(01-28-2017 05:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Trump didn't choose the countries. National Security did.
7 out of 80 Muslim Countries World wide does not make this a religious issue.
I understand why the Obama supporters argue against SA. After all, Obama did as well. If Iran tries to use this against nuclear inspectors they will be in violation of our agreement with them. They will in essence, void the deal Obama made with them.

Trump chose the countries based upon his financial interests.

Do Presidents really choose countries based on their own interests? Do they?

(01-28-2017 05:49 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Trump didn't choose the countries. National Security did.
7 out of 80 Muslim Countries World wide does not make this a religious issue.
I understand why the Obama supporters argue against SA. After all, Obama did as well. If Iran tries to use this against nuclear inspectors they will be in violation of our agreement with them. They will in essence, void the deal Obama made with them.

Trump chose the countries based upon his financial interests.

Link? And your ******* doesn't count?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump has known business interests in the UAE, where terrorists have come from. They aren't on the list.

(01-28-2017 05:48 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:43 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:37 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:31 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  You don't think someone from Wales can be a terrorist? What about all the people from Saudi Arabia who can still enter freely despite the fact that they put a lot of money in terrorists hands.

One step at a time my little confused friend. And one thing I bet will be abundantly clear if there is another attack on our soil. The attacker will likely have made his way here before 20 January 2017.

The next major attack on American soil will be carried out by an American citizen has been my long term prediction for a while.

Yeah, and you probably wear an America Never Was Great hat as well. We get it.

I made this prediction years ago before the idea of Trump even running for office was a thing. What better way for a terrorist organization to take a shot at America by having one of its own carry out the attack?

ISIS is about publicity. Attacks they carry out are going to be done for those same reasons, whether on France soil or on American soil.

You shouldn't be making predictions after this giant fail: http://csnbbs.com/thread-797748-post-140...id14030990

(01-28-2017 05:46 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:41 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:34 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:31 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  You don't think someone from Wales can be a terrorist? What about all the people from Saudi Arabia who can still enter freely despite the fact that they put a lot of money in terrorists hands.

One step at a time my little confused friend. And one thing I bet will be abundantly clear if there is another attack on our soil. The attacker will likely have made his way here before 20 January 2017.

Not if they came through Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Well, your assumption is that if they originate in SA or Egypt, that there will be little or no vetting. I'm willing to bet that under a Trump administration they're going to examined from a-hole to appetite before they're allowed in.

Not if they are not on his ban list. You seriously think they are going to be vetted as hard as the other countries? If that's case put them on the list.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

What I'm saying is that regardless of whether XYZ country is on the ban list or not, immigration and embassy officials can still be given orders to greatly increase the vetting process for applicants from specific countries and I'm confident that under Trump's leadership, the process will be more restrictive than it ever was under the Obama administration.

We'll never catch them all, but it's a start and damn-well time we got serious about the issue.

(01-28-2017 05:48 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:25 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:21 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:19 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:08 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Nonsense.

ISIS has been perpetuating the belief to the few of muslims who will listen to them that the West hates Islam and is trying to convert them all. By shutting the doors to refugees from Islamic countries, the US is basically admitting that they don't trust Islam. More people are thus more likely to listen to their own propaganda, or the propaganda of other terrorist groups.

All in the name of some sort of mythical safety that only protects Americans from immigrants of specific countries, and not others.

Nonsense.

Every person the US refuses to take in from Syria or other countries is at a sizeable risk to either be forced to join Islamic State or killed.

We're making ISIS larger for them. But hey, if you think it's nonsense, that's your opinion. We'll just wait and see whose right in a couple years.

I was going to drop another nonsense on you, but I'll elaborate. We're making ISIS larger, not by being more stringent with our requirements for entry, but by merely existing. That is all.

You are right. My point is that I don't think ISIS cares too terribly much about today's order.

