Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump Vetting Order

[DSRilk]

We are not living a very long time ago, Why import those backward values again? They won't reform their religion by assimilation. Do you think Muslims living in the western world is a new thing?

I'm not saying import those values. Saying they won't reform their religion by assimilation is not a statement backed up by any facts that I'm aware of. Actually, assimilation is how most reform has happened. It is the sharing of cultures that allows it. It is having women in burkas now living in a place where they are protected by laws that allow them to go out without them. Slowly, some of them will choose to do without. Others will start to see their friends and neighbors accepting those who no longer live in a bag. They may then also start to choose a new way of life. Gays came out of the closet. Gays people had respect for started to do so. People started to realize friends and neighbors they liked were actually gay, so perhaps it wasn't a bad thing to be okay with that lifestyle. I'm not guaranteeing it will work this way in this particular case; I'm just saying that there's precedent for it. What I'd REALLY like to say is that, to me, the regressives need to support those trying to bring reformation instead of slamming them for saying Islam as it is practiced by many isn't always great, and the right wingers need to support truly moderate and western Muslims who are trying to bring about a more modern version of Islam instead of painting Islam as nothing but a tool of repression. Perhaps a lot of it is that way now, but supporting those who want to change that is the best way to move beyond it.

[Deleted]

Homegrown islamic terrorism? Please, show me your mental gymnastics to make it not being directly linked to immigration. The fewer muslims there are in the country, the fewer potential "homegrown" terrorists there are in the future.

People like him don't understand how these homegrown terrorists become radicalized. It's because of Radical Imams holding hate-speeches in Mosques.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not saying import those values. Saying they won't reform their religion by assimilation is not a statement backed up by any facts that I'm aware of. Actually, assimilation is how most reform has happened. It is the sharing of cultures that allows it. It is having women in burkas now living in a place where they are protected by laws that allow them to go out without them. Slowly, some of them will choose to do without. Others will start to see their friends and neighbors accepting those who no longer live in a bag. They may then also start to choose a new way of life. Gays came out of the closet. Gays people had respect for started to do so. People started to realize friends and neighbors they liked were actually gay, so perhaps it wasn't a bad thing to be okay with that lifestyle. I'm not guaranteeing it will work this way in this particular case; I'm just saying that there's precedent for it. What I'd REALLY like to say is that, to me, the regressives need to support those trying to bring reformation instead of slamming them for saying Islam as it is practiced by many isn't always great, and the right wingers need to support truly moderate and western Muslims who are trying to bring about a more modern version of Islam instead of painting Islam as nothing but a tool of repression. Perhaps a lot of it is that way now, but supporting those who want to change that is the best way to move beyond it.

Look at the issues Britain faces with the Muslim population there, especially in towns like Manchester, London and Bradford. Districts of the city have given way to Muslim populations who don't even know Britain isn't a fully Muslim country because they're so secluded and secular. And it's these creches of Muslims that breed the "Homegrown" Terrorists.

[Deleted]

Claiming religion has nothing to do with countries like saudi arabia , pakistan and some others

Lefties always living in a unicorn world



THe fuckin irony

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Homegrown islamic terrorism? Please, show me your mental gymnastics to make it not being directly linked to immigration. The fewer muslims there are in the country, the fewer potential "homegrown" terrorists there are in the future.

No mental gymnastics necessary. I won't even have to stretch. The majority of homegrown terrorists are not muslim.

[Deleted]

Claiming religion has nothing to do with countries like saudi arabia , pakistan and some others

Lefties always living in a unicorn world

At this point, Islam is not a Religion, not anymore, It's a cultural archtype, like the Maoist or Stalinist ideas that are no longer mere communism. I mean it's things like the Hajib, that are fought for dramatically due to "Religious" beliefs, when the Hajib has zero mention in ANY Hadiths or the Quran. It's simply an article of Arabian clothing. it has no significance in Religious Islamic Law or idea, yet the Islamic cultural type forces it upon people with social stigma. All because of Sharia demanding a woman be modest.

- - - Updated - - -

No mental gymnastics necessary. I won't even have to stretch. The majority of homegrown terrorists are not muslim.

Yet the most devastating one was.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yet the most devastating one was.

if you are referring to 9/11:

a) Not homegrown
b) Orchestrated by nationals of countries that are not part of the travel ban.

