Isis delighted with Trump's ban

[habiru]

As predicted...

Isis is delighted with Donald Trump’s 'Muslim ban'

Yes, they are using their wives, the women protesters to sneak them in while everyone else is for it. So let's keep on cheering for them to enter.

 

[metis]

OK, a question for you all.

Last week there was a tragic massacre in Quebec at a mosque whereas six Muslims were killed, and the man who did it is not a Muslim.

Meanwhile, of the seven countries on Trump's list, there have been zero terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Question: Should we stop non-Muslim Canadians from coming in to the U.S. since they appear to be a greater threat to American security that are the refugees seeking asylum here from Trump's list?

 

[esmith]

OK, a question for you all.

Last week there was a tragic massacre in Quebec at a mosque whereas six Muslims were killed, and the man who did it is not a Muslim.

Meanwhile, of the seven countries on Trump's list, there have been zero terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Question: Should we stop non-Muslim Canadians from coming in to the U.S. since they appear to be a greater threat to American security that are the refugees seeking asylum here from Trump's list?

I usually disagree with your position on many issues but respect what you think. However in this case you are getting a little weird in your thought process.
I think everyone should step back, tone it down and see where it goes. Yes everyone has the right to express their opinions but some members of this forum are going considerably overboard in their post and this applies to both sides.

 

[Lyndon]

I think Trump supporters present a clear and present danger to the American way of life.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. If he did that, it would mean 1) not believing conventional wisdom, and 2) telling our Allies their citizens cannot come here. If it were a list that was serious about terrorism, it would have included Afghanistan, Nigeria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. And it just so happens he also does/did business in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
em, and they'll say anything to end their own suffering. Respect them, and they'll end of the suffering of their people.

What is conventional wisdom, & how is it arrived at?
Note that Obama also considered the excluded countries to be a lower risk.
Would this be damning criticism of both presidents?

 

[4consideration]

OK, a question for you all.

Last week there was a tragic massacre in Quebec at a mosque whereas six Muslims were killed, and the man who did it is not a Muslim.

Meanwhile, of the seven countries on Trump's list, there have been zero terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Question: Should we stop non-Muslim Canadians from coming in to the U.S. since they appear to be a greater threat to American security that are the refugees seeking asylum here from Trump's list?

I watched the press conference with Press Secretary Sean Spicer yesterday and one of the reporters asked the question about why Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were not included on the list when US experience of terrorism showed more experience with terrorists coming from those 2 countries than from other countries on the list.

The answer was that this initial order is based upon the Obama Administration's assessment that the immigration/entry approval process for people coming from those countries was lacking, and was only a list they had made of countries whose entry processing specifically in need of strengthening. He also indicated that the administration will look at the processes for approval of, or entry, from any other country that seems to present a specific concern -- and that this is a first phase of addressing a weakness already identified by the prior administration.

So, to answer your question, I would say no, I don't see a need to stop non-Muslim Canadians at this time, and as I understand it, this administration has not yet moved to halt or slow the movement of people from any country except those that are reported to have been previously identified as needing entry processes to be revised.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If they are ISIS, kill them.

That is still not giving them what they expect us to do to them, it is giving them their hearts desire. Why should we so eagerly please our enemies? We kill them, they believe they go straight to paradise. We do the opposite, and we sow the seeds of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Kemosloby]

That is still not giving them what they expect us to do to them, it is giving them their hearts desire. Why should we so eagerly please our enemies? We kill them, they believe they go straight to paradise. We do the opposite, and we sow the seeds of cognitive dissonance.

Sending them to paradise sounds like the way to go. Love your enemy and all that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is conventional wisdom, & how is it arrived at?

Conventional wisdom holds that those countries banned are the hotspots for terrorism. And while some of them are, it's especially very bad policy to ban Iraqis right now, and there is the fact that ISIS hasn't been sending people here, and those who have committed violence in America in the name of ISIS were citizens already living here, often enough since they were very young and long before ISIS even existed. This goes along with the fact ISIS has been more focused themselves and getting people already here to commit violence rather than sending people here to do it, as it's much easier and more likely to happen if they just cast bait and hope someone takes it rather than having to go through the difficulty of getting someone through here over the ocean and through what was already a very thorough and extensive vetting process under Obama. But, according to conventional wisdom, ISIS operatives themselves are sneaking in with ease.

Note that Obama also considered the excluded countries to be a lower risk.

