What Exactly Is "Hysterical Fear" After Muslim Terrorist Attacks in Paris and Mali?

[CremeBrulee]

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

thanks captain everything's a conspiracy!
an adult would have admitted to being wrong.

The two sources that you used are both biased and left wing. it is what it is.

Do you read the Washington Post? They have a mix of everything. Plenty of conservatives, liberals, and moderates to go around.

 

[daws101]

Nope. But we should let in the refugees who are seeking protection from those radical jihadists.

Why does this not penetrate your thick skull?

Why?

Only if they were as retarded as you are. I think most of them would know there is a huge difference between a jihadist and a refugee, unlike you.

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

As opposed to someone named Redfish on the internet. I'll take Mr. Milbank, the Post, and Time with an unnamed quote in every instance.

its a free country, you can believe whatever you want. I really don't give a shit what you believe. your opinions have no value or credence, but I support your right to state them.

bullshit ........if you didn't give a shit why are you arguing with false propaganda

 

[Redfish]

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

thanks captain everything's a conspiracy!
an adult would have admitted to being wrong.

The two sources that you used are both biased and left wing. it is what it is.

bias is bad when you're wrong..
so you have no argument

media bias is bad no matter which side it takes. Do you really want a state controlled media?

 

[Redfish]

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

As opposed to someone named Redfish on the internet. I'll take Mr. Milbank, the Post, and Time with an unnamed quote in every instance.

its a free country, you can believe whatever you want. I really don't give a shit what you believe. your opinions have no value or credence, but I support your right to state them.

bullshit ........if you didn't give a shit why are you arguing with false propaganda

my propaganda is as valid as yours---------------wake up. This is all bullshit.

 

[g5000]

The KKK was made up almost exclusively of democrats.

Not anymore.

The Klan was and is exclusively Christian and conservative. Funny how you tards always leave that part out.

 

[easyt65]

▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

1. LINK TO PROVE THE NUMBERS YOU ARE THROWING AROUND...

2. Obama himself said it takes 12 - 18 months to 'fully vet' these refugees...so you are telling me that the Obama administration STARTED VETTING THESE REFUGEES BEFORE THE 'REFUGEE CRISIS' ACTUALLY BEGAN?

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

1. LINK TO PROVE THESE CLAIMS

2. Refugees are being taken in all over. ISIS vowed to infiltrate the refuges and attack the west - they did. We have THOUSANDS of illegals crossing our borders everyday, the FBI and CIA has said we have no clue who has come into our country because of Obama's refusal to secure the border and refusal to enforce the rule of Law, recently we caught 16 Syrians trying to come here legally...and that's only the ones we caught. The FBI said they have 1,000 open cases regarding ISIS and ISIS threats within the US.... And just before the Paris attacks he pompously declared he had CONTAINED ISIS...only to be exposed as a clueless failure in front of the whole world... SO, BESIDES HAVING A DUMBMASS FOR A PRESIDENT, HOW ARE WE DIFFERENT?

▪No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

- You're right (SO FAR)...Obama let them in through on a visa...and when warned in time to prevent them from successfully carrying out their deadly terrorist attack on US soil - one of several under Obama - he dropped the ball, did nothing, failed to prevent it, then tried to CON the American people that he knew nothing about them by plastering their picture all over the news and asking people to help ID them...WHEN HE ALREADY KNEW WHO THEY WERE.

Forgive me if I do not believe Obama when he tells us we are a bunch of cowards afraid of 'widows and orphans' when he has allowed repeated terrorist attacks on US soil and allowed a lot of Americans be killed at home and abroad.

This DUMBMASS actually said these Syrian refugees - that ISIS promised to infiltrate and use to attack us - like they did in Paris - are no more dangerous than the TOURISTS who come here every year!

So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

Obama says in order for US to prove we are not bigots, racists, greedy, self-centered, heartless people we have to blindly, naively allow thousands of improperly un-vetted Syrians into the country and HOPE they are not terrorists. F* THAT! If someone who did not have such a history of being wrong, lying, and so many failures in trying to prevent terrorist attacks on our soil and deaths of Americans I might give him the benefit of the doubt.

