Explosions hit Brussels airport,

[Big Jim]

We're not at war. Toddlers killed more americans last year than terrorists did http://www.snopes.co...ans-terrorists/. There is not an entire nation trying to wipe us out as there was in WW2. There is not a reason for us to bond as a people in our desire to kill a particular group as there was in WW2. There is NO COMPARISON between the threat of terrorism and the threat of a mighty empire.

"theres over a billion of them" From a subsequent post of yours.

I must confess I'm a bit confused. There's no comparison between the threat of terrorism and the threat of a mighty empire, but there is a comparison between them and toddlers? In that case, are we waiting for our toddlers to become less aggressive or for the terrorists to become more aggressive before trying to stop them?

[Farmer77]

"theres over a billion of them" From a subsequent post of yours.

I must confess I'm a bit confused. There's no comparison between the threat of terrorism and the threat of a mighty empire, but there is a comparison between them and toddlers? In that case, are we waiting for our toddlers to become less aggressive or for the terrorists to become more aggressive before trying to stop them?

Ha , no not comparing terrorists and toddlers, but pointing out the fact that toddlers killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists last year I think is a pretty important piece of perspective when discussing the issue. Perspective is important . We're having conversations about all out war with a group of people who IN REALITY have proven to be less of a risk to American lives than TODDLERs, family pets and slippery floors.

The above doesnt even touch on the other real threats to our health and which we aren't dealing (read funding) with because we're consumed with islamic terrorism.

[kartikg]

As long as Muslims in western countries come in open a denounce sharia laws the threat looms. Muslims should protest with signs " we do not want sharia".

[Big Jim]

Ha , no not comparing terrorists and toddlers, but pointing out the fact that toddlers killed more Americans than Islamic terrorists last year I think is a pretty important piece of perspective when discussing the issue. Perspective is important . We're having conversations about all out war with a group of people who IN REALITY have proven to be less of a risk to American lives than TODDLERs, family pets and slippery floors.

The above doesnt even touch on the other real threats to our health and which we aren't dealing (read funding) with because we're consumed with islamic terrorism.

The key word being "Americans". Since 9/11 we've been pretty effective at keeping terror attacks to a minimum inside our own borders. The challenge now is to keep it that way. Meanwhile, Europe and other countries around the globe show that the terrorists have no intention of stopping or changing their mission. It's only a matter of time before they outwit our current defenses and put our toddlers to shame.

[aztek]

The key word being "Americans". Since 9/11 we've been pretty effective at keeping terror attacks to a minimum inside our own borders. The challenge now is to keep it that way.

how many Islamic terrorist attacks happen between 1993 (1st wtc bombing) and sept 11? i can't think of many. wiki says none, it was always low. we were safer pre 911 than after. without huge domestic dhs army, and patriot act, both of which if you look carefully, beyond slogans and propaganda, more aimed at Americans than at anyone else, any kid who can add 2 and 2, figuratevly speaking sees that

Edited March 28, 2016 by aztek

[Farmer77]

The key word being "Americans". Since 9/11 we've been pretty effective at keeping terror attacks to a minimum inside our own borders. The challenge now is to keep it that way. Meanwhile, Europe and other countries around the globe show that the terrorists have no intention of stopping or changing their mission. It's only a matter of time before they outwit our current defenses and put our toddlers to shame.

Really? Why is that? We have open borders right? They can just walk in , go to a gun show, stock up and attack a mall or sporting event any time they wanted. Why hasnt that happened? How many europeans have been killed in terror attacks?

It would seem that Europes tradition of terrorism reaches much farther than just islam : http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/ so much so that Muslims terrorists are actually the minority over there.

Going further in 2015 , yes the year of the Paris attacks 146 people were killed by islamic terrorists in France. Think about that 146 people died from islamic terorrism in the same year that france had its worst terror attack in ten years. Does that really match the response? In terms of rights they gave away and in terms of the propaganda and subsequent actions of western nