Yep, I guess you are that stupid. Here is what Ron said. To that I responded with Yes, you responded to those words from me but you tried making it about the count at the inauguration, rather than the fact Ron was just making up his own facts (NPS does not count crowds at the National Mall), which was the point of my post and very easily understood by most. Just because you didn't include Ron's post doesn't change the point of my post. Nothing to own dip shit, the fact you can't easily understand things is not my fault. 3 times I spelled out for you that the point of my post was not about the count, as I couldn't give a shit how many people are dumb enough to waste their time going to an inauguration, yet you still want to make it about the count. Do I have to tell you again that I don't give a shit about the count? That my post was never about that no matter how much you want it to be.
That shtick is getting old. It's 2017 now, get with the times. Serious question. You want to fight radical Islamic terrorism, right? (I don't know why some libs have a problem saying RIT, I don't.) Do you think banning refugees is a good idea? They haven't hurt Americans. The danger is if ISIS grows stronger. And Trump just gave them a Christmas gift.
I am hearing a few people say this executive order will create great propaganda message for isis recruitment. If this temporary order helps isis recruitment, then those new individual/s joining isis were most likely already considering or sympathizing with isis "cause". Anyone who supports isis should be eliminated. So if the presidents order causes someone to join isis it serves a purpose in weeding out extremist, terrorist and future enemies of the United States. I say get all the isis sympathizers together; easier to locate and eliminate.
Iraq Threatens Ban on U.S. Citizens, Putting the Fight Against ISIS at Risk Iraqi lawmakers said Sunday that they might ban U.S. nationals from entering the country in retaliation against U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order on Iraqis in the U.S., a move that could hinder the fight against ISIS. The Iraqi parliament’s foreign committee issued a statement calling on the Iraqi government to act after President Trump controversially ordered that citizens from Iraq and six other Muslim-majority countries be refused entry to the U.S. for at least ninety days. “Iraq is on the front line of the war on terrorism,” said the statement. “It is unfair that the Iraqis are treated in this way.” The proposal could now be put to a vote in the Iraqi parliament. Some Iraqi members of parliament (MPs) are in support of a ban on U.S. nationals, while others say they will urge Washington to reconsider. If a ban is enacted it could impact thousands of American aid workers, contractors and journalists currently working in Iraq, as well as more than 5,000 U.S, military personnel there to aid Iraqi forces in their effort to oust ISIS from Mosul and the country. “This decision by the U.S. is arbitrary,” said Intisar Al-Jabbouri, a Sunni MP from the Nineveh Governorate in northern Iraq. “The Iraqi government has the right to reciprocate.” https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAmnEih?m=en-us The U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011, but since ISIS captured swathes of Iraqi territory in 2014, it has slowly sent advisors, trainers and special forces back to the country. Their guidance — as well as weapons and funding – has been key to the fight against ISIS. Iraqi forces are battling the militants of the so-called Islamic State in the neighborhoods of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city and the largest urban center still under ISIS control. American military advisors are nearby, helping to direct the fight. “If Iraq were to ban U.S. citizens from traveling to Iraq it would have devastating consequences for our fight against ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations,” said Chris Harmer, a senior analyst with the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War. “That’s just in the short term.” Nevertheless the idea has caught on in certain, influential circles. Moqtada Al-Sadr, a powerful Shi’ite cleric who led a violent insurgency in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, quickly issued a statement saying Americans should leave. “It would be arrogant for you to enter freely to Iraq and other countries while barring them the entrance to your country,” Sadr said on his website, addressing the U.S. “And therefore you should get your nationals out.” Sadr’s motivations may have more to do with his alignment with Iran, however, than reciprocity for President Trump’s ban on Iraqi nationals. “Those that closely aligned with Iran might think this is a good idea—an opportunity to remove American influence from Iraq once and for all,” said Dr. Renad Mansour, an Academy Fellow for the Middle East and North Africa at Chatham House. It’s possible Trump’s order could exacerbate cracks in the already fragile coalition in Iraq, in which groups who receive support from the U.S. fight in concert with those who are backed by Iran. Iranian generals have been spotted on the frontlines in key battles against ISIS, both in Iraq and Syria. Shi’ite militias, many funded by Tehran, are ruthless fighters but have been accused of abuses against civilian populations, fueling sectarian tensions. Mansour says Sadr and those with his very powerful movement will try to stoke those tensions further by pressuring the government to ban Americans. The Popular Mobilization Forces, a coalition of mostly Shi’ite militias, also issued a statement on Sunday urging Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to kick out U.S. nationals. “It’s going to be tricky for [Prime Minister] al-Abadi to deal with,” said Mansour. Despite the strong rhetoric and anti-American sentiment in response to Trump’s decision, lawmaker Jabbouri says it would be difficult for Iraq to approve and implement such a ban given the essential role the U.S. plays in both its military and humanitarian efforts. “There is a strategic need to keep American experts to ensure the sustainability of the coalition fight against ISIS,” she says. However, leaders of some of the parliament’s most powerful blocs have called the for ban on Americans. But if the Iraqi people demand even a temporary ban on U.S. personnel, it could provide an opening for Iran to extend its influence on the country. The U.S. scaling-back of operations have already left room for an increasing Iranian presence, Harmer says. “Long term, it would complete the decline of U.S. strategic influence in Iraq and pave the way for Iran to increase their already significant influence over the Iraqi government.” The effect, he says, would be “catastrophic.”