[Deleted]

a) Not homegrown
b) Orchestrated by nationals of countries that are not part of the travel ban.

Yet the Imam was from Pakistan, Knew of the guys Aggressive tendencies and his sudden Quietness, and refused to speak out or anything and all he did was deflect blame.

[Noxx79]

At this point, Islam is not a Religion, not anymore, It's a cultural archtype, like the Maoist or Stalinist ideas that are no longer mere communism. I mean it's things like the Hajib, that are fought for dramatically due to "Religious" beliefs, when the Hajib has zero mention in ANY Hadiths or the Quran. It's simply an article of Arabian clothing. it has no significance in Religious Islamic Law or idea, yet the Islamic cultural type forces it upon people with social stigma. All because of Sharia demanding a woman be modest.

- - - Updated - - -



Yet the most devastating one was.

So you just admitted that the stuff you don't like in Islam isn't actually in Islam, but is instead based on an interpretation you don't like. The problem isn't religion, it's the culture. Seems like we should let as many people in who want to get awa from that as possible
Have you ever met an American Muslim? I asked that before, and you went off on some tangent about a pakistani or something.

[Deleted]

So you just admitted that the stuff you don't like in Islam isn't actually in Islam, but is instead based on an interpretation you don't like. The problem isn't religion, it's the culture. Seems like we should let as many people in who want to get awa from that as possible.

If they wanted to get away from that, we wouldn't be experiencing problems like Rotheram or the home grown terrorists. I find the only interpretation of Islam that seems compatible with the west is, ironically the least accurate and most casual.

[AlphaOut]

I get that those countries aren't that safe. I get that they hate America. I get that not everyone there is Muslim. Let's not believe, for a moment, that Trump isn't targeting Muslims specifically. It was a big part of his campaign rhetoric, including his infamous "I know more about ISIS that our military" claim. His entire platform was built on fear of "those people" and this ban is just a way to exercise that.

I would be all for even stricter vetting processes (depending on what they are), but an outright ban is where I draw the line, especially as that ban didn't talk about just future entrants, but stopped people who were already scheduled to come, people who had already completed the process, who had already been investigated. Refugees who had pinned their hopes of escaping their lives on our generosity, only to have the door slammed in their faces.

These kind of bans do little but feed into people's fears. It helps continue to paint Muslims as demons that we have to protect our children from. It isn't a big leap from Muslims to pretty much anyone else the administration decides it doesn't like.



It was sarcasm and me pointing out how we're so quick to demonize Muslims that we forget how many non-Muslims are terrorists, too, many of whom are responsible for some horrific acts of violence right here at home: burning down black or Muslim churches, bombing government buildings, murdering people in cold blood...



Of course, but it's a big one.

I get that, but how many were turned away before it was lifted? Extremely minimal, I forget the exact number. The ones that were held had little to no identification to assure the continuous safety of america.

The problem is for too long we've been reactive to situations, including immigration. If the war in the middle east is any indication of how adaptable terrorist networks are to our various securities it's a given why we should constantly update and change the way we deal with immigration. For example, we used metal detectors to find IED'S. That was a great idea until they started making roadside bombs that contained no metal. We started ramping up security in our outposts, they started recognizing patterns. Outposts have been overrun due to complacency with staying the same because the current setup works...until it doesnt. We identified what chemical was used from the fertilizer they used in bombs and banned that type of fertilizer. That worked until they adapted to another routine. Which is why I'm very for being proactive to terrorists cells ability to adapt and identify.

Believe me when I say I totally get and understand your perspective. I just fail to understand how remaining complacent to our current security policies is the best course of action.

[Deleted]

Laws and social norms are out of date in a lot of countries. It's no different than some countries that are primarily christian yet still follow the same old shit like stoning people to death. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with socioeconomic factors. It's not the US is going to let Muslims have their way if it contradicts our laws. In the same we don't let Christians stone their wives to death if they get cheated on. Is this hard for your grasp?

Yet you have people defend Islam at every turn, like it is above criticism. Clearly you're wrong when all the rapes and violence in Europe are being covered up for the sake of saving Islams face.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yet the Imam was from Pakistan, Knew of the guys Aggressive tendencies and his sudden Quietness, and refused to speak out or anything and all he did was deflect blame.

Could say the same thing about any number of Priests, Ministers, etc. that have done the same for non-muslim terrorists.

