snip>

Go fuck yourself.

 

[Unkotare]

None of that changes the fact that we are talking about refugees coming from a region that is highly susceptible to terrorist activity. France were very open in welcoming those refugees, and a terrorist was able to use that opportunity in Paris to kill 120 people in an attack. It does not take a lot of terrorists to create a devistating attack, and that is a fact! Do you know how France responded to their previous open border policy?


If a terrorist were to exploit an opportunity in slipping among a group of refugees that arrives into this country unchecked then President Obama would be completely responsible for that breech in security of our borders, as I seem to remember a group of liberal democrats trying to lay blame on President George W Bush for what took place on 9-11. To put it bluntly, their actions dictate that liberal democrats like Obama never seem to take any consideration for our national security .. or even take such concerns seriously.

Once AGAIN --- this'll be at least the fourth time now, guess we'll just play this over and over until it finally sinks in --- 9/11 was not done by immigrants. The immigration process played no part in it, as it has no role in it. It is irrelevant to it.

To commit an act of terrorism you need to be physically in the place. You do NOT need citizenship. No bomb or bullet or plane stops and asks first if its operator is a citizen before it works. It isn't necessary.

Don't know how many ways it's necessary to say this before it registers ---- if you're going to commit an act of terrorism, you need certain stuff --- A plan; some equipment and/or training; a study of the target; probably some collaborators. Atop the list of things you do NOT need is "citizenship". It serves no purpose.

Of all the possible reasons to emigrate somewhere, "to commit terrorism" is not on the list. If terrorism is your mission, all that process would do is slow you down and bestow no benefit to your mission whatsoever.

And then as far as refugees --- they're in that position because they're fleeing that shit --- not because they're causing it.

We are talking about a terrorist blending in WITH refugees. The refugees in that region live among terrorists!!!! What do you think took place in Paris? You're right .... France closing its borders couldn't possibly be due to that terrorist attack. It would appear the French are more intelligent than you are.

This ain't your thread; you don't get to dictate what it's about. It was never established that the OP was referring to refugees. That's why I've been referring to "immigrants".

Maybe you should invest in a book called "How to Read".

First, anyone who resides from another country who wishes to enter our nation with the intent to live in the United States is by definition an immigrant. It's quite amazing if you ever made it past the 5th grade. <snip>

Go fuck yourself.

You didn't make it?

 

[Flopper]

Once AGAIN --- this'll be at least the fourth time now, guess we'll just play this over and over until it finally sinks in --- 9/11 was not done by immigrants. The immigration process played no part in it, as it has no role in it. It is irrelevant to it.

To commit an act of terrorism you need to be physically in the place. You do NOT need citizenship. No bomb or bullet or plane stops and asks first if its operator is a citizen before it works. It isn't necessary.

Don't know how many ways it's necessary to say this before it registers ---- if you're going to commit an act of terrorism, you need certain stuff --- A plan; some equipment and/or training; a study of the target; probably some collaborators. Atop the list of things you do NOT need is "citizenship". It serves no purpose.

Of all the possible reasons to emigrate somewhere, "to commit terrorism" is not on the list. If terrorism is your mission, all that process would do is slow you down and bestow no benefit to your mission whatsoever.

And then as far as refugees --- they're in that position because they're fleeing that shit --- not because they're causing it.

We are talking about a terrorist blending in WITH refugees. The refugees in that region live among terrorists!!!! What do you think took place in Paris? You're right .... France closing its borders couldn't possibly be due to that terrorist attack. It would appear the French are more intelligent than you are.

This ain't your thread; you don't get to dictate what it's about. It was never established that the OP was referring to refugees. That's why I've been referring to "immigrants".

Maybe you should invest in a book called "How to Read".

First, anyone who resides from another country who wishes to enter our nation with the intent to live in the United States is by definition an immigrant. It's quite amazing if you ever made it past the 5th grade. Here, let me help you:

im·mi·grant
ˈiməɡrənt/
noun

1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

I originally responded that we should not look to the individual's religion or faith itself in determining who is allowed into the United States, but according to the region they are coming from, as some regions are more susceptible to terrorists and terrorist activities. Many of those concerns were with "current" events that included President Obama's desire to bring Muslim refugees into our borders, who will also be living in this country. These refugees come from areas with a lot of terrorist activities, and going unchecked, can allow for terrorist or terrorist sympathizers to filter in with the masses and enter as well. You were the one who interjected and felt you had to go on and on and on with your BS response.


