46 percent of Americans support Trump's Muslim ban; 40 percent opposed
- Thread starter The Tradition
- Start date
Not arguing with any of that. But extra-scrutiny is certainly appropriate. But the focus should be on nationality, not religion.
No, the focus should not be on nationality. That just plays into ISIS's hands. Nationality has nothing to do with it. The California attack was done by an American and the Paris attack was done by Parisians. Clearly ISIS isn't relegated to one nation.
The focus needs to be on ISIS and no one else. Made it know we're fighting ISIS. Not Syrian. Not Muslims. ISIS and ISIS alone. If you make it about other cultures, you're only making it easier for ISIS to recruit these people. But if you make it about ISIS, then these other cultures can help you in you fight.
Again, if we make life hard on other people because of ISIS, why do you think that makes them more likely to join ISIS?
In boot camp, if someone screwed up, everybody got punished for it. Did that make us want to join the guy who screwed up and unite against our oppressor? Hell no, it made us all mad at the guy who screwed up.
Because most reasonable people get really pissed at unfair treatment and direct that anger at those carrying it out. This isn't rocket science. I realize you're built differently, but if the American Government put me in a camp for being gay, I wouldn't get mad at my partner. I'd get mad at America.
That analogy would only make sense if there was a gay terrorist group that you might be inclined to join.
Do you really think that boot camp, a place that you go to be reshaped as a human and are not allowed to question authority, is a good comparison?
Only if you assume every Muslim is a member of ISIS.
No, that was your analogy. In boot camp you're punished as a group so that the individual shapes up so he doesn't disappoint his peers. In the case of ISIS they don't care if their actions reflect negatively on others.
chew on this -
Although the Obama administration currently refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.
After two terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, Kentucky, in 2009, the FBI began reviewing reams of evidence taken from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that had been used against American troops in Iraq. Federal investigators then tried to match fingerprints from those bombs to the fingerprints of individuals who had recently entered the United States as refugees:
An intelligence tip initially led the FBI to Waad Ramadan Alwan, 32, in 2009. The Iraqi had claimed to be a refugee who faced persecution back home — a story that shattered when the FBI found his fingerprints on a cordless phone base that U.S. soldiers dug up in a gravel pile south of Bayji, Iraq on Sept. 1, 2005. The phone base had been wired to unexploded bombs buried in a nearby road.
An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army’s Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.
The terrorists were not taken into custody until 2011. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. State Department stopped processing refugee requests from Iraqis for six months in order to review and revamp security screening procedures:
As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.
According to a 2013 report from ABC News, at least one of the Kentucky terrorists passed background and fingerprint checks conducted by the Department of Homeland Security prior to being allowed to enter the United States. Without the fingerprint evidence taken from roadside bombs, which one federal forensic scientist referred to as “a needle in the haystack,” it is unlikely that the two terrorists would ever have been identified and apprehended.
“How did a person who we detained in Iraq — linked to an IED attack, we had his fingerprints in our government system — how did he walk into America in 2009?” asked one former Army general who previously oversaw the U.S. military’s anti-IED efforts.
President Barack Obama has thus far refused bipartisan calls to pause his administration’s Syrian refugee program, which many believe is likely to be exploited by terrorists seeking entry into the United States. The president has not explained how his administration can guarantee that no terrorists will be able to slip into the country by pretending to be refugees, as the Iraqi terrorists captured in Kentucky did in 2009. One of those terrorists, Waad Ramadan Alwan, even came into the United States by way of Syria, where his fingerprints were taken and given to U.S. military intelligence officials.
Obama has also refused to explain how his administration’s security-related pause on processing Iraq refugee requests in 2011 did not “betray our deepest values.”
Although the Obama administration currently refuses to temporarily pause its Syrian refugee resettlement program in the United States, the State Department in 2011 stopped processing Iraq refugee requests for six months after the Federal Bureau of Investigation uncovered evidence that several dozen terrorists from Iraq had infiltrated the United States via the refugee program.
After two terrorists were discovered in Bowling Green, Kentucky, in 2009, the FBI began reviewing reams of evidence taken from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that had been used against American troops in Iraq. Federal investigators then tried to match fingerprints from those bombs to the fingerprints of individuals who had recently entered the United States as refugees:
An intelligence tip initially led the FBI to Waad Ramadan Alwan, 32, in 2009. The Iraqi had claimed to be a refugee who faced persecution back home — a story that shattered when the FBI found his fingerprints on a cordless phone base that U.S. soldiers dug up in a gravel pile south of Bayji, Iraq on Sept. 1, 2005. The phone base had been wired to unexploded bombs buried in a nearby road.
