Jenna Bush Hager uses dad's post-9/11 words over Trump order

Bigdog said:
Of course whites marched too. Some were killed for doing so. The Civil Rights movement was a Christian movement led by a Christian Reverend.
Click to expand...

And quite a few Muslims put themselves in harm's way to fight in the front lines in the war on terror, including many in our own armed forces.

So, I guess it's all even.
 
Nomad said:
So you admit that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, right?

Good for you.

So why should we punish the many for the actions of a few?

Why not apply the same logic to them, that you apply to gun ownership... that the many shouldn't be punished for the actions of a few?
Click to expand...

Of course, I am espousing the leftwing "evil Americans" narrative, ... I'm mocking it. It's ridiculous, but that is the narrative.

Why not just let the Muslims come into America and bomb whomever they wish??? I mean that's what you're saying. Bend over and take it. That was Obama's narrative.

In your world, no one should stop the "bad" Muslims.
 
Thing1 said:
And quite a few Muslims put themselves in harm's way to fight in the front lines in the war on terror, including many in our own armed forces.

So, I guess it's all even.
Click to expand...

And yet, the 1.5 billion can't defeat the "bad" 1,000. Ridiculous, illogical.
 
Bigdog said:
1.5 billion peaceful Muslims and you can't find one willing to fight the 1,000 "bad" Muslims. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Have you watched any of the videos that ISIS puts out showing what they do to people who oppose them?

And as far as non-militant Muslims fighting them.... a simple YouTube search of the fight for Iraq will enlighten you as to how hard they're fighting the "bad" Muslims.

So I guess you're just full of it, aren't you?

Don't bother answering YES, we already know.
 
Bigdog said:
And yet, the 1.5 billion can't defeat the "bad" 1,000. Ridiculous, illogical.
Click to expand...

What are women, children and soft, untrained middle aged and older men supposed to do against hardened, military trained, armed extremist fighters?

Idiot.

Many of the young men and boys are kidnapped and forced into fighting for ISIS under threat of horrible things being done not only to them but their parents and siblings.

You are such a stupid, hot air puking stooge.
 
Thing1 said:
That's interesting; when I criticized how he handled it, you said Trump could "cure cancer" and I'd still find fault w/ him.

The cooperation & intel we have gathered from Muslim countries, allies & communities over the years have prevented more attacks than most people are even aware of. Contrast that to the fact that this ban wouldn't have prevented even one attack, and it's pretty clear which strategy protects us better.

But Trump went with the ban. We're likely less safe today than we were a week ago, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

we are not collecting intel from the list of 7.
Libya has no government ( well it has 3)- we have a few CIA and the Brits have some SAS operating, but they are doing so with local militias
Syria is not giving us intel
Iraq's gov't barely cooperates with the US -and only over ISIS - being a proxie gov't of Iran
Sudan is in a civil war -no cooperation with the US.
Somalia the central gov't can't really get out of Mogadishu
Yemen use to co-operate with the US -but that gov't lost the ability to deal wit the US -rebels overran many of their bases
Iran is hostile to the US

++
so how can we even get info on travelers from these countries?
 
anatta said:
we are not collecting intel from the list of 7.
Libya has no government ( well it has 3)- we have a few CIA and the Brits have some SAS operating, but they are doing so with local militias
Syria is not giving us intel
Iraq's gov't barely cooperates with the US -and only over ISIS - being a proxie gov't of Iran
Sudan is in a civil war -no cooperation with the US.
Somalia the central gov't can't really get out of Mogadishu
Yemen use to co-operate with the US -but that gov't lost the ability to deal wit the US -rebels overran many of their bases
Iran is hostile to the US
Click to expand...

But we DO know that there have been exactly ZERO terrorist attacks in this country by refugees from those countries.
 
Thing1 said:
That's interesting; when I criticized how he handled it, you said Trump could "cure cancer" and I'd still find fault w/ him.

The cooperation & intel we have gathered from Muslim countries, allies & communities over the years have prevented more attacks than most people are even aware of. Contrast that to the fact that this ban wouldn't have prevented even one attack, and it's pretty clear which strategy protects us better.

But Trump went with the ban. We're likely less safe today than we were a week ago, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
No I didn't you dumb liar. I've said in the past this didn't help and wouldn't have prevented anything in past 15 years.

Damn, even when we agree you still have e to lie about me. Get a grip.
 
anatta said:
we are not collecting intel from the list of 7.
Libya has no government ( well it has 3)- we have a few CIA and the Brits have some SAS operating, but they are doing so with local militias
Syria is not giving us intel
Iraq's gov't barely cooperates with the US -and only over ISIS - being a proxie gov't of Iran
Sudan is in a civil war -no cooperation with the US.
Somalia the central gov't can't really get out of Mogadishu
Yemen use to co-operate with the US -but that gov't lost the ability to deal wit the US -rebels overran many of their bases
Iran is hostile to the US

++
so how can we even get info on travelers from these countries?
Click to expand...

It's our Muslim allies that we get intel from.

And don't say they're not affected by this.
 
Nomad said:
But we DO know that there have been exactly ZERO terrorist attacks in this country by refugees from those countries.
Click to expand...
the point being we are unable to to any real border control with passengers from those countries.
Those countries are unable/unwilling to work with us on incoming passengers

So the TEMPORARY travel ban is to re-assess how we are going to allow travel-what criteria are we going to use
I'm sure we maybe do better tracing of their passports/or do like the Israelis and use more profiling.
That's what we are trying to institutionalize
 
Thing1 said:
It's our Muslim allies that we get intel from.
And don't say they're not affected by this.
Click to expand...
not the countries on the list. we do get cooperation from even Pakistan -why it's not on the list.
The list of 7 are unable/unwilling to give cooperation on travel. I showed you why in simplistic form.

I seriously doubt if an ally like Jordan (ex.) gives a fuck if we ban Yemen travelers for 90 days (etc)..

Also Obama has been cleaning out Gitmo and sending "high value" detainees to Oman, etc.
We gotta tighten up this stuff.
 
anatta said:
the point being we are unable to to any real border control with passengers from those countries.
Those countries are unable/unwilling to work with us on incoming passengers

So the TEMPORARY travel ban is to re-assess how we are going to allow travel-what criteria are we going to use
I'm sure we maybe do better tracing of their passports/or do like the Israelis and use more profiling.
That's what we are trying to institutionalize
Click to expand...

Our vetting process has been more than adequate and effective.

This is just about throwing red meat to the snarling dogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top