To further back my point of terrorist sympathizers infiltrating among Muslium refugees, here are just two recent discoveries below that were uncovered. Which leads to question, how many more might have already successfully entered our borders?


Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, was arrested today by FBI and Homeland Investigations agents. According to the Department of Justice, he is a Palestinian born in Iraq who came to the United States as a refugee in November of 2009 and was given legal permanent residence status in 2011.
Authorities ID man arrested in Houston during terror-related investigation


Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab is a Palestinian born in Iraq, who came to the United States as an Iraqi refugee in October 2012. Between October 2012 and November 2013, while living in Arizona and Wisconsin, he communicated over social media with numerous other individuals about his intent to return to Syria to fight for terrorist organizations. In those communications, according to the complaint, Al-Jayab discussed his previous experience with firearms and with fighting against the regime in Syria. On Nov. 9, 2013, he flew from Chicago to Turkey, and then traveled to Syria. Between November 2013 and January 2014, Al-Jayab allegedly reported on social media that he was in Syria fighting with various terrorist organizations, including Ansar al-Islam, a designated foreign terrorist organization since 2004. He returned to the United States on Jan. 23, 2014, and settled in Sacramento.
California Man Arrested for Making False Statements in a Terrorism Investigation | OPA | Department of Justice.


So what I had discussed was possible, had indeed already happened. Care to again say that I was completely wrong in my concerns over refugees and terrorists?

The problem with using regions as a method of keeping out Islamic terrorist is that Islamic terrorism is not limited to just a few middle eastern countries. For example, Indonesia, who has the largest Muslim population in world has had a number of terrorist events. Likewise there's India with a Muslim population of over 174 million Muslims and also a major US trading partner. Then there's Pakistan with 178 million Muslims also with strong ties to terrorism, and also a key ally in the Afghanistan war. Even European countries are having more and more terrorist attacks and increasing numbers of Muslims.

Stopping travel into the US from a country would have serious repercussion. Such an action would likely affect trade agreements, reciprocal travel agreements, and agreements on information sharing such terrorist activities. Other major powers such as China and Russia would certainly benefit from such actions.

So now your post is equating all Muslims as terrorists? Don't let some of these liberals see your line of reasoning.

Actually there are a few regions that promote terrorism, that survelence and intelligence reveal training camps. We can make use of the same extensive background checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake, while forbidding those regions that are encouraging terrorist activities. There won't be any reprocussions, as that is the condition and standard by which countries must meet if they desire travel and entry from these locations. Countries in Eurooe have already taken such measures well ahead of us, in closing off their borders to certain hostile regions, we would only be standing along with them putting pressure on those countries which harbor and encourage terrorist activities.
Is this not the exact kind of "unity" and stand that Obama has been preaching to the American people with regard to a united coalition against these extremists? This is where the rubber meets the road, to see if this president is all talk, or is he really interested in only preserving and establishing his own "self image" with the Muslim community. Actions do after all, speak FAR more than a well rehearsed presidential speech that touts his own popularity and ego. This is also a test to see which side Hillary will find herself standing on through her open campaign on national policy. Are Democrats demonstrating a real concern for national security? Look at their record and those policies they are currently pushing.

I assume, you are addressing refugees and not immigrants. You are suggested that they be subject to the same extensive background
checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake. The fact is that refugee are subject the same background checks as immigrants. In fact, refugees undergo a number of interviews where immigrants usually have only one. In addition most immigrants seeking permanent residence are approved within 6 months while immigrants seeking refugee status requires 18 to 24 months and are vetted by both the UNHCR and the US.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

We are talking about a terrorist blending in WITH refugees. The refugees in that region live among terrorists!!!! What do you think took place in Paris? You're right .... France closing its borders couldn't possibly be due to that terrorist attack. It would appear the French are more intelligent than you are.

