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.

 

Trump will be blamed for the next Radical Islamic terrorist attack on US soil.

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Arnie123

Actually, it will depend on several factors. If they were already here and ready to strike before Donald Trump became President, the Obama and Trump agency(s) in charge of protecting us from internal threats will be to blame.




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: Sublimecraft

If anyone blames Trump it will be because he seems to be purposefully attempting to instigate it.



So can you confidently say the left will have absolutely no influence on Trump's "blame" ?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I saw your premise. I just think it's ridiculous that people like you only care about a sliver of the things that actually kill Americans, while ignoring the things that kill the vast majority of Americans. Roughly 1.1 million Americans die every year from cancers and heart disease, yet there's no war on either of those. Instead, your side sits around dreaming up hypothetical situations that fit your political narratives. You really don't see a problem with that line of thinking?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Except cancer is unavoidable and incurable. I think your missing the point, I don't think it's about the number of deaths this will cause but rather the implications it has on the future of the country and ultimatly the world..



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I saw your premise. I just think it's ridiculous that people like you only care about a sliver of the things that actually kill Americans, while ignoring the things that kill the vast majority of Americans. Roughly 1.1 million Americans die every year from cancers and heart disease, yet there's no war on either of those. Instead, your side sits around dreaming up hypothetical situations that fit your political narratives. You really don't see a problem with that line of thinking?


Those are preventable, sometimes cureable, and centre around fate and personal responsibility. Being murdered by fanatics is not.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Given President Trump's penchant for conflation and well — lying — I suspect if there is a terrorist attack in the US carried out by Muslim extremists, he'll blame previous administrations, the Democrats for not supporting the ban-not-a-ban, Republicans who don't support the ban-not-a-ban and the media for "falsely portraying" him/his administration/its policy as anti-Muslim.

And his supporters will eat it up. Not to mention that it would be seen as validation of his fear mongering.

I can only see a terrorist attack at this point further polarizing the nation and giving Trump's numbers a slight-to-modest bump.
edit on 2017-2-4 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I assume you feel the same way about gun violence, right? I think both are preventable crimes. But one kills around 30,000 Americans a year while the other kills less than 100 Americans a year. I guess I'm naive in thinking we'd save more lives if we first focused on the one that kills the most Americans.

For the record, I don't actually have a problem with counter terrorism efforts. After all, it's the Muslims like myself who are the biggest victims of Wahhabi extremism by numbers. However, I think your side's methods to do so are both counterproductive and ridiculous in nature. You guys don't even try to differentiate between who does what, why some individuals get radicalized, how to prevent radicalization, etc. Instead, your side just makes blanket statements, engages in collective punishment by targeting every in the entire demographic, and completely misses the people who are actually most at risk of becoming radicalized.

Then you act surprised when your tactics only seem to create more extremists. But when members of our community speak up about what's really going on, we get ignored and called sympathizers. It's hard to have intelligent & productive conversations with people who already think they have the answers even though they can't even differentiate between the literal basics of the situation.

Meh, even this feels pointless. We both know nothing productive's going to come from this so I'll just agree to disagree.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Except cancer is unavoidable and incurable. I think your missing the point, I don't think it's about the number of deaths this will cause but rather the implications it has on the future of the country and ultimatly the world..

Something like 40% of cancer types are certainly avoidable. And many forms of cancer are curable too. Ever heard of cancer survivors?

ETA: The reason I bring up cancers and heart disease so much is because our R&D has made significant progress towards preventing and curing them. But we still need far more resources and testing done before we can eradicate them. So when I see the hundreds of billions of dollars that are regularly spent on terrorism wars, I can't help thinking about how many more lives could be saved if that money was spent on healthcare and medical treatments in other areas (like cancer research & treatments).

It's like having $1 million to spend to save lives. Why spend it to only save 3 lives when the same amount could be used to save 500 lives in the same country?
edit on 4-2-2017 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Validate his fear mongering or vindicate his foresight?

Your premise is essentially the same as OP's, just flipped around, and in a way you both could be right as one doesn't really change the other from a truth to a lie.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I assume you feel the same way about gun violence, right? I think both are preventable crimes. But one kills around 30,000 Americans a year while the other kills less than 100 Americans a year. I guess I'm naive in thinking we'd save more lives if we first focused on the one that kills the most Americans.

For the record, I don't actually have a problem with counter terrorism efforts. After all, it's the Muslims like myself who are the biggest victims of Wahhabi extremism by numbers. However, I think your side's methods to do so are both counterproductive and ridiculous in nature. You guys don't even try to differentiate between who does what, why some individuals get radicalized, how to prevent radicalization, etc. Instead, your side just makes blanket statements, engages in collective punishment by targeting every in the entire demographic, and completely misses the people who are actually most at risk of becoming radicalized.

Then you act surprised when your tactics only seem to create more extremists. But when members of our community speak up about what's really going on, we get ignored and called sympathizers. It's hard to have intelligent & productive conversations with people who already think they have the answers even though they can't even differentiate between the literal basics of the situation.

Meh, even this feels pointless. We both know nothing productive's going to come from this so I'll just agree to disagree.


I feel the same way about all violence. But weapons are only a matter of degree. I fear the person willing to kill more than I do the weapons he chooses.

Since we're taking sides, yours seems more to chastise those who seek to defend their people more than those willing to attack them. You act more surprised at those attempting to defend against Islamic extremism, outraged at a mere prohibition or inconvenience, than those who seek to engage in Islamic extremism. So maybe draw your ire against your brothers and sisters in the Ummah for waging jihad against the infidel, and essentially forcing them to defend themselves.