WE don't have to prove SHITE! And we can protect, feed, clothe, and house them without ever brining them here. Also, where the hell is the UN. It is not our job to rescue the world. THIS kind of crap is why the U.N. was formed to begin with.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

THANK YOU FOR FINALLY ADMITTING OBAMA IS A FAILURE!
- HE said his foreign policy, which he has had at least since 2012 to come up with one, is 'incomplete' and that his goal has always been to 'contain' - not defeat - ISIS...followed by his disastrous declaration the day before the Paris attacks that he had done so. He followed up the criticisms of those declarations and failed policies/strategies by declaring he has no intention of changing.

 

[g5000]

LIBTARD: Guns just killed some more people. We must ban them.

RUBE: Cars kill a lot more people than guns. So I guess we should ban them, too, right? Right? Right?

FOX NEWS: Some more Muslims just killed some more people. Every time any Muslim anywhere kills someone, we will be right here to tell you all about it, with doom music.

RUBE: WE MUST BAN MUSLIMS!!!

 

[Redfish]

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

thanks captain everything's a conspiracy!
an adult would have admitted to being wrong.

The two sources that you used are both biased and left wing. it is what it is.

Do you read the Washington Post? They have a mix of everything. Plenty of conservatives, liberals, and moderates to go around.

you obviously have not read it. Its editorial bias is well known and far left.

you libs claim that fox is biased to the right, Doesn't Juan Williams remove that bias? No? then neither does the conservative minority on the DC post.

 

[daws101]

the problem is that no one can tell them apart. BTW, where are the women and children and old people in the so-called refugees? Why are the vast majority of them men in their 20s and 30s?

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

thanks captain everything's a conspiracy!
an adult would have admitted to being wrong.

The two sources that you used are both biased and left wing. it is what it is.

Do you read the Washington Post? They have a mix of everything. Plenty of conservatives, liberals, and moderates to go around.

redass and posters like him get there "news" from glen beck and rash limp schlong.

 

[Redfish]

LIBTARD: Guns just killed some more people. We must ban them.

RUBE: Cars kill a lot more people than guns. So I guess we should ban them, too, right? Right? Right?

FOX NEWS: Some more Muslims just killed some more people. Every time any Muslim anywhere kills someone, we will be right here to tell you all about it, with doom music.

RUBE: WE MUST BAN MUSLIMS!!!

the problem with your attempt an analogy is that the muslim religion literally supports the jihadis, the leaders of the muslim religion support jihad. the ruling family of Saudi Arabia supports jihad against non muslims.

Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of intolerance and death.

 

[daws101]

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

thanks captain everything's a conspiracy!
an adult would have admitted to being wrong.

The two sources that you used are both biased and left wing. it is what it is.

bias is bad when you're wrong..
so you have no argument

media bias is bad no matter which side it takes. Do you really want a state controlled media?

false bias is only bad when it wrong.

 

[easyt65]

false it a very old threat and is no different or more imminent than any of the millions of threats the us get daily

...like 2 young terrorists attacking the Boston Marathon, a terrorist-convert Army Major that has been threatening to cut off the heads of his fellow soldiers if they refused to convert to Islam, like the threat to conduct middle east-wide attacks on US embassies and a simultaneous call for the assassination of a US ambassador (which caused every other foreign nation EXCEPT the US to pull their people out), or the vow to infiltrate refugees and attack Paris?

Yeah, who the hell needs to take all that shite seriously?!

 

[daws101]

bullshit!
▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

▪ No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

▪ A plurality of refugees admitted to the U.S. from all destinations are Christian. And while most of the Syrian refugees so far are Muslim, this makes sense because “it’s a mostly Muslim country and most of the victims are Muslim.”


So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

Nobody asked about the Republicans’ refugee rhetoric – so Obama brought it up himself. He called it “shameful” and told leaders “not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.”

A worthy opposition would demand more force and clarity from Obama on the Islamic State – not make scapegoats of innocents fleeing for their lives.

Dana Milbank writes for the Washington Post.

Read more here: GOP Syrian refugee rhetoric false, cruel

LOL, from the Washington post and "senior administration officials". and you are so fricken naïve that you believe it. sad, truly sad.

As opposed to someone named Redfish on the internet. I'll take Mr. Milbank, the Post, and Time with an unnamed quote in every instance.

its a free country, you can believe whatever you want. I really don't give a shit what you believe. your opinions have no value or credence, but I support your right to state them.

bullshit ........if you didn't give a shit why are you arguing with false propaganda

my propaganda is as valid as yours---------------wake up. This is all bullshit.