LOL Iraq "Oh yeah? Well... WE'LL KEEP YOU FROM SPENDING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY!!"
Welp, guess it's too bad they'll come on back in through Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. That is until we ban them too., maybe, probably not since Trump has business there. Once that's done they can key in on the rest of the folks that are open Muslims. Finally, just to be sure mind you, Trump can come for all the rest of brown people from that region. Anybody else that isn't notably from that region will practice in private and may perhaps become radicalized anyway. At that point travel will probably banned to that region or any surrounding it. Next step are religious tests for anybody that leaves the country at all. Get ready to know your scripture backwards forwards and sideways in order to "prove" your non-Muslim ness That's the way this ends, it's the only way it ends. When Trump decided to ignore the courts and continue on with his "temporary" ban. The chances that the temporary ban becomes a permanent ban went up a few notches. I don't trust that this ban is a temporary one. He doesn't seem to know what he wants and its becoming apparent his words are coming from the resident White Nationalist at the White House.
'This is not a Muslim ban,' Trump says of immigration move President Donald Trump insisted Sunday that his executive order temporarily halting travel from seven majority-Muslim countries was "not a Muslim ban," after it was met with global outrage and huge protests across the United States. "America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave," Trump said in an unusual official written statement. "To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion -- this is about terror and keeping our country safe," he said, adding that more 40 Muslim countries were not affected by his order. This is a breaking news update. Check back later for more. https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAmnEN1?m=en-us --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trump asked for a ‘Muslim ban,’ Giuliani says Fox News host Jeanine Pirro asked Giuliani if the ban had anything to do with religion. "How did the president decide the seven countries?" she asked. "Okay, talk to me." "I'll tell you the whole history of it," Giuliani responded eagerly. "So when [Trump] first announced it, he said, 'Muslim ban.' He called me up. He said, 'Put a commission together. Show me the right way to do it legally.'" Giuliani continued, saying he assembled a "whole group of other very expert lawyers on this," including former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Pete King (R-NY). "And what we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger — the areas of the world that create danger for us," Giuliani told Pirro. "Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible. And that's what the ban is based on. It's not based on religion. It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ys-and-ordered-a-commission-to-do-it-legally/
40%? We all knew we were waking up the day after the election to the least liked, least trusted President in our history regardless who won, so that's not shocking. You want to extend 25 years of partisan, inefficient governing, so be it. I don't. PS stick with Twitler, it's more entertaining than Der Fuhrer...
We tried to fight terrorists with conventional war in Afghanistan and Iraq. It didn't work because terrorists aren't a country you can beat. Bomb them all you want, they'll keep coming back. And no, not everyone who supports ISIS should be eliminated. Everyone who murders for ISIS should be eliminated. Eliminating people for their views, no matter how abhorrent those views are, whether they're radical Muslims or Nazis, isn't the American way. We have values in this country, and I'd like to keep it like that.
I have no problem with making sure people are screened and enter the country legally. My most prized possession is my mother's Green Card which I still carry in my wallet to this day.
[ That's what folks kept saying about the run up to him being elected. We'll see what he actually does. Well he's doing what he said regardless of the ramifications in the most ham-fisted way possible.
They were the moment they were denied the ability to return to the country and/or handcuffed and locked in airport holding cells.