Western countries have done a thousand times more to be accommodating to other religions than anyone else, and when that tradition is attacked, it affects us all, no matter your faith or absence thereof.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I know some are avoidable and I was only referring to the ones that have already lost their battles. It's too late to save them.

It's hard to disagree with being more efficient with money when it comes to saving lives but I think it's much more to it then just that. There are so many other implications than just money and lives when it comes to extremism.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   
I feel like we need to quit fighting Islam,religions.fanaticals like white supremists, etc and try to fight the hatred
in their hearts.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

I'm sure idiot liberal's will put spin on this,none of them will realize he was trying to prevent this with immigration hold,why it worrys me with all these idiot's running the streets,not personally from what I've seen from wimpy liberal's I'm an old crippled man and I could handle 2 with no problem,but that would just be sport,the world is headed down the proverbial crapper



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: knowledgehunter0986

I agree that there are other implications than just money & lives when it comes to extremism. Unfortunately, many of those other implications are based on emotions like fear and hate.

It would be like looking at our DUI/DWI epidemic, then deciding to wage a "War on Alcoholics" and ban immigrants from alcohol-consuming countries. But when people point out that there are differences between DUIs and DWIs and that the vast majority of drunk drivers are domestic citizens that have nothing to do w/those countries, they get attacked as sympathizers.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Sublimecraft

The next Radical Islamist Terrorist Attack in the USA will likely come from someone who was already living here when Donald Trump took office. In that case, it's Obama's fault!


Unless he was brought in by Trump using the H1-B1 program so he could have cheap labor. Then it's back to Donnie's fault.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky

If they could prove the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, the one place everyone kept rightfully pointing out should be on the ban, but was not, then it would not help Trump but expose hypocrisy instead. Since it would be used to demonstrate how Trump is not protecting us at all by ignoring Saudi Arabia. It would be genius, because many like myself who support the ban are pissed by Saudi Arabia not being included on it.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Since we're all desensitized from violence and betting on the next tragic event, which feels really sick to do so, but I think it will be the exact same thing that always happens:

The person will have a ridiculous arsenal of weapons
Purchased them legally
The media will discuss this
Issues with mental health
The media will discuss this
Race might play a role with the victims or the perpetrator
The media will discuss this
Links or no links to organized terrorist groups so the tragic event will become a mass murder or might be a legit terrorist attack
The media will discuss this
Conspiracy theorist will look for fake actors or any anomalies in the case and proposed it was a false flag, staged event

That is most likely going to happen...I would be shocked if a terrorist attack happened in 2017 and could be directly pointed at the travel ban reversal, which the ban only was working for less than a week before judges overturned it?

The NSA, FBI and other agencies are the ones monitoring and catching terrorists. Not a ban on TRAVELERS. Yes there is a lot of controversy surrounding the NSA and we have yet to hear any agenda Trump has on the NSA.

Well Michael Fynn is going to use phycological warfare in the middle east and in muslim american communities.

New York Post 2-4-17



Advance details of the plan can be gleaned from Flynn’s book. In it, the 33-year Army veteran proposes discrediting the “evil (religious) doctrines” motivating jihadists — namely the Islamic rewards for martyrdom (or suicidal terrorism) and the totalitarian tenets of Sharia law — using psy-ops and counter-propaganda, not just through federal government channels but also through “our schools, media and social networks.”




Fired by former President Barack Obama from the Defense Intelligence Agency for taking such stands, Flynn vows to reverse the longstanding government practice of whitewashing the violent nature of the enemy’s faith through pleasant platitudes like, “The terrorists are hijacking a religion of peace” and other apologia. He calls such policies “Islamophilia,” and complains they border on appeasement.




He says in the book that the government may have to draft digital media giants to help “wage ideological warfare” against radical Islam: “We can’t possibly have an effective campaign against Radical Islamic ideology without the cooperation of the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter.”

He also wants to use radio and TV to conduct psychological warfare.




He proposes using a modern psy-ops unit to wage psychological warfare against radical Islam — not just abroad but at home, in the American Muslim community.


Now I'm guessing the American people are going to be bombarded with anti-muslim propaganda everywhere we look.
edit on 5-2-2017 by game over man because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

His spokesperson just invented a terrorist attack in a pathetic attempt to justify Drumpf's illegal travel ban. Lest we forget the "Bowling Greene Massacre". lol
Does that mean that your prediction came true?



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

For the record, I don't actually have a problem with counter terrorism efforts. After all, it's the Muslims like myself who are the biggest victims of Wahhabi extremism by numbers. However, I think your side's methods to do so are both counterproductive and ridiculous in nature. You guys don't even try to differentiate between who does what, why some individuals get radicalized, how to prevent radicalization, etc. Instead, your side just makes blanket statements, engages in collective punishment by targeting every in the entire demographic, and completely misses the people who are actually most at risk of becoming radicalized.

Then you act surprised when your tactics only seem to create more extremists. But when members of our community speak up about what's really going on, we get ignored and called sympathizers. It's hard to have intelligent & productive conversations with people who already think they have the answers even though they can't even differentiate between the literal basics of the situation.



^^^^^There^^^^^ surely is the core of the matter


Radical preachers and teachers in the Mosques ..... Isn't that where the problem begins.



posted on Feb, 7 2017 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
Not in a court of law.

On the other hand, how many times was Obama blamed for terror attacks that happened?


Let's not act like the left has sole dominion in Lalaland.


The OP is about islamic terrorism. Obama dictated that there is no islamic terrorism and thus he was never blamed for islamic terrorism because it didn't exist.




top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join