I don't use propaganda, you wouldn't know the difference anyway.
every thing you post is right wing conspiracy bullshit ...

 

[g5000]

▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

1. LINK TO PROVE THE NUMBERS YOU ARE THROWING AROUND...

2. Obama himself said it takes 12 - 18 months to 'fully vet' these refugees...so you are telling me that the Obama administration STARTED VETTING THESE REFUGEES BEFORE THE 'REFUGEE CRISIS' ACTUALLY BEGAN?

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

1. LINK TO PROVE THESE CLAIMS

The time it takes for a refugee to get approved is fairly common knowledge.


How do Syrian refugees get into the U.S.? - CNNPolitics.com

The average processing time for refugee applications is 18 to 24 months, but Syrian applications can take significantly longer because of security concerns and difficulties in verifying their information.

U.S. government data shows that just under 2,200 Syrian refugees have been admitted into the United States since the civil war broke out in March of 2011, and the vast majority of those were in the last year.

Easy, didn't you say you had a journalism degree?

If so, you have been doing a bang-up job of demonstrating how stupid our journalists are.

 

[daws101]

▪ Only 2,200 Syrians have been admitted in the past four years (10,000 are expected over the next year) and 70 percent have been either women or children under age 14.

1. LINK TO PROVE THE NUMBERS YOU ARE THROWING AROUND...

2. Obama himself said it takes 12 - 18 months to 'fully vet' these refugees...so you are telling me that the Obama administration STARTED VETTING THESE REFUGEES BEFORE THE 'REFUGEE CRISIS' ACTUALLY BEGAN?

▪ The situation here is “entirely different” from Europe, where refugees are flooding across borders. Here, they aren’t admitted until they are vetted for at least 18 months.

1. LINK TO PROVE THESE CLAIMS

2. Refugees are being taken in all over. ISIS vowed to infiltrate the refuges and attack the west - they did. We have THOUSANDS of illegals crossing our borders everyday, the FBI and CIA has said we have no clue who has come into our country because of Obama's refusal to secure the border and refusal to enforce the rule of Law, recently we caught 16 Syrians trying to come here legally...and that's only the ones we caught. The FBI said they have 1,000 open cases regarding ISIS and ISIS threats within the US.... And just before the Paris attacks he pompously declared he had CONTAINED ISIS...only to be exposed as a clueless failure in front of the whole world... SO, BESIDES HAVING A DUMBMASS FOR A PRESIDENT, HOW ARE WE DIFFERENT?

▪No terrorist incident has ever been traced to somebody admitted through the American refugee resettlement program.

- You're right...Obama let them in through on a visa...and when warned in time to prevent them from successfully carrying out their deadly terrorist attack on US soil - one of several under Obama - he dropped the ball, did nothing, failed to prevent it, then tried to CON the American people that he knew nothing about them by plastering their picture all over the news and asking people to help ID them...WHEN HE ALREADY KNEW WHO THEY WERE.

Forgive me if I do not believe Obama when he tells us we are a bunch of cowards afraid of 'widows and orphans' when he has allowed repeated terrorist attacks on US soil and allowed a lot of Americans be killed at home and abroad.

This DUMBMASS actually said these Syrian refugees - that ISIS promised to infiltrate and use to attack us - like they did in Paris - are no more dangerous than the TOURISTS who come here every year!

So why pursue a claim that is as false as it is cruel? Perhaps the GOP hopefuls are having trouble differentiating themselves from Obama on Syria. For all the criticism of his approach to the Islamic State, several supposed alternatives have already been tried.

Obama says in order for US to prove we are not bigots, racists, greedy, self-centered, heartless people we have to blindly, naively allow thousands of improperly un-vetted Syrians into the country and HOPE they are not terrorists. F* THAT! If someone who did not have such a history of being wrong, lying, and so many failures in trying to prevent terrorist attacks on our soil and deaths of Americans I might give him the benefit of the doubt.

WE don't have to prove SHITE! And we can protect, feed, clothe, and house them without ever brining them here. Also, where the hell is the UN. It is not our job to rescue the world. THIS kind of crap is why the U.N. was formed to begin with.