This ain't your thread; you don't get to dictate what it's about. It was never established that the OP was referring to refugees. That's why I've been referring to "immigrants".

Maybe you should invest in a book called "How to Read".

First, anyone who resides from another country who wishes to enter our nation with the intent to live in the United States is by definition an immigrant. It's quite amazing if you ever made it past the 5th grade. Here, let me help you:

im·mi·grant
ˈiməɡrənt/
noun

1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

I originally responded that we should not look to the individual's religion or faith itself in determining who is allowed into the United States, but according to the region they are coming from, as some regions are more susceptible to terrorists and terrorist activities. Many of those concerns were with "current" events that included President Obama's desire to bring Muslim refugees into our borders, who will also be living in this country. These refugees come from areas with a lot of terrorist activities, and going unchecked, can allow for terrorist or terrorist sympathizers to filter in with the masses and enter as well. You were the one who interjected and felt you had to go on and on and on with your BS response.


To further back my point of terrorist sympathizers infiltrating among Muslium refugees, here are just two recent discoveries below that were uncovered. Which leads to question, how many more might have already successfully entered our borders?


Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, was arrested today by FBI and Homeland Investigations agents. According to the Department of Justice, he is a Palestinian born in Iraq who came to the United States as a refugee in November of 2009 and was given legal permanent residence status in 2011.
Authorities ID man arrested in Houston during terror-related investigation


Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab is a Palestinian born in Iraq, who came to the United States as an Iraqi refugee in October 2012. Between October 2012 and November 2013, while living in Arizona and Wisconsin, he communicated over social media with numerous other individuals about his intent to return to Syria to fight for terrorist organizations. In those communications, according to the complaint, Al-Jayab discussed his previous experience with firearms and with fighting against the regime in Syria. On Nov. 9, 2013, he flew from Chicago to Turkey, and then traveled to Syria. Between November 2013 and January 2014, Al-Jayab allegedly reported on social media that he was in Syria fighting with various terrorist organizations, including Ansar al-Islam, a designated foreign terrorist organization since 2004. He returned to the United States on Jan. 23, 2014, and settled in Sacramento.
California Man Arrested for Making False Statements in a Terrorism Investigation | OPA | Department of Justice.


So what I had discussed was possible, had indeed already happened. Care to again say that I was completely wrong in my concerns over refugees and terrorists?

The problem with using regions as a method of keeping out Islamic terrorist is that Islamic terrorism is not limited to just a few middle eastern countries. For example, Indonesia, who has the largest Muslim population in world has had a number of terrorist events. Likewise there's India with a Muslim population of over 174 million Muslims and also a major US trading partner. Then there's Pakistan with 178 million Muslims also with strong ties to terrorism, and also a key ally in the Afghanistan war. Even European countries are having more and more terrorist attacks and increasing numbers of Muslims.

Stopping travel into the US from a country would have serious repercussion. Such an action would likely affect trade agreements, reciprocal travel agreements, and agreements on information sharing such terrorist activities. Other major powers such as China and Russia would certainly benefit from such actions.

So now your post is equating all Muslims as terrorists? Don't let some of these liberals see your line of reasoning.

Actually there are a few regions that promote terrorism, that survelence and intelligence reveal training camps. We can make use of the same extensive background checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake, while forbidding those regions that are encouraging terrorist activities. There won't be any reprocussions, as that is the condition and standard by which countries must meet if they desire travel and entry from these locations. Countries in Eurooe have already taken such measures well ahead of us, in closing off their borders to certain hostile regions, we would only be standing along with them putting pressure on those countries which harbor and encourage terrorist activities.
Is this not the exact kind of "unity" and stand that Obama has been preaching to the American people with regard to a united coalition against these extremists? This is where the rubber meets the road, to see if this president is all talk, or is he really interested in only preserving and establishing his own "self image" with the Muslim community. Actions do after all, speak FAR more than a well rehearsed presidential speech that touts his own popularity and ego. This is also a test to see which side Hillary will find herself standing on through her open campaign on national policy. Are Democrats demonstrating a real concern for national security? Look at their record and those policies they are currently pushing.

