Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ellapennella

U.S.A Marine asks Americans a question

96 posts in this topic

Steven Gern, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran working in Iraq, discusses the reality of how Americans are treated there. I work currently in Iraq, which is one of the countries that’s on the list,” begins Gern. “Obviously, in the United States, a lot is going on – and over here, this is a lot going on, as well, just a lot of things y’all don’t see.” “The other morning, we were having a discussion on the executive order, and a lot of the Iraqis showed their displeasure in this executive order, and why they feel like they’ve been betrayed by the United States.” So, I listened to what they had to say, and after they were done yelling and screaming about their opinion on things, I asked a simple question, and I got an answer to that simple question, and I got it without hesitation.” continues Gern. “My simple questions was, ‘As an American if I went out in town right now, would I be welcome?’” “They answered me, and said, ‘Absolutely not, you would not be welcome.’ And I said, ‘Okay, what would happen if I went in town?’” Watch the video to see what they said to the Sgt.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this yesterday.  I believe every word the guy says, no reason not to.  That E.O. by Trump was legal and was as common sense a response as I've seen in years.  If we are attacked by someone from any of those nations then the judges that placed obstacles in the way of our CIC should be impeached and tried for complicity in the deaths of any citizen who became a victim of their political posturing.

Someone asked me what if the attack came from one of the other Muslim states that weren't on the order.  I would restrict that state while new vetting procedures could be put in place for them as well.  Nothing will guarantee our safety.  Not even taking steps to try is criminally stupid.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, I received the same response and treatment.  That was a decade before 9/11.  I imagine the attitude there is the same if not worse now.  What bugs me the most, is that it seems to be spreading to countries that used to be our friends.  I occasionally bump into the same attitude going to Europe and South America.  And it isn't just a Muslim thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I saw that too.  This is another one of those unintended consequences created by the Left, namely Obama pulling troops out of Iraq.  If we had kept our troops there for a few generations, what we are experiencing now would never have occurred.  There has been a growing unrest in the Muslim world ever since the fall of the Caliphate some 93 years ago.  It began to take up a fever pitch in the 70’s and yet the leaders in the West still don’t see it.  The non-Muslim world needs to deal with it before it gets out of hand.  We could have stopped this if Carter had supported the Shah.  We could have thwarted it if Reagan had supported the Afghans after the Soviets had left.  We keep shooting ourselves in the foot because too many Prog sheeple are worried about offending illegal immigrants and non-assimilating refugees.

 

I suspect that Gromdor’s attitude he sees in Europe and South America will begin to fade as this global anti-Globalist movement begins to pick up steam as these nations see and understand the importance of sovereignty.  America will once again become the world’s leader because our President will be decisive, not divisive.  And as far as the Muslim world goes, we need to realize that the terror isn’t because of what we are doing, but because of who we are, or more accurately, who we aren’t.  And that is someone who submits to the will of Allah.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If not ISIS, than anyone who steps up to take their place. The Islamic Inquisition continues to mature.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

If we had kept our troops there for a few generations

6ef4b84872952726548fe5135e263cf4.jpg

We should have never went to begin with...

Oh nevermind I forgot Iraq had WMDs and were behind 9-11.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

If we had kept our troops there for a few generations, what we are experiencing now would never have occurred. 

I am not so sure of that. How many centuries since the English subjugated Scotland, yet there is still an independence movement  There are no occupying troops there. How many generations has Ireland been occupied by the English, yet peace is not assured in Northern Ireland even with troops.  Our nations have been associated and entangled in each other's history for a couple thousand years.  Consider how much different it would be if US troops occupied Iraq for a few generations.  It wouldn't be peaceful.