(01-28-2017 05:34 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:31 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:23 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:19 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  ISIS has been perpetuating the belief to the few of muslims who will listen to them that the West hates Islam and is trying to convert them all. By shutting the doors to refugees from Islamic countries, the US is basically admitting that they don't trust Islam. More people are thus more likely to listen to their own propaganda, or the propaganda of other terrorist groups.

All in the name of some sort of mythical safety that only protects Americans from immigrants of specific countries, and not others.

Well, yeah, you got me. How silly of me to assume that 24 year old muslim Abul Rahman al-hamsammich from Aleppo, Syria might pose a greater threat than 60 year old Alistair Williams from Wales.

You don't think someone from Wales can be a terrorist? What about all the people from Saudi Arabia who can still enter freely despite the fact that they put a lot of money in terrorists hands.

One step at a time my little confused friend. And one thing I bet will be abundantly clear if there is another attack on our soil. The attacker will likely have made his way here before 20 January 2017.

Not if they came through Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Maybe I'm just a stupid "rightie", but neither Saudi Arabia or Egypt have refugees fleeing their countries. Syria does.

(01-28-2017 05:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:46 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:25 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:21 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:19 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  ISIS has been perpetuating the belief to the few of muslims who will listen to them that the West hates Islam and is trying to convert them all. By shutting the doors to refugees from Islamic countries, the US is basically admitting that they don't trust Islam. More people are thus more likely to listen to their own propaganda, or the propaganda of other terrorist groups.

All in the name of some sort of mythical safety that only protects Americans from immigrants of specific countries, and not others.

Nonsense.

Every person the US refuses to take in from Syria or other countries is at a sizeable risk to either be forced to join Islamic State or killed.

We're making ISIS larger for them. But hey, if you think it's nonsense, that's your opinion. We'll just wait and see whose right in a couple years.

How many refugees are you going to house?

A nation doesn't have any obligation to take in refugees.

I was willing to Sponsor a family if you are asking.

You are right, as a nation we don't have an obligation, but as a Christian, I do have that obligation.

Sponsor isn't the same as housing but the sentiment is good.

Your second sentence is my stance on this. .

(01-28-2017 05:48 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I made this prediction years ago before the idea of Trump even running for office was a thing. What better way for a terrorist organization to take a shot at America by having one of its own carry out the attack?

ISIS is about publicity. Attacks they carry out are going to be done for those same reasons, whether on France soil or on American soil.

You talking about this kind of terrorism carried out by Americans?

(01-28-2017 05:53 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:46 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:25 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:21 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Nonsense.

Every person the US refuses to take in from Syria or other countries is at a sizeable risk to either be forced to join Islamic State or killed.

We're making ISIS larger for them. But hey, if you think it's nonsense, that's your opinion. We'll just wait and see whose right in a couple years.

How many refugees are you going to house?

A nation doesn't have any obligation to take in refugees.

I was willing to Sponsor a family if you are asking.

You are right, as a nation we don't have an obligation, but as a Christian, I do have that obligation.

Sponsor isn't the same as housing but the sentiment is good.

Your second sentence is my stance on this. .

I couldn't put someone up because I don't have the space or land too. Not because I wasn't willing.

There are a lot of good people trying to get a better life, and I feel it as my duty to help them.

(01-28-2017 05:50 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:49 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:46 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:44 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Trump didn't choose the countries. National Security did.
7 out of 80 Muslim Countries World wide does not make this a religious issue.
I understand why the Obama supporters argue against SA. After all, Obama did as well. If Iran tries to use this against nuclear inspectors they will be in violation of our agreement with them. They will in essence, void the deal Obama made with them.

Trump chose the countries based upon his financial interests.

Link? And your ******* doesn't count?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump has known business interests in the UAE, where terrorists have come from. They aren't on the list.

So you're got no link that proves your claim? Got it! Now please STFU and let the grown ups speak. :coffee3;


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(01-28-2017 05:55 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:48 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I made this prediction years ago before the idea of Trump even running for office was a thing. What better way for a terrorist organization to take a shot at America by having one of its own carry out the attack?

