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

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

But the tweet itself say 9:51am.



Your article there is selective sammy spamy.

a reply to: xuenchen

There you are.
Been working on this?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: xuenchen

But then people started to notice something else: The tweet was sent at 10:51 a.m. Eastern, about 20 minutes after Trump was supposed to have been participating in his daily intelligence briefing, according to his published schedule.

:-)

We can only speculate - of course. Maybe the whole briefing only took 20 minutes. Right?

originally posted by: neo96

AMARILLO, TX—Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, 22, a citizen of Saudi Arabia and resident of Lubbock, Texas, was convicted by a federal jury today on an indictment charging one count of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his purchase of chemicals and equipment necessary to make an improvised explosive device (IED) and his research of potential U.S. targets, including persons and infrastructure.

cis.org...

Right there is a solid case for Saudi Arabia being added.

Oh wait there's a TRO so wouldn't matter if we wanted to.

Click the name of the 'defendant' and follow the links.

The Boston Marathon Bombers were from from Kyrgyzstan, after their family was forcefully relocated there by the the U.S.S.R. from Chechnya.

In fact, they got into the U.S. by a tourist visa, then stayed by claiming asylum.

a reply to: Phage

Start digging into the report yourself, and see. Plenty from other nations, and likely that some are from the seven countries listed by the OBAMA administration as "problematic" and in need of restrictions on visas.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Start digging into the report yourself, and see.

It's not my claim to prove.

Which ones committed terrorist attacks in the United States?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Start digging into the report yourself, and see.

It's not my claim to prove.

Which ones committed terrorist attacks in the United States?

Do your own research. 380 out of 580 were foreign Islamists. They don't have to have successfully committed a terrorist act to qualify as terrorists, either, or would you rather allow them, and arrest only after people die? Many of those were stopped, unable to commit their acts of terror, because of good intel.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
What the OP said was this:

This may put a lid on the recent court that claimed no terrorist activities.

We know the government lawyers didn't provide examples when asked, but I think was on-purpose.

Let's dig.

The court did not make that claim. Did it?
What did the court actually say?

What arrests have been made for terrorists attacks by anyone from any of those 7 countries since 9/11?

Was the court wrong?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since the OP won't respond, perhaps you will.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
What the OP said was this:

This may put a lid on the recent court that claimed no terrorist activities.

We know the government lawyers didn't provide examples when asked, but I think was on-purpose.

Let's dig.

The court did not make that claim. Did it?
What did the court actually say?

What arrests have been made for terrorists attacks by anyone from any of those 7 countries since 9/11?

Was the court wrong?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since the OP won't respond, perhaps you will.

You do know you are wasting your time right?

a reply to: buster2010

Of course I know that.

Especially when I directly address the OP.

But bytes don't cost me anything and it's the weekend.

originally posted by: xuenchen
The information is evidently from a Senate Sub-committee.

Sounds like a bunch of Republican 'alternative facts', to me.
Riiight, a 'senate subcommittee'!?
Hahahaha!

a reply to: xuenchen

How many terrorists came from the KKK in Alabama, or the Aryan Nation in Idaho?
For that matter how many came from Saudi Arabia, or does Trump conveniently forget 9/11?

a reply to: xuenchen

So why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list?

originally posted by: Black_Fox

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Black_Fox
People want immigrants to come here, fine.

People want refugees to come here, also fine.

But can we get a list of those people marching in the streets and wanting these people to come here?

I think they should start a list, and offer them a room in their homes and neighborhoods.

After all, they are all great people.

Wrong country.

Cool.
I would sign up if they needed a place to transition. I wonder how many people would sign a list stating that they don't want them in the country and they fear them?

Here ya go.
www.theguardian.com...

Wrong country.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: superman2012

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

The question is, why do we have people in the US that want terrorists and criminal elements in the US?

Are you forgetting that domestic terrorism is caused by a lot more people that call the US home than immigrants?

Who has ever said they want terrorists in their home nation!? lol

So what is your argument, that we should bring more in? Based on what you are saying, it's a job Americans are willing to do.

I'm saying that having refugees coming into your country isn't a bad thing. Remember, they left their country because of the same people that the US citizen fears. Common ground. My argument is that it is silly (bordering on stupidity) to fear refugees.

It's not the refugees that are causing concern. It's the lack of screening, as well as the terrorists/militants from those nations that have said they want to infiltrate the refugees and kill Americans.