I assume, you are addressing refugees and not immigrants. You are suggested that they be subject to the same extensive background
checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake. The fact is that refugee are subject the same background checks as immigrants. In fact, refugees undergo a number of interviews where immigrants usually have only one. In addition most immigrants seeking permanent residence are approved within 6 months while immigrants seeking refugee status requires 18 to 24 months and are vetted by both the UNHCR and the US.

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

 

[Flopper]

This ain't your thread; you don't get to dictate what it's about. It was never established that the OP was referring to refugees. That's why I've been referring to "immigrants".

Maybe you should invest in a book called "How to Read".

First, anyone who resides from another country who wishes to enter our nation with the intent to live in the United States is by definition an immigrant. It's quite amazing if you ever made it past the 5th grade. Here, let me help you:

im·mi·grant
ˈiməɡrənt/
noun

1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

I originally responded that we should not look to the individual's religion or faith itself in determining who is allowed into the United States, but according to the region they are coming from, as some regions are more susceptible to terrorists and terrorist activities. Many of those concerns were with "current" events that included President Obama's desire to bring Muslim refugees into our borders, who will also be living in this country. These refugees come from areas with a lot of terrorist activities, and going unchecked, can allow for terrorist or terrorist sympathizers to filter in with the masses and enter as well. You were the one who interjected and felt you had to go on and on and on with your BS response.


To further back my point of terrorist sympathizers infiltrating among Muslium refugees, here are just two recent discoveries below that were uncovered. Which leads to question, how many more might have already successfully entered our borders?


Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, was arrested today by FBI and Homeland Investigations agents. According to the Department of Justice, he is a Palestinian born in Iraq who came to the United States as a refugee in November of 2009 and was given legal permanent residence status in 2011.
Authorities ID man arrested in Houston during terror-related investigation


Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab is a Palestinian born in Iraq, who came to the United States as an Iraqi refugee in October 2012. Between October 2012 and November 2013, while living in Arizona and Wisconsin, he communicated over social media with numerous other individuals about his intent to return to Syria to fight for terrorist organizations. In those communications, according to the complaint, Al-Jayab discussed his previous experience with firearms and with fighting against the regime in Syria. On Nov. 9, 2013, he flew from Chicago to Turkey, and then traveled to Syria. Between November 2013 and January 2014, Al-Jayab allegedly reported on social media that he was in Syria fighting with various terrorist organizations, including Ansar al-Islam, a designated foreign terrorist organization since 2004. He returned to the United States on Jan. 23, 2014, and settled in Sacramento.
California Man Arrested for Making False Statements in a Terrorism Investigation | OPA | Department of Justice.


So what I had discussed was possible, had indeed already happened. Care to again say that I was completely wrong in my concerns over refugees and terrorists?

The problem with using regions as a method of keeping out Islamic terrorist is that Islamic terrorism is not limited to just a few middle eastern countries. For example, Indonesia, who has the largest Muslim population in world has had a number of terrorist events. Likewise there's India with a Muslim population of over 174 million Muslims and also a major US trading partner. Then there's Pakistan with 178 million Muslims also with strong ties to terrorism, and also a key ally in the Afghanistan war. Even European countries are having more and more terrorist attacks and increasing numbers of Muslims.

Stopping travel into the US from a country would have serious repercussion. Such an action would likely affect trade agreements, reciprocal travel agreements, and agreements on information sharing such terrorist activities. Other major powers such as China and Russia would certainly benefit from such actions.

So now your post is equating all Muslims as terrorists? Don't let some of these liberals see your line of reasoning.

Actually there are a few regions that promote terrorism, that survelence and intelligence reveal training camps. We can make use of the same extensive background checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake, while forbidding those regions that are encouraging terrorist activities. There won't be any reprocussions, as that is the condition and standard by which countries must meet if they desire travel and entry from these locations. Countries in Eurooe have already taken such measures well ahead of us, in closing off their borders to certain hostile regions, we would only be standing along with them putting pressure on those countries which harbor and encourage terrorist activities.
Is this not the exact kind of "unity" and stand that Obama has been preaching to the American people with regard to a united coalition against these extremists? This is where the rubber meets the road, to see if this president is all talk, or is he really interested in only preserving and establishing his own "self image" with the Muslim community. Actions do after all, speak FAR more than a well rehearsed presidential speech that touts his own popularity and ego. This is also a test to see which side Hillary will find herself standing on through her open campaign on national policy. Are Democrats demonstrating a real concern for national security? Look at their record and those policies they are currently pushing.