ISIS is about publicity. Attacks they carry out are going to be done for those same reasons, whether on France soil or on American soil.

You talking about this kind of terrorism carried out by Americans?

I was thinking more of this kind.

(01-28-2017 05:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:53 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:46 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:25 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  Every person the US refuses to take in from Syria or other countries is at a sizeable risk to either be forced to join Islamic State or killed.

We're making ISIS larger for them. But hey, if you think it's nonsense, that's your opinion. We'll just wait and see whose right in a couple years.

How many refugees are you going to house?

A nation doesn't have any obligation to take in refugees.

I was willing to Sponsor a family if you are asking.

You are right, as a nation we don't have an obligation, but as a Christian, I do have that obligation.

Sponsor isn't the same as housing but the sentiment is good.

Your second sentence is my stance on this. .

I couldn't put someone up because I don't have the space or land too. Not because I wasn't willing.

There are a lot of good people trying to get a better life, and I feel it as my duty to help them.

No extra rooms? I understand. It is the same situation at my house.

Fair enough. I support charities helping them. But I don't want to see one single government penny go to refugees. They are not an American responsibility.

(01-28-2017 05:58 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:53 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:46 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  How many refugees are you going to house?

A nation doesn't have any obligation to take in refugees.

I was willing to Sponsor a family if you are asking.

You are right, as a nation we don't have an obligation, but as a Christian, I do have that obligation.

Sponsor isn't the same as housing but the sentiment is good.

Your second sentence is my stance on this. .

I couldn't put someone up because I don't have the space or land too. Not because I wasn't willing.

There are a lot of good people trying to get a better life, and I feel it as my duty to help them.

No extra rooms? I understand. It is the same situation at my house.

Fair enough. I support charities helping them. But I don't want to see one single government penny go to refugees. They are not an American responsibility.

I have no problem with direct support for refugees, but I don't see my responsibilities as American responsibilities. America has nothing to do with it.

I could see where if one was worried about attacks on America that they might be nervous, but I don't look at any of those incidents and blame it on these people.

(01-28-2017 05:57 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:55 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:48 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I made this prediction years ago before the idea of Trump even running for office was a thing. What better way for a terrorist organization to take a shot at America by having one of its own carry out the attack?

ISIS is about publicity. Attacks they carry out are going to be done for those same reasons, whether on France soil or on American soil.

You talking about this kind of terrorism carried out by Americans?

I was thinking more of this kind.

Results were much the same. Innocent men, women, and children dead.

(01-28-2017 05:52 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:34 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:31 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:23 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Well, yeah, you got me. How silly of me to assume that 24 year old muslim Abul Rahman al-hamsammich from Aleppo, Syria might pose a greater threat than 60 year old Alistair Williams from Wales.

You don't think someone from Wales can be a terrorist? What about all the people from Saudi Arabia who can still enter freely despite the fact that they put a lot of money in terrorists hands.

One step at a time my little confused friend. And one thing I bet will be abundantly clear if there is another attack on our soil. The attacker will likely have made his way here before 20 January 2017.

Not if they came through Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Maybe I'm just a stupid "rightie", but neither Saudi Arabia or Egypt have refugees fleeing their countries. Syria does.

Yes but isn't this more than about refugees? The order was to prevent any persons from entering the u.s. with the intent to do harm by going through intense vetting. If there is no ban in those countries then what's to stop those who want to harm our county coming from saudi arabia or Egypt?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

(01-28-2017 06:01 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:57 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:55 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:48 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I made this prediction years ago before the idea of Trump even running for office was a thing. What better way for a terrorist organization to take a shot at America by having one of its own carry out the attack?

ISIS is about publicity. Attacks they carry out are going to be done for those same reasons, whether on France soil or on American soil.

You talking about this kind of terrorism carried out by Americans?

I was thinking more of this kind.

Results were much the same. Innocent men, women, and children dead.

Pretty much. Same crap...just different perpetrators.