EDIT - Plus, for my own opinion, we have enough citizens here already that need jobs. HB1 visas need to be dropped for a while, and we need to let people acclimate to American culture.

I read a report that said the amount of money needed to bring a refugee here from Syria is the same as providing reasonable food, shelter and amenities to 11 Syrian refugees along their border. Then they are on welfare afterwards until they can establish themselves. Just easier to find them new housing and livelihood over there in other nearby countries that share the same culture and religion, but I repeat myself...

So you would rather determine where and when they can go? You think you can make a better determination than the people that live in that area and want to flee it? How would your answer make your ancestors feel? Unless of course you are full blooded native American?

Carl with his GED isn't going to be losing any jobs he is qualified for to Muhammad with his PhD. American culture is a big cauldron of different cultures, what is there to acclimatize to? If someone wants to move to the US, I'm sure they know the basics of what it is all about.

Lack of screening? Did you do the tiniest bit of digging on that, or just allow others to sway your opinion and twist it into "fact"? Link

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen

So why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list?

Too important to the US government. They get a pass.

originally posted by: namelesss

originally posted by: xuenchen
The information is evidently from a Senate Sub-committee.

Sounds like a bunch of Republican 'alternative facts', to me.
Riiight, a 'senate subcommittee'!?
Hahahaha!

originally posted by: sy.gunson
a reply to: xuenchen

How many terrorists came from the KKK in Alabama, or the Aryan Nation in Idaho?
For that matter how many came from Saudi Arabia, or does Trump conveniently forget 9/11?

What does the Senate report say ?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen

So why isn't Saudi Arabia on the list?

Ask Trump...

realDonaldTrump

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
What the OP said was this:

This may put a lid on the recent court that claimed no terrorist activities.

We know the government lawyers didn't provide examples when asked, but I think was on-purpose.

Let's dig.

The court did not make that claim. Did it?
What did the court actually say?

What arrests have been made for terrorists attacks by anyone from any of those 7 countries since 9/11?

Was the court wrong?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since the OP won't respond, perhaps you will.

You can read their statement here if you wish, and then debate about it with the OP, if you both want to do that. Plenty of arrests have been made, as I already showed, and there is also the fact that no one was complaining with the previous administration listed those countries as "problematic", and limited visas. If it wasn't a problem then, why is it suddenly a problem now? Double standards, anyone?

As for arrests from those countries, I am fairly certain someone already posted about that, but if you missed it, here it is again.

According to a breakdown of the countries and the numbers of people who were eventually convicted of terror crimes:
Somalia: 20
Yemen: 19
Iraq: 19
Syria: 7
Iran: 4
Libya: 2

That's six of the seven.

This site speaks of a White House report including the seventh, and the rest as well.

Robart’s claim is false. The White House circulated a list providing 24 examples of refugees and other immigrants from Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Syria and Libya who have been arrested on terror-related charges, Fox News reported.

The White House document itself names 10 individuals from Somalia, six from Iraq, one from Yemen, two from Sudan, two from Iran, two from Libya and one from Syria. The cases span the last eight years, and include most recently a case in June in which two Somali refugees were jailed for conspiring to commit murder in Syria on behalf of ISIS. It also includes a case from March of last year, where a Yemeni native who became a U.S. citizen was sentenced to 22 years in prison for attempting to provide “material support” to ISIS and planning to shoot and kill members of the U.S. military who had returned from Iraq.

Yes, there are such cases, and good reason for concern, and for limits to entry from those nations. Certainly, having a vetting process in place that doesn't fail,a s does the current process, is just common sense.

a reply to: Phage

I live in the city that has the second largest population of Somali immigrants. We had two knife attacks in less than a year. One with a machete which, on top of severely injuring people resulted in a business closing it's doors after 30 years because Obama might not want to call it terrorism... but the insurance companies did. The other when a kid drove his car into a bunch of people, got out, and attacked them with a knife. Only two people out of 20,000+. Your position seems to suggest that someone's daughter should just have to suffer with her scars, because of some greater good? We have zero way of vetting these people. Yes, terrorists come from countries where vetting is possible, but we can also stop or track some. That's not the case with Libya (Obama's Iraq), Syria, and Somalia. In the Ohio State attack, the family had been to Afghanistan for a few years, and no one had any idea what they were doing there. But, seriously, let them in! I mean, ask them if they're terrorists first, but otherwise just let them in. That's the progressive policy. We're very fortunate no one died in either of the knife attacks, but that could just as easily had not been the case. You want to wait for someone to die first? That's the position you're taking?