I assume, you are addressing refugees and not immigrants. You are suggested that they be subject to the same extensive background
checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake. The fact is that refugee are subject the same background checks as immigrants. In fact, refugees undergo a number of interviews where immigrants usually have only one. In addition most immigrants seeking permanent residence are approved within 6 months while immigrants seeking refugee status requires 18 to 24 months and are vetted by both the UNHCR and the US.

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

First, anyone who resides from another country who wishes to enter our nation with the intent to live in the United States is by definition an immigrant. It's quite amazing if you ever made it past the 5th grade. Here, let me help you:

im·mi·grant
ˈiməɡrənt/
noun

1. a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

I originally responded that we should not look to the individual's religion or faith itself in determining who is allowed into the United States, but according to the region they are coming from, as some regions are more susceptible to terrorists and terrorist activities. Many of those concerns were with "current" events that included President Obama's desire to bring Muslim refugees into our borders, who will also be living in this country. These refugees come from areas with a lot of terrorist activities, and going unchecked, can allow for terrorist or terrorist sympathizers to filter in with the masses and enter as well. You were the one who interjected and felt you had to go on and on and on with your BS response.


To further back my point of terrorist sympathizers infiltrating among Muslium refugees, here are just two recent discoveries below that were uncovered. Which leads to question, how many more might have already successfully entered our borders?


Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, was arrested today by FBI and Homeland Investigations agents. According to the Department of Justice, he is a Palestinian born in Iraq who came to the United States as a refugee in November of 2009 and was given legal permanent residence status in 2011.
Authorities ID man arrested in Houston during terror-related investigation


Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab is a Palestinian born in Iraq, who came to the United States as an Iraqi refugee in October 2012. Between October 2012 and November 2013, while living in Arizona and Wisconsin, he communicated over social media with numerous other individuals about his intent to return to Syria to fight for terrorist organizations. In those communications, according to the complaint, Al-Jayab discussed his previous experience with firearms and with fighting against the regime in Syria. On Nov. 9, 2013, he flew from Chicago to Turkey, and then traveled to Syria. Between November 2013 and January 2014, Al-Jayab allegedly reported on social media that he was in Syria fighting with various terrorist organizations, including Ansar al-Islam, a designated foreign terrorist organization since 2004. He returned to the United States on Jan. 23, 2014, and settled in Sacramento.
California Man Arrested for Making False Statements in a Terrorism Investigation | OPA | Department of Justice.


So what I had discussed was possible, had indeed already happened. Care to again say that I was completely wrong in my concerns over refugees and terrorists?

The problem with using regions as a method of keeping out Islamic terrorist is that Islamic terrorism is not limited to just a few middle eastern countries. For example, Indonesia, who has the largest Muslim population in world has had a number of terrorist events. Likewise there's India with a Muslim population of over 174 million Muslims and also a major US trading partner. Then there's Pakistan with 178 million Muslims also with strong ties to terrorism, and also a key ally in the Afghanistan war. Even European countries are having more and more terrorist attacks and increasing numbers of Muslims.

Stopping travel into the US from a country would have serious repercussion. Such an action would likely affect trade agreements, reciprocal travel agreements, and agreements on information sharing such terrorist activities. Other major powers such as China and Russia would certainly benefit from such actions.

So now your post is equating all Muslims as terrorists? Don't let some of these liberals see your line of reasoning.