[Deleted]

Could say the same thing about any number of Priests, Ministers, etc. that have done the same for non-muslim terrorists.

Yes, you could. I am skeptical as fuck over Catholic priests for the same reason, and Yes, I would bar them from entry into the country if they were proven to diddle kids.

[BannedForViews]

So literally nothing that contradicts the courts, even though they're going to misrepresent their own findings and claim otherwise.

The courts stated that nobody from those countries had committed a terrorist attack.

The study broadened that analysis to include "use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun. "

So not actually committing any actual attack, but aiding or planning one. This is moving the goalposts. And that only applies to 33 of the 72; they don't clarify (and the report is apparently not available for me to double check), but the strong implication is that the remaining 39 were charged with much lesser crimes than the above.

The "study" is just an attempt to muddy the waters.

The only people protected in their travel to, or through, the US, are US citizens. We are not an open boarder country. No one is an open boarder country. People may not like it, but it is legal to ban people from other countries from coming here.

[Deleted]

You're just fucking generalizing every single one of the billion+ people who follow this religion. I hope you don't think you're being logical.

Of course I am going to generalize, you can't build Laws and borders on individuals. If those people don't care and just want to bring their backwards thinking here, they don't belong here until they can prove otherwise. How else are we supposed to solve the problems Islam causes?

[DSRilk]

People like him don't understand how these homegrown terrorists become radicalized. It's because of Radical Imams holding hate-speeches in Mosques.

- - - Updated - - -



Look at the issues Britain faces with the Muslim population there, especially in towns like Manchester, London and Bradford. Districts of the city have given way to Muslim populations who don't even know Britain isn't a fully Muslim country because they're so secluded and secular. And it's these creches of Muslims that breed the "Homegrown" Terrorists.

If they were secular, there wouldn't be a problem

There are spots in US cities where there are clusters of secluded ethnic groups. China towns come to mind. However, overall, Chinese immigrants across the country - including many in those very cities - have merged just fine. Again, there is no short term fix for this. There is only a long, slogging, horrible and painful trudge through getting the arguably large number of very conservative Muslims in other countries to start seeing the wonders of the Western world. The same way it's taken the US a loooong time to get their very conservative Christian roots to come around to the idea that gay isn't a disease one catches, or that black people aren't animals. It's taken a very long time, and there are still plenty railing against both, but there is a large long-term trend in the right direction; and I suspect this will eventually, through many decades of pain, eventually come to pass with a reformation of Islam as well (and likely, eventually over many many more decades, religion in general).

[Deleted]

Why do they have to be proven to have done so? You're fine with banning muslims based on the sole fact that they're fucking muslim. Don't be a hypocrite.

Because those diddling priests are in dramatically less numbers than the terrorists and dangerous ideas Islam brings. Islam needs to conform to the West or it's not allowed in, Simple as. Is that so difficult?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Yes, you could. I am skeptical as fuck over Catholic priests for the same reason, and Yes, I would bar them from entry into the country if they were proven to diddle kids.

So, with Catholics you would require proof...but with Muslims just being Muslim is enough?

[Puupi]

If they were secular, there wouldn't be a problem

Secular or non-secular, makes no difference.

Asians have been assimilating fast and fine in western societies regardless of their stance on religion.

[Deleted]

If they were secular, there wouldn't be a problem

There are spots in US cities where there are clusters of secluded ethnic groups. China towns come to mind. However, overall, Chinese immigrants across the country - including many in those very cities - have merged just fine. Again, there is no short term fix for this. There is only a long, slogging, horrible and painful trudge through getting the arguably large number of very conservative Muslims in other countries to start seeing the wonders of the Western world. The same way it's taken the US a loooong time to get their very conservative Christian roots to come around to the idea that gay isn't a disease one catches, or that black people aren't animals. It's taken a very long time, and there are still plenty railing against both, but there is a large long-term trend in the right direction; and I suspect this will eventually, through many decades of pain, eventually come to pass with a reformation of Islam as well (and likely, eventually over many many more decades, religion in general).

Well, here is the problem, and one people going "b-But muh Islam" will never accept. We need to ban Imams and the LITERAL Spread of Islam. The preachers of the Muslim faith influence the majority, and the problem is Imam's are notoriously pro-segregation and much more fanatical. We need to vet Imam's and control the way Islam is preached, just like we know decry the corrupt priests of Christian faiths.