I don't know that there is evidence one way or the other, but growing nationalism in other countries could as easily breed resentment as respect.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Yes, I saw that too.  This is another one of those unintended consequences created by the Left, namely Obama pulling troops out of Iraq.  If we had kept our troops there for a few generations, what we are experiencing now would never have occurred.  There has been a growing unrest in the Muslim world ever since the fall of the Caliphate some 93 years ago.  It began to take up a fever pitch in the 70’s and yet the leaders in the West still don’t see it.  The non-Muslim world needs to deal with it before it gets out of hand.  We could have stopped this if Carter had supported the Shah.  We could have thwarted it if Reagan had supported the Afghans after the Soviets had left.  We keep shooting ourselves in the foot because too many Prog sheeple are worried about offending illegal immigrants and non-assimilating refugees.

 

I suspect that Gromdor’s attitude he sees in Europe and South America will begin to fade as this global anti-Globalist movement begins to pick up steam as these nations see and understand the importance of sovereignty.  America will once again become the world’s leader because our President will be decisive, not divisive.  And as far as the Muslim world goes, we need to realize that the terror isn’t because of what we are doing, but because of who we are, or more accurately, who we aren’t.  And that is someone who submits to the will of Allah.

I don't see having troops in other countries for decades, approving a pipeline from Canada across the US to supply oil to China, having Japan doing $50 billion in investments here, or even having resorts/golf courses in places like Scotland and the UAE as being anti-globalist.  I would go as far as to say that some of these are even anti-sovereign.  All your examples are regrets for not meddling more in another countries affairs. 

 

I don't see our dear leader being particularly non-divisive either.  Ninja and Merc are still at each others throats instead of singing praises of how great we are, for example.  Every day and every new executive order brings more protesters to the street.  And when I look at foreign journalism, it is usually ridicule directed at the US and Trump instead of respect.  Heck the only thing great so far is the SNL skits.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

10 hours ago, and then said:

 Someone asked me what if the attack came from one of the other Muslim states that weren't on the order.  I would restrict that state while new vetting procedures could be put in place for them as well.  

Do you mean countries that have produced terrorists who have attacked the US and killed citizens, but aren't on the list? 

Like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, UAE .........? 

Meanwhile, to date, no US citizens have ever died on US soil as a result of terrorist action by anyone from any of the banned countries. 

Where is the logic?

Edited by The Butler
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Butler said:

Do you mean countries that have produced terrorists who have attacked the US and killed citizens, but aren't on the list? 

Like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, UAE .........? 

Meanwhile, to date, no US citizens have ever died on US soil as a result of terrorist action by anyone from any of the banned countries. 

Where is the logic?

As I understand it, the travel ban was instituted against the 7 countries on the list not because of the terrorists they have produced, but because they are in such a shambles that it is difficult or impossible to properly identify the individuals living there.  Those conditions also mean that they would have no way of determining who is entering their country.  Terrorists may be evil but they are not stupid and it would be to their advantage to enter one of these countries as a means of coming here.  The logic is in Trump's statement on the campaign trail, when he said that we need to stop immigration from these countries "until we can figure out what the hell is going on".  A three month pause is a minor inconvenience compared to the devastation that could be caused to us if we make even one mistake about who we let in.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Big Jim said:

As I understand it, the travel ban was instituted against the 7 countries on the list not because of the terrorists they have produced, but because they are in such a shambles that it is difficult or impossible to properly identify the individuals living there.  Those conditions also mean that they would have no way of determining who is entering their country.  Terrorists may be evil but they are not stupid and it would be to their advantage to enter one of these countries as a means of coming here.  The logic is in Trump's statement on the campaign trail, when he said that we need to stop immigration from these countries "until we can figure out what the hell is going on".  A three month pause is a minor inconvenience compared to the devastation that could be caused to us if we make even one mistake about who we let in.

 

I do understand the reasoning. I also don't lump it all on Trump. I just question the logic.  

Pakistan fits that model well.  Egypt isn't much better.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven Gern had a Facebook post removed for hate speech and lost his contractor post over it.

He claimed regular Iraqi locals, not even ISIS, would kidnap and behead him, this was told to him by coworkers according to him.