Actually there are a few regions that promote terrorism, that survelence and intelligence reveal training camps. We can make use of the same extensive background checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake, while forbidding those regions that are encouraging terrorist activities. There won't be any reprocussions, as that is the condition and standard by which countries must meet if they desire travel and entry from these locations. Countries in Eurooe have already taken such measures well ahead of us, in closing off their borders to certain hostile regions, we would only be standing along with them putting pressure on those countries which harbor and encourage terrorist activities.
Is this not the exact kind of "unity" and stand that Obama has been preaching to the American people with regard to a united coalition against these extremists? This is where the rubber meets the road, to see if this president is all talk, or is he really interested in only preserving and establishing his own "self image" with the Muslim community. Actions do after all, speak FAR more than a well rehearsed presidential speech that touts his own popularity and ego. This is also a test to see which side Hillary will find herself standing on through her open campaign on national policy. Are Democrats demonstrating a real concern for national security? Look at their record and those policies they are currently pushing.

I assume, you are addressing refugees and not immigrants. You are suggested that they be subject to the same extensive background
checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake. The fact is that refugee are subject the same background checks as immigrants. In fact, refugees undergo a number of interviews where immigrants usually have only one. In addition most immigrants seeking permanent residence are approved within 6 months while immigrants seeking refugee status requires 18 to 24 months and are vetted by both the UNHCR and the US.

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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.

 

[Flopper]

The problem with using regions as a method of keeping out Islamic terrorist is that Islamic terrorism is not limited to just a few middle eastern countries. For example, Indonesia, who has the largest Muslim population in world has had a number of terrorist events. Likewise there's India with a Muslim population of over 174 million Muslims and also a major US trading partner. Then there's Pakistan with 178 million Muslims also with strong ties to terrorism, and also a key ally in the Afghanistan war. Even European countries are having more and more terrorist attacks and increasing numbers of Muslims.

Stopping travel into the US from a country would have serious repercussion. Such an action would likely affect trade agreements, reciprocal travel agreements, and agreements on information sharing such terrorist activities. Other major powers such as China and Russia would certainly benefit from such actions.

So now your post is equating all Muslims as terrorists? Don't let some of these liberals see your line of reasoning.

Actually there are a few regions that promote terrorism, that survelence and intelligence reveal training camps. We can make use of the same extensive background checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake, while forbidding those regions that are encouraging terrorist activities. There won't be any reprocussions, as that is the condition and standard by which countries must meet if they desire travel and entry from these locations. Countries in Eurooe have already taken such measures well ahead of us, in closing off their borders to certain hostile regions, we would only be standing along with them putting pressure on those countries which harbor and encourage terrorist activities.
Is this not the exact kind of "unity" and stand that Obama has been preaching to the American people with regard to a united coalition against these extremists? This is where the rubber meets the road, to see if this president is all talk, or is he really interested in only preserving and establishing his own "self image" with the Muslim community. Actions do after all, speak FAR more than a well rehearsed presidential speech that touts his own popularity and ego. This is also a test to see which side Hillary will find herself standing on through her open campaign on national policy. Are Democrats demonstrating a real concern for national security? Look at their record and those policies they are currently pushing.

I assume, you are addressing refugees and not immigrants. You are suggested that they be subject to the same extensive background
checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake. The fact is that refugee are subject the same background checks as immigrants. In fact, refugees undergo a number of interviews where immigrants usually have only one. In addition most immigrants seeking permanent residence are approved within 6 months while immigrants seeking refugee status requires 18 to 24 months and are vetted by both the UNHCR and the US.

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

So now your post is equating all Muslims as terrorists? Don't let some of these liberals see your line of reasoning.

Actually there are a few regions that promote terrorism, that survelence and intelligence reveal training camps. We can make use of the same extensive background checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake, while forbidding those regions that are encouraging terrorist activities. There won't be any reprocussions, as that is the condition and standard by which countries must meet if they desire travel and entry from these locations. Countries in Eurooe have already taken such measures well ahead of us, in closing off their borders to certain hostile regions, we would only be standing along with them putting pressure on those countries which harbor and encourage terrorist activities.
Is this not the exact kind of "unity" and stand that Obama has been preaching to the American people with regard to a united coalition against these extremists? This is where the rubber meets the road, to see if this president is all talk, or is he really interested in only preserving and establishing his own "self image" with the Muslim community. Actions do after all, speak FAR more than a well rehearsed presidential speech that touts his own popularity and ego. This is also a test to see which side Hillary will find herself standing on through her open campaign on national policy. Are Democrats demonstrating a real concern for national security? Look at their record and those policies they are currently pushing.