An ABC News investigation of the flawed U.S. refugee screening system, which was overhauled two years ago, showed that Alwan was mistakenly allowed into the U.S. and resettled in the leafy southern town of Bowling Green, Kentucky, a city of 60,000 which is home to Western Kentucky University and near the Army’s Fort Knox and Fort Campbell. Alwan and another Iraqi refugee, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, 26, were resettled in Bowling Green even though both had been detained during the war by Iraqi authorities, according to federal prosecutors.
The terrorists were not taken into custody until 2011. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. State Department stopped processing refugee requests from Iraqis for six months in order to review and revamp security screening procedures:
As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News – even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets. One Iraqi who had aided American troops was assassinated before his refugee application could be processed, because of the immigration delays, two U.S. officials said. In 2011, fewer than 10,000 Iraqis were resettled as refugees in the U.S., half the number from the year before, State Department statistics show.
According to a 2013 report from ABC News, at least one of the Kentucky terrorists passed background and fingerprint checks conducted by the Department of Homeland Security prior to being allowed to enter the United States. Without the fingerprint evidence taken from roadside bombs, which one federal forensic scientist referred to as “a needle in the haystack,” it is unlikely that the two terrorists would ever have been identified and apprehended.
“How did a person who we detained in Iraq — linked to an IED attack, we had his fingerprints in our government system — how did he walk into America in 2009?” asked one former Army general who previously oversaw the U.S. military’s anti-IED efforts.
President Barack Obama has thus far refused bipartisan calls to pause his administration’s Syrian refugee program, which many believe is likely to be exploited by terrorists seeking entry into the United States. The president has not explained how his administration can guarantee that no terrorists will be able to slip into the country by pretending to be refugees, as the Iraqi terrorists captured in Kentucky did in 2009. One of those terrorists, Waad Ramadan Alwan, even came into the United States by way of Syria, where his fingerprints were taken and given to U.S. military intelligence officials.
Obama has also refused to explain how his administration’s security-related pause on processing Iraq refugee requests in 2011 did not “betray our deepest values.”
They need to recruit ordinary Muslims. If ordinary Muslims stand up to them because ISIS is causing trouble for them, wouldn't that be a good thing?
It's a lot easier to hide, and keep hidden an object that doesn't need things like food, water, and oxygen.
There was no reference. You made a comment about me and then attributed it to Voltaire. lol!
You didn't need to confess that you didn't understand, but I appreciate your honesty.
There's nothing to understand. You didn't use a quote.
Edit: Or maybe you just don't know how a quote works. Do you know how a quote works?
That's what a reference is. If I'm going to educate you, you're going to need to send me tuition.
It's pretty a famous one, that why it should be an easy reference. You might like Voltaire, he too was anti-democracy in his youth.
Even liberals want to get paid, how else are we to pay the taxes for your free education?
It's pretty a famous one, that why it should be an easy reference. You might like Voltaire, he too was anti-democracy in his youth.
I know who Voltaire is, but you understand that he said a lot of stuff. That's why, when you make a cryptic comment about someone who's works are so huge, that people aren't just going to "get it".
Edit: That being said. Your post still doesn't make any sense. You insinuate that I'm against free speech, even when I'm even more for free speech than you are.
If I had just shouted "Voltaire" out in a naked universe, that would be fair. But when I put that in context of me saying libs fight to defend your right to attack democracy, it suddenly should be clear to anyone familiar with the man what I was referencing.
I guess it was a combination of your post not making any sense, and the fact that you were insinuating that dems are the only ones in favor of free speech, when they generally aren't even for free speech.
There are many dems who have conservative positions. But free speech is inherently part of the definition of liberalism. Anyone who supports that concept is aligning themselves with liberal philosophy on that point. I'm surprised you of all posters would conflate dems and libs.
Free speech is part of the definition of "classical" liberalism. People who believe in hate crimes can't be pro-free speech. You still believe that liberals nowadays believe in liberty, when they're just as anti-liberty as the republicans are.
That's obvious, but neither party even supports the Bill of Rights.
Neither party supports the 1st.
Neither party supports the 2nd.
Neither party supports the 4th.
Neither party supports the 5th.
Neither party supports the 6th.
Neither party supports the 7th.
Neither party supports the 9th.
Neither party supports the 10th.
(GASP!!!)
You mean:
A) The program WORKED!!!??? (infiltrators were CAUGHT!!!)
B) Iraqi refugees were RE-allowed in after 6 MONTHS!!! (and apparently have been for years)
Yep all that is being asked is the same waiting period. Gosh the horror.
No that's not all that's being asked, but they are already giving you an 18 month waiting period.
And asking for more to be done to ensure safety, the sons a bitches.
But ISIS cuts off body parts...and I don't mean just heads, arms and legs. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-about-homosexuality-under-isis-10470894.html
Latest posts
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