So when was the last time an American was kidnapped and beheaded by regular Iraqi locals?

Are we to assume all Americans are hiding and had no interaction with locals outside of armed conveys? 

Should we also believe his coworkers who complained and were mad told him this and out of all the private contractors in Iraq he is the first to face this or all the rest are just keeping quiet? 

Also how can his statements apply to every region of all seven countries since he is using a very localized experience and casting it across vast areas as if they are all exactly the same.

Surely regular Iranians would say they have a very different country and attitude towards Americans than those in Libya.

Not buying this other than seeing he is enjoying his 15 minutes in the limelight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Butler said:

Do you mean countries that have produced terrorists who have attacked the US and killed citizens, but aren't on the list? 

Like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, UAE .........? 

Meanwhile, to date, no US citizens have ever died on US soil as a result of terrorist action by anyone from any of the banned countries. 

Where is the logic?

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-convicted-of-terrorism-from-trump-7-mostly-muslim-countries/article/2614582

 

— Yemen: 19

— Iraq: 19

— Syria: 7

— Iran: 4

— Libya: 2

  Somalia: 20

The order seems pretty logical to me.  These are the numbers of terror CONVICTIONS from these countries since 9-11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, and then said:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-convicted-of-terrorism-from-trump-7-mostly-muslim-countries/article/2614582

 

— Yemen: 19

— Iraq: 19

— Syria: 7

— Iran: 4

— Libya: 2

  Somalia: 20

The order seems pretty logical to me.  These are the numbers of terror CONVICTIONS from these countries since 9-11.

2 hours ago, The Butler said:

Do you mean countries that have produced terrorists who have attacked the US and killed citizens, but aren't on the list? 

Like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, UAE .........? 

Meanwhile, to date, no US citizens have ever died on US soil as a result of terrorist action by anyone from any of the banned countries. 

Where is the logic?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said:

Steven Gern had a Facebook post removed for hate speech and lost his contractor post over it.

He claimed regular Iraqi locals, not even ISIS, would kidnap and behead him, this was told to him by coworkers according to him.

So when was the last time an American was kidnapped and beheaded by regular Iraqi locals?

Are we to assume all Americans are hiding and had no interaction with locals outside of armed conveys? 

Should we also believe his coworkers who complained and were mad told him this and out of all the private contractors in Iraq he is the first to face this or all the rest are just keeping quiet? 

Also how can his statements apply to every region of all seven countries since he is using a very localized experience and casting it across vast areas as if they are all exactly the same.

Surely regular Iranians would say they have a very different country and attitude towards Americans than those in Libya.

Not buying this other than seeing he is enjoying his 15 minutes in the limelight.

 

Priceless and so typical.  This guy served there.  As in, lived and worked in a place where people actively were trying to take his LIFE.  But YOU know better?  

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 

26 minutes ago, and then said:

Priceless and so typical.  This guy served there.  As in, lived and worked in a place where people actively were trying to take his LIFE.  But YOU know better?  

And why is this the first time we have heard of it, and only from small web sites without any cred, that regular citizens would kidnap and behead him?

Basically he is claiming all citizens there are terrorists. Not believable. 

 

Edited by Avatar Samantha Ai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Butler said:

Do you mean countries that have produced terrorists who have attacked the US and killed citizens, but aren't on the list? 

Like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan, Egypt, UAE .........? 

Meanwhile, to date, no US citizens have ever died on US soil as a result of terrorist action by anyone from any of the banned countries. 

Where is the logic?

I simply don't understand why Americans and allies are even in these Middle Eastern countries. Maybe if the west had butted out in the first place, years and years ago... and stopped interfering and poking our noses in their back yard. Things would not have escalated as what we are seeing today.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Avatar Samantha Ai said:

6ef4b84872952726548fe5135e263cf4.jpg

We should have never went to begin with...

Oh nevermind I forgot Iraq had WMDs and were behind 9-11.

You know what I find objectionable about that photo?

worf never wore command red in that style of uniform, and never without his non-regulation sash of Klingonness. 