I assume, you are addressing refugees and not immigrants. You are suggested that they be subject to the same extensive background
checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake. The fact is that refugee are subject the same background checks as immigrants. In fact, refugees undergo a number of interviews where immigrants usually have only one. In addition most immigrants seeking permanent residence are approved within 6 months while immigrants seeking refugee status requires 18 to 24 months and are vetted by both the UNHCR and the US.

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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.

Show me where this religious bigotry is? Where have I endorsed it? Was it hatred of Germans that forbid open travel between the United States 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?

 

[Flopper]

I assume, you are addressing refugees and not immigrants. You are suggested that they be subject to the same extensive background
checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake. The fact is that refugee are subject the same background checks as immigrants. In fact, refugees undergo a number of interviews where immigrants usually have only one. In addition most immigrants seeking permanent residence are approved within 6 months while immigrants seeking refugee status requires 18 to 24 months and are vetted by both the UNHCR and the US.

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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.

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?

 

[aris2chat]

So now your post is equating all Muslims as terrorists? Don't let some of these liberals see your line of reasoning.

Actually there are a few regions that promote terrorism, that survelence and intelligence reveal training camps. We can make use of the same extensive background checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake, while forbidding those regions that are encouraging terrorist activities. There won't be any reprocussions, as that is the condition and standard by which countries must meet if they desire travel and entry from these locations. Countries in Eurooe have already taken such measures well ahead of us, in closing off their borders to certain hostile regions, we would only be standing along with them putting pressure on those countries which harbor and encourage terrorist activities.
Is this not the exact kind of "unity" and stand that Obama has been preaching to the American people with regard to a united coalition against these extremists? This is where the rubber meets the road, to see if this president is all talk, or is he really interested in only preserving and establishing his own "self image" with the Muslim community. Actions do after all, speak FAR more than a well rehearsed presidential speech that touts his own popularity and ego. This is also a test to see which side Hillary will find herself standing on through her open campaign on national policy. Are Democrats demonstrating a real concern for national security? Look at their record and those policies they are currently pushing.

I assume, you are addressing refugees and not immigrants. You are suggested that they be subject to the same extensive background
checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake. The fact is that refugee are subject the same background checks as immigrants. In fact, refugees undergo a number of interviews where immigrants usually have only one. In addition most immigrants seeking permanent residence are approved within 6 months while immigrants seeking refugee status requires 18 to 24 months and are vetted by both the UNHCR and the US.

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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.

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.

 

[Flopper]

I assume, you are addressing refugees and not immigrants. You are suggested that they be subject to the same extensive background
checks that immigrants requiring citizenship must undertake. The fact is that refugee are subject the same background checks as immigrants. In fact, refugees undergo a number of interviews where immigrants usually have only one. In addition most immigrants seeking permanent residence are approved within 6 months while immigrants seeking refugee status requires 18 to 24 months and are vetted by both the UNHCR and the US.

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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.

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.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I am speaking of any foreign immigrant that is seeking to permanently live in the United States, including refugees that specifically describes those groups of people as having been forced to flee their homeland due to war or persecution. If these groups are indeed being vetted as you say, and not fast tracked for political reasons, then explain how I was already able to find two refugees with terrorist intentions having found their way into this country within 6 years and under the Obama administration?

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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

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.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

World's Largest Islamic Organization Tells ISIS To Get Lost


World's Largest Islamic Organization Tells ISIS To Get Lost

 

[Flopper]

2 refugees with terrorist intentions out 500,000 refugees is a good indication that the vetting of refugees does work. Homeland Security said that no terrorist plot was uncovered.

Homegrown terrorism is a far greater danger than terrorist from abroad. Yet people continue to ignore the facts and try to sell the idea that sealing our boarders to Muslims is going to protect us. Shutting the doors to Muslims is sure to increase frictions at home with the 5 million Muslims in the US as well as hundreds of millions of Muslims abroad. What a great recruiting tool for ISIS!

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

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.

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

 

[aris2chat]

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

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