There’s a solid case to be made against Obama’s handling of the Islamic State. His efforts clearly haven’t worked so far, and he continues to struggle to articulate his strategy. At his news conference in Turkey on Monday after the G-20 conference, Obama became defensive. He said his critics “seem to think that if I was just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference.”

THANK YOU FOR FINALLY ADMITTING OBAMA IS A FAILURE!
- HE said his foreign policy, which he has had at least since 2012 t come up with one. is 'incomplete' and that his goal has always been to 'contain' - not defeat - ISIS...followed by his disastrous declaration the day before the Paris attacks that he had done so. He followed up the criticisms of those declarations and failed policies/strategies by declaring he has no intention of changing.

all the accusation made are false ..
if you read the article it has a link.
thanks again from proving you're a total paranoid the bomb shelter offer is still open.

 

[easyt65]

LIBTARD: Guns just killed some more people. We must ban them.

RUBE: Cars kill a lot more people than guns. So I guess we should ban them, too, right? Right? Right?

FOX NEWS: Some more Muslims just killed some more people. Every time any Muslim anywhere kills someone, we will be right here to tell you all about it, with doom music.

RUBE: WE MUST BAN MUSLIMS!!!

You're such an Obama ass-kisser and have to make up B$ to try to advance your propaganda / lies.

 

[g5000]

LIBTARD: Guns just killed some more people. We must ban them.

RUBE: Cars kill a lot more people than guns. So I guess we should ban them, too, right? Right? Right?

FOX NEWS: Some more Muslims just killed some more people. Every time any Muslim anywhere kills someone, we will be right here to tell you all about it, with doom music.

RUBE: WE MUST BAN MUSLIMS!!!

the problem with your attempt an analogy is that the muslim religion literally supports the jihadis,

Nope.

That's like saying the NRA supports homicides.

Islam is not a religion of peace. It is a religion of intolerance and death.

Nope.

But guns are not peaceful, that's for sure.

 

[g5000]

LIBTARD: Guns just killed some more people. We must ban them.

RUBE: Cars kill a lot more people than guns. So I guess we should ban them, too, right? Right? Right?

FOX NEWS: Some more Muslims just killed some more people. Every time any Muslim anywhere kills someone, we will be right here to tell you all about it, with doom music.

RUBE: WE MUST BAN MUSLIMS!!!

You're such an Obama ass-kisser and have to make up B$ to try to advance your propaganda / lies.

You dopes are using the exact same TardLogic™.

 

[daws101]

false it a very old threat and is no different or more imminent than any of the millions of threats the us get daily

...like 2 young terrorists attacking the Boston Marathon, a terrorist-convert Army Major that has been threatening to cut off the heads of his fellow soldiers if they refused to convert to Islam, like the threat to conduct middle east-wide attacks on US embassies and a simultaneous call for the assassination of a US ambassador (which caused every other foreign nation EXCEPT the US to pull their people out), or the vow to infiltrate refugees and attack Paris?

Yeah, who the hell needs to take all that shite seriously?!

another paranoid response. there is taking shit seriously and there is batshit, guess which one you are.
some perspective
According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns. 61% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. are suicides.

United States
Total Number of Gun Deaths



United States – Total Number of Gun Deaths

 

[easyt65]

Easy, didn't you say you had a journalism degree?

If so, you have been doing a bang-up job of demonstrating how stupid our journalists are.

g5000, since the FBI, CIA, DHS, and even the WH has ADMITTED that there are no Syrian Agencies, no official documents, no official bios, and no REAL 'official' documents to use to fully vet these Syrian refugees, how can you or any Lib actually try to claim none of these Syrians let into the country included terrorists?

You can no more validly claim that there have been no terrorists let in than Obama could claim he has 'contained' ISIS the day before the terrorists attacks in Paris.

You say Obama has been allowing in peaceful, innocent Syrian 'refugees', but yet today the FBI is saying they are overwhelmed with 1,000 open investigations involving ISIS and ISIS threats. Seems to me that 'constantly growing number' from ISIS within the United States is not a coincidental accident considering that Obama has been allowing in thousands of ADMITTEDLY improperly-vetted Syrians.

Maybe the FBI wouldn't have so much work on their hands if Obama didn't keep importing potential terrorists....