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Astra. said:

I simply don't understand why Americans and allies are even in these Middle Eastern countries. Maybe if the west had butted out in the first place, years and years ago... and stopped interfering and poking our noses in their back yard. Things would not have escalated as what we are seeing today.

First the Crusades and then European colonialism wrecked the place and it's never been right, since. A colony of European Jews planted smack in the middle of it, doesn't help, either.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Butler said:

 

We'd like to keep it that way?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Yes, I saw that too.  This is another one of those unintended consequences created by the Left, namely Obama pulling troops out of Iraq.  If we had kept our troops there for a few generations, what we are experiencing now would never have occurred.  There has been a growing unrest in the Muslim world ever since the fall of the Caliphate some 93 years ago.  It began to take up a fever pitch in the 70’s and yet the leaders in the West still don’t see it.  The non-Muslim world needs to deal with it before it gets out of hand.  We could have stopped this if Carter had supported the Shah.  We could have thwarted it if Reagan had supported the Afghans after the Soviets had left.  We keep shooting ourselves in the foot because too many Prog sheeple are worried about offending illegal immigrants and non-assimilating refugees.

You should feel lucky that you even get away with endlessly preaching this kind of crap.  If the bigotry wasn't so politically correct you wouldn't.

You were preaching up the same old imminent threat kool aid we faced from Iraq back in the History Channel days.   Soon after we invaded Iraq again the same voices screaming for war were the quickest to start laughing at the Iraqi army's deplorable conditions.   If we didn't have your pack of lies to foolishly go to war with Iraq again, none of this instability and continued warmongering over 15,000 ISIS unicorns would be happening. 

If Saddam Hussein was really the bad guy you should have let Osama bin Laden defend his homeland, right after you finished "supporting" him even more than we already had in Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, and then said:

I saw this yesterday.  I believe every word the guy says, no reason not to.  That E.O. by Trump was legal and was as common sense a response as I've seen in years.  If we are attacked by someone from any of those nations then the judges that placed obstacles in the way of our CIC should be impeached and tried for complicity in the deaths of any citizen who became a victim of their political posturing.

Someone asked me what if the attack came from one of the other Muslim states that weren't on the order.  I would restrict that state while new vetting procedures could be put in place for them as well.  Nothing will guarantee our safety.  Not even taking steps to try is criminally stupid.

I was told by others on this forum that he was fear mongering. How can we get through to these people that don't understand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

First the Crusades and then European colonialism wrecked the place and it's never been right, since. A colony of European Jews planted smack in the middle of it, doesn't help, either.

I heard they need America because of China & Australia's refugees problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, and then said:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-72-convicted-of-terrorism-from-trump-7-mostly-muslim-countries/article/2614582

 

— Yemen: 19

— Iraq: 19

— Syria: 7

— Iran: 4

— Libya: 2

  Somalia: 20

The order seems pretty logical to me.  These are the numbers of terror CONVICTIONS from these countries since 9-11.

nvm

Edited by Ellapennella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Big Jim said:

As I understand it, the travel ban was instituted against the 7 countries on the list not because of the terrorists they have produced, but because they are in such a shambles that it is difficult or impossible to properly identify the individuals living there.  Those conditions also mean that they would have no way of determining who is entering their country.  Terrorists may be evil but they are not stupid and it would be to their advantage to enter one of these countries as a means of coming here.  The logic is in Trump's statement on the campaign trail, when he said that we need to stop immigration from these countries "until we can figure out what the hell is going on".  A three month pause is a minor inconvenience compared to the devastation that could be caused to us if we make even one mistake about who we let in.

But what is questionable is that Iran I think can verify documentation but they are on the list same as with Saudi, they can verify and yeah we all know they raise the Wahhabi, right?  there will have to be a re-investigation of looking into them. It seems like everything that we the people see wrong President Trump feels the same as we do about it. It's like you can count on that. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.