Yes, and such is foolish. It shows how deep these alliances and economic dependencies that shouldn't exist are embedded into the American government. Saudi Arabia is a hot spot for terrorism training, financial support, and it's officially Wahhabi which is what a good chunk of Islamic radicals are. Egypt is a hot spot for propaganda and spreading their ideology, radicalization, and it pumps out a ton of radicals and is a dangerous place Christians. But we are finding not even the "outsider" is considering these facts or really even interested in giving our nation's position regarding such things the much needed change in direction. Though this was to be expected, and Trump gave us all the signs it would be business as usual in regards to the Middle East.

 

[Revoltingest]

Conventional wisdom holds that those countries banned are the hotspots for terrorism. And while some of them are, it's especially very bad policy to ban Iraqis right now, and there is the fact that ISIS hasn't been sending people here, and those who have committed violence in America in the name of ISIS were citizens already living here, often enough since they were very young and long before ISIS even existed. This goes along with the fact ISIS has been more focused themselves and getting people already here to commit violence rather than sending people here to do it, as it's much easier and more likely to happen if they just cast bait and hope someone takes it rather than having to go through the difficulty of getting someone through here over the ocean and through what was already a very thorough and extensive vetting process under Obama. But, according to conventional wisdom, ISIS operatives themselves are sneaking in with ease.

Yes, and such is foolish. It shows how deep these alliances and economic dependencies that shouldn't exist are embedded into the American government. Saudi Arabia is a hot spot for terrorism training, financial support, and it's officially Wahhabi which is what a good chunk of Islamic radicals are. Egypt is a hot spot for propaganda and spreading their ideology, radicalization, and it pumps out a ton of radicals and is a dangerous place Christians. But we are finding not even the "outsider" is considering these facts or really even interested in giving our nation's position regarding such things the much needed change in direction. Though this was to be expected, and Trump gave us all the signs it would be business as usual in regards to the Middle East.

FYI, I don't like the ban.

But I strongly suspect that the Obama admin's assessment had some merit behind it.
I say the same for Trump's team.
But whatever merit there was & is, the program looks more harmful than helpful.

 

[habiru]

These leftist's protesters are doing a lot of sneaky crap, because of George Soros. The people are becoming tired of these acts. A lot of people had lost friends and family members in these terrorist attacks. These ruthless acts of theirs by saying that it is okay to kill their friends and family is triggering a civil war. And George Soros knows that this is going to happen. But he doesn't care, as long as he is not in the paths of these bullets. They are trying to attack President Trump for banning certain immigrants. But while Obama and other Presidents of the past has put a banned on immigrants as well. The real police and the people are becoming restless. Oregon is a Liberal State.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10155066468878701

Bystanders Cheer on Police as They Break Up Anti-Trump Protest in OR

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But I strongly suspect that the Obama admin's assessment had some merit behind it.

Excluding Saudi Arabia has no merit. It's one of those legitimate complaints of Obama that has either been ignored by the "mainstream Liberal" or buried underneath false complaints fabricated by Right-Winged media sources and perpetuated by raving lunatics such as Trump. As I've been saying, it's a problem that is much larger than just one, or even two presidents, and this area where the "swamp" so desperately needed draining the same foolish course of action is being pursued.

 

[metis]

The answer was that this initial order is based upon the Obama Administration's assessment that the immigration/entry approval process for people coming from those countries was lacking, and was only a list they had made of countries whose entry processing specifically in need of strengthening.

Except that this was not true as the Obama warning only applied to going to those countries, not terrorists threats within our own. However, what he did do was to temporarily slow-walk the vetting process with those coming from Iraq because of the rise of al-Queda in Iraq that morphed into ISIL

The Saudi's have been and continue through support of the Wahhabists to foster terrorism in different locals, plus Pakistan has a record of [wink/wink] fighting terrorism while actually supporting it.

The reality appears much more on the basis of what Giuliani said in regards of Trump asking him if there was any way of stopping Muslim immigration legally. Plus Trump campaigned on that issue, including making statements of having blanket bans on Muslim immigration.

So, to answer your question, I would say no, I don't see a need to stop non-Muslim Canadians at this time,

That was said tongue-in-cheek. I was in Canada for two days last week and if we crack down too hard maybe I won't be let back into the States next time. Although, that would be all bad as we almost moved there back in the early 70-'s.

 

[4consideration]

Except that this was not true as the Obama warning only applied to going to those countries, not terrorists threats within our own. However, what he did do was to temporarily slow-walk the vetting process with those coming from Iraq because of the rise of al-Queda in Iraq that morphed into ISIL.

The link to the briefings just done (my post #76) shows the Secretary of Homeland Security repeating similar statements, except he also mentioned Congress as being part of who identified these locations. I haven't seen exactly what they are referring to, and am reporting what I understand to their explanation for why only those particular countries were included at this time.