(01-28-2017 06:01 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:52 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:34 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:31 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:26 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  You don't think someone from Wales can be a terrorist? What about all the people from Saudi Arabia who can still enter freely despite the fact that they put a lot of money in terrorists hands.

One step at a time my little confused friend. And one thing I bet will be abundantly clear if there is another attack on our soil. The attacker will likely have made his way here before 20 January 2017.

Not if they came through Saudi Arabia or Egypt.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Maybe I'm just a stupid "rightie", but neither Saudi Arabia or Egypt have refugees fleeing their countries. Syria does.

Yes but isn't this more than about refugees? The order was to prevent any persons from entering the u.s. with the intent to do harm by going through intense vetting. If there is no ban in those countries then what's to stop those who want to harm or county coming from saudi arabia or Egypt?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

And what's to stop our authorities from increasing the vetting levels on persons seeking entry via those countries? Your argument just doesn't make much sense.

Right now there's chaos in a number of muslim countries and out of that chaos it's easy to slip operatives into what might otherwise be "worthy" refugees looking for sanctuary. I say start where the risk is highest and to me that's where it's highest.

(01-28-2017 06:00 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:58 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:53 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:49 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I was willing to Sponsor a family if you are asking.

You are right, as a nation we don't have an obligation, but as a Christian, I do have that obligation.

Sponsor isn't the same as housing but the sentiment is good.

Your second sentence is my stance on this. .

I couldn't put someone up because I don't have the space or land too. Not because I wasn't willing.

There are a lot of good people trying to get a better life, and I feel it as my duty to help them.

No extra rooms? I understand. It is the same situation at my house.

Fair enough. I support charities helping them. But I don't want to see one single government penny go to refugees. They are not an American responsibility.

I have no problem with direct support for refugees, but I don't see my responsibilities as American responsibilities. America has nothing to do with it.

I could see where if one was worried about attacks on America that they might be nervous, but I don't look at any of those incidents and blame it on these people.

America has one responsibility and that is looking after America.

The refugees aren't to blame directly. But it doesn't hurt to be careful.

(01-28-2017 06:06 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 06:00 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:58 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:53 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Sponsor isn't the same as housing but the sentiment is good.

Your second sentence is my stance on this. .

I couldn't put someone up because I don't have the space or land too. Not because I wasn't willing.

There are a lot of good people trying to get a better life, and I feel it as my duty to help them.

No extra rooms? I understand. It is the same situation at my house.

Fair enough. I support charities helping them. But I don't want to see one single government penny go to refugees. They are not an American responsibility.

I have no problem with direct support for refugees, but I don't see my responsibilities as American responsibilities. America has nothing to do with it.

I could see where if one was worried about attacks on America that they might be nervous, but I don't look at any of those incidents and blame it on these people.

America has one responsibility and that is looking after America.

The refugees aren't to blame directly. But it doesn't hurt to be careful.

But I don't consider that my responsibility. My responsibility is to help someone in need, not consider the possibility that the person might have ulterior motives.

(01-28-2017 06:09 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 06:06 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 06:00 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:58 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(01-28-2017 05:56 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  I couldn't put someone up because I don't have the space or land too. Not because I wasn't willing.

There are a lot of good people trying to get a better life, and I feel it as my duty to help them.

No extra rooms? I understand. It is the same situation at my house.

Fair enough. I support charities helping them. But I don't want to see one single government penny go to refugees. They are not an American responsibility.

I have no problem with direct support for refugees, but I don't see my responsibilities as American responsibilities. America has nothing to do with it.

I could see where if one was worried about attacks on America that they might be nervous, but I don't look at any of those incidents and blame it on these people.

America has one responsibility and that is looking after America.

The refugees aren't to blame directly. But it doesn't hurt to be careful.

But I don't consider that my responsibility. My responsibility is to help someone in need, not consider the possibility that the person might have ulterior motives.

No needy people in Arkansas, or are you afraid they might harbor Hog leanings?