It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

20 'Vetted' Refugees Who Turned to Terrorism After Being Allowed Into America

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   
More and more, precogs are looking to be the solution.

I mean if the alternatives are somehow prejudice or racist just because..

Precogs can't discriminate. Maybe they are a little too sci-fi though.

But brain scans and identifying patterns of thought etc....

Or maybe we should have no security. That way nobody has their feelings hurt, no matter their skin color or political alignment.

Very 1984 but.. Who cares, right? Condemning people before they've committed any crimes seems to be in style with some.

I'm not referring to potential terrorists either.

edit on 1-29-2017 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I don't know but it seems when people use the phrase 'wake up', my brain goes on auto ignore. It's tired and for every instance of an individual being awake, there's another one of them having their head up their #. This example is no different.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
This is out of the box idea......what would the problem be to vet people with truth serum?

TRUTH SERUM

Nice cozy interviewing couch with snacks and refreshing drinks and relax then talk about the skinny.

record / document archive.
Catapult them back where they came from in a failed vetting.



-Firepoker-




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Firepoker

Are you willing to go undergo such?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Sure if they want to know my sex life, drink of preference, my super powers, my naughty naughty thoughts, my favorite food, grudges, skeletons in closest (time is on my side there), how often I raise my little flagpole. I would be a waste of the resources but sure would like the free food and drink for the afternoon.


No ulterior motives here, just my right to protect myself since seconds matter and the law is minutes away.


peace my fellow minion in life... though I might ramble about a code name Kali74, and when Kali74 comes donuts will be every where.

-Firepoker-



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Firepoker

Kudos to you then. I prefer privacy.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Where is the line between safety, security, racism, prejudice etc?

Because I think right now, that is the thing that I find myself getting most frustrated by. This idea that I (or anyone) must be racist, prejudice, xenophobic, etc. because I think this immigration security stuff is a good thing. Somehow that's a negative? Somehow that's oppressive to this or that group (Muslims for the most part in the current context)? Also, we (USA) don't have a responsibility to just open the flood gates, so to speak. Just because horrible things are happening to innocent people. It's horrible that horrible things happen to innocent people, wherever they are and whoever they are. I do want to help them. But at the scope of global affairs.. It's completely different then say, inviting someone over to your house for a meal. There are agendas of all kinds. Movers and shakers, lurking behind the scenes.. One thing I personally believe is an agenda by some movers and shakers, is flooding western culture with Islamic culture. With the desired outcome of making our societies less stable. There are plenty of good people who want to come here (or immigrate wherever). There are plenty of bad seeds too. It's a hugely complex issue..

So..

Where is the line between "acceptable security" and "racist/prejudice securty"? Who decides if the person making security decisions is doing so out of the need for security, or out of their own prejudices?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I value privacy also, and our world is so filled with the police state monitoring its crazy and you, me or anyone doesn't have privacy anymore.

I refuse at this time to have a cell phone. why? Its my small effort to save the planet. I know that cops using the stinger are not snooping at me. Wanna talk come to me in person and we can walk a little hike away from eletronics and not be documented by gps or whatever data collection the powers to are scanning for. So if I reduce my electronics I reduce usage by 1, Then that is "x" amount of a demand not demanded. So reduction of energy to produce products and energy to run the internet pages and each letter and/or symbol need a energy to create,display,store,and to retrieve. I probably burned up a speck of nuclear energy for this posting that the earth will never get back and we are 1 speck closer to a world power outage, except for a few countries using renewable sources. Then I have saved in my small way: that sweatshop unfair labor, the extra mining for materials for that order, unnecessary data collection about me and who I talk to. Its my small subtle fight against it all. I don't need it all simple basics is good and a smart outlook for self preservation.

Governments burn a lot of energy just to eavesdrop on us- looking; listening for "trigger words or phrases" on the cell, internet, mail they always want to know why this person and that person are communicating to each other. The gov is programmed to look at it as trouble, not a innocent conservation between a mom and dad or a child or a cousin or neighbor.

Kali74 donuts are with the eagle

So privacy is good, then if you have nothing to hide then you can be more private...follow?

-Firepoker-





Me paranoid naaaw... just something simple called trust issues.
And that is the 10 o'clock evening commentary have a good night and unplug those 'thinking machines' at night. WFRPKR channel 67 UHF news.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Your answer was BS and impractical just as you admit the elimination Islamic Extremism is. If you recognize the elimination of it is impractical, then the means you suggest is also impractical and has more negative effect than positive.

Do you think simply banning Muslim immigration from a select few countries is going to "eliminate Islamic Extremist?" If not, then it's pointless, and your "illustration" as an answer is equally pointless—and impractical.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra
I like how the article ends with the statement that trumps refugee ban makes sense, when the list names Bosnia, Uzbekistan, and Kenya as the origin for the several of the refugees.

Neither of those countries show up on the immigration ban.

And before we forget, the Boston marathon bombers were from Kyrgyzstan and a defunct soviet province.



...who were Muslim.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

No, I think your argument is impractical. What I was talking about was the suppression of Islamist Extremism in the Middle East ... not America.

Donald Trump is gonna take care of that problem here. Eliminating Islamist Extremism from our borders has already begun. Soon it will accelerate and I am gonna laff and laff and laff. Remember our conversation, okay?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: tothetenthpower




ee this isn't a biased report made to make you think a certain way...


Who needs a report ?

We saw what 19 improperly vetted immigrants did on 9-11.

We saw what just 2 did during the Boston Marathon.

How many does it take to make people wake up and see things need to be changed.

So just because a few people go bad we should scrap a program that helps hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have done no wrong? You seem to have no problem with painting whole groups of with the same brush.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
So just because a few people go bad we should scrap a program that helps hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have done no wrong? You seem to have no problem with painting whole groups of with the same brush.

They don't belong here ... and Americans are under absolutely zero obligation to extend jack-zh!t to them.

Why would I want to stick my neck out for 'them'? Do you pick up every hitchhiker with a thumb out?


edit on 2912017 by Snarl because: Freedom!!



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: buster2010
So just because a few people go bad we should scrap a program that helps hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have done no wrong? You seem to have no problem with painting whole groups of with the same brush.

They don't belong here


Unless you're 100% Native American, neither do you. You have the advantage of fortunate birth.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: buster2010
So just because a few people go bad we should scrap a program that helps hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have done no wrong? You seem to have no problem with painting whole groups of with the same brush.

They don't belong here


Unless you're 100% Native American, neither do you. You have the advantage of fortunate birth.

But I do enjoy the advantage of fortunate birth. I see absolutely no reason to default that (or my children's) to anyone. Their countries have never offered reciprocity. They can go _Suck It_ ... which is why I voted Trump (along with everyone else who cared) to stop the NWO from wrecking our sovereignty.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: CulturalResilience

they can keep detaining 5 year olds at airports and prevent them from seeing their mother...
think that will help




The TSA has been doing that for the Last 8 Years under Prez. Obama , how did that Work out ?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

President Obama's administration certified these terrorists as "clean". President Obama released hundreds of criminals. What a MESS he left for President Trump.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yep, giant fail that Obama did not fix what Bush started.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Yep, giant fail that Obama did not fix what Bush started.



Well, somebody has gotta start somewhere. Right?

So here comes the clean up crew starting with 7 countries.








posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: eNumbra

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: buster2010
So just because a few people go bad we should scrap a program that helps hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have done no wrong? You seem to have no problem with painting whole groups of with the same brush.

They don't belong here


Unless you're 100% Native American, neither do you. You have the advantage of fortunate birth.


Native Americans weren't native. They immigrated here and fought other groups for territory and Power.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join