The Saudi's have been and continue through support of the Wahhabists to foster terrorism in different locals, plus Pakistan has a record of [wink/wink] fighting terrorism while actually supporting it.

From what I understand, I've no argument here. Although, just to reiterate, it is my understanding the administration has in no way ruled out looking at processes relative to these countries -- but were merely beginning where there seemed to be some measure of public agreement already that processes relative to the list of countries included needed to be strengthened.

The reality appears much more on the basis of what Giuliani said in regards of Trump asking him if there was any way of stopping Muslim immigration legally. Plus Trump campaigned on that issue, including making statements of having blanket bans on Muslim immigration.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it works out. I would not support a ban based upon religion. I do, however, think we have a known problem of significant danger due to extreme elements within a certain religion, and an organization that vocalizes its intent to infiltrate and do us harm -- so we need to be prudent, while in the process of being as fair and compassionate as is reasonable -- without unduly sacrificing safety for the sake of not appearing unkind.

So far, while I'm sorry to see the upset and confusion it has caused some people, I can't say I'm in opposition to tough scrutiny of our entry processes -- and I agree with the administration that advance warning that it was to begin rigid reassessment of entry processes was going to start right now would likely have encouraged the very actors who would intend to cause us harm to slip in quickly, beforehand.

I was slightly bothered at first from the way this EO was presented by the media, but after looking into it, I am remaining cautious, yet hopeful we might see improvement of security without undue harshness on innocents.

That was said tongue-in-cheek. I was in Canada for two days last week and if we crack down too hard maybe I won't be let back into the States next time. Although, that would be all bad as we almost moved there back in the early 70-'s.

I figured it was tongue-in-cheek. I was trying to play back.

 

[Revoltingest]

Excluding Saudi Arabia has no merit. It's one of those legitimate complaints of Obama that has either been ignored by the "mainstream Liberal" or buried underneath false complaints fabricated by Right-Winged media sources and perpetuated by raving lunatics such as Trump. As I've been saying, it's a problem that is much larger than just one, or even two presidents, and this area where the "swamp" so desperately needed draining the same foolish course of action is being pursued.

It's certainly possible that by a decade after Saudi citizen involvement in 9/11,
that they'd addressed the terrorist problem within their country to the point
that they were less of a risk than other Muslim countries.
What evidence is there that both the Obama & Trump admins are wrong?
(Note that I'm not saying they're right. But criticism should have a foundation.)

 

[metis]

I haven't seen exactly what they are referring to, and am reporting what I understand to their explanation for why only those particular countries were included at this time.

Based on what Giuliani said in regards to what Trump asked him, I think it most likely that he was just looking for a cover story that legally hides his agenda, because this is what connecting the dots tells me. Am I sure about this? No.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it works out. I would not support a ban based upon religion. I do, however, think we have a known problem of significant danger due to extreme elements within a certain religion, and an organization that vocalizes its intent to infiltrate and do us harm -- so we need to be prudent, while in the process of being as fair and compassionate as is reasonable -- without unduly sacrificing safety for the sake of not appearing unkind.

But this actually works against our security as we're really upsetting people who normally are on our side. Notice what's happening with the DOW as businesses are worried about foreign-based repercussions.

So far, while I'm sorry to see the upset and confusion it has caused some people,

And the confusion goes well beyond the public's reaction as even those nominated for his cabinet positions were not asked about this in advance, and Kelly said he learned it first through the media. The roll-out was terrible as it caught even the Border Patrol off guard because there not sufficient guidelines.

I was slightly bothered at first from the way this EO was presented by the media, but after looking into it, I am remaining cautious, yet hopeful we might see improvement of security without undue harshness on innocents.

I completely agree.

I figured it was tongue-in-cheek. I was trying to play back.

Maybe if I had more coffee this morning I would have caught it.

 

[idav]

OK, a question for you all.

Last week there was a tragic massacre in Quebec at a mosque whereas six Muslims were killed, and the man who did it is not a Muslim.

Meanwhile, of the seven countries on Trump's list, there have been zero terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Question: Should we stop non-Muslim Canadians from coming in to the U.S. since they appear to be a greater threat to American security that are the refugees seeking asylum here from Trump's list?

Just as long as people with Jesus tattoos get passes, heck anyone with a Muhammad tattoo even.

 

[Notanumber]

This man makes some interesting points.

 

[Notanumber]

Our politicians and celebrities keep trashing Donald Trump but the European population are not buying it.

 

[idav]

Yes, they are using their wives, the women protesters to sneak them in while everyone else is for it. So let's keep on cheering for them to enter.

And some numskulls try to use babies as ways to get drugs across the border. Is that mean we ban all babies?