Wow, so you do believe there’s no Al Qaeda here. Amazing.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/02/23/gen.terror.graham/index.html?_s=PM:US
http://www.cfr.org/terrorist-organizations-and-networks/al-qaeda-k-al-qaida-al-qaida/p9126
Your other comments cement your status as a dolt.
And right on schedule, the Democrats are starting to chicken out. Hat tip to DerekMichaels:
So much for the moral high ground.
Got anything more recent than 2002? Or a list of all the attacks on U.S.soil since then?
i just find it hard to believe that there’s any threat if they haven’t found a time to strike after all these years.
We haven’t had a bigtime ISIS attack either, but ISIS terror cells have been found here:
These guys were going to kill teh President, which is probably the one thing that would make liberals demand the use of ground troops:
He was planning to travel to join ISIS. He was not planing anything here.
Also, he was not a refugee but a U.S. citizen.
I wasn’t trying to make an argument that he was a refugee, only that cells do exist here and do things other than just go on the attack immediately. Cells recruit, they raise money, they plan, they arm, and when they feel ready, they make their move. Just responding to your unique argument that absence of attacks means absence of terror cells.
We have always imported the trouble with various cultures along with the things in those cultures that enriched us. Cultures prone to organized crime brought organized crime with them, and cultures prone to militant behavior bring that with them as well. the argument for keeping out the Syrian refugees is that due to the extreme awfulness of that regime and its brainwashing of its citizens, they present a unique risk.
He wasn’t a cell. He wasn’t even planning to stay in the country.
Even right now, which would be an absolutely perfect time to attack and yet all these cells do nothing in this country. Who knew that terrorists would be such good house guests? But refugees, they are apparently a special breed and they’d be the break that the terrorists are waiting for apparently.
Okay, so I get it, no terrorists in the US according to liberal Dopers.
I’m not surprised - it’s a position you’ve never occupied.
“But…but…Obama!!”
Nice bit of projection here, considering…
Good to know you’re okay with fearmongering and lies as long as it works out for your side.
Yes, that’s exactly what liberal Dopers have said, oh wait, no. That isn’t even what DP said, but your attempt to take a misrepresented position and apply it to a whole category of people is noted.
So thus far we’ve established that you’re morally bankrupt, intellectually dishonest, spectacularly hypocritical, and the only straws you have to grasp at are either that enough Americans have swallowed the lies you and your fellow travellers spew to give you some cover in the short term or that an actual terrorist attack will kill a large number of Americans so that you can use their deaths for political purposes.
It must be wonderful being you.
If I win big on the lottery, I’m going to pay Adam West to follow me around and narrate my life.
I’ve forgotten how dumb you are.
We’ve had a ton of terrorists in the US. Dylan Roof. James Holmes. Christopher Harper-Mercer. Adam Lanza. The list could go on and on.
That says that Americans are, by a moderate majority of 56% (not “overwhelming”), opposed to increasing the number of refugees received. Is your position that the current number refugees we are receiving and planning to receive is the right number? If not, then this poll doesn’t support your position.
Still waiting, adaher, for you to back-up the world-class-short-term-thinking statement that nuking Syria wouldn’t harm the United States (except “morally”). Do you really believe that there wouldn’t be an international backlash? That having murdered millions, there wouldn’t be impacts on trade, and treaties? That no one in the US military would mutiny, or refuse to follow orders, after orders to murder millions of innocent men, women, and children? That there wouldn’t be war crimes trials? That there wouldn’t be a myriad of other impacts due to committing a monstrous crime – one of the worst in human history (and orders of magnitude worse than 9/11)?
What is the US’ nuclear policy? Have we disavowed a first strike? Nope. It never ceases to amaze me how often liberals portray current policy and law as immoral, and it’s just so obvious that none of the Ivy League graduates in DC managed to get around to changing these clearly immoral, indefensible policies!
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the ramifications of the US nuking Syria. The main reason we haven’t nuked countries willy-nilly is not because it would be “morally wrong”, but because it would harm us massively.
Wrong again. There are thousands of terrorists in this country. They all belong to the NRA.
You don’t even know what that means, do you?
“You see? You see? These guys are just as chickenshit as I am!”
It’s “One man’s Mede is another man’s Persian.”
Or, sometimes, “Castrating Persians on one’s integrity.”
Glad to help.
That doesn’t make sense. How can they be terrorists if they don’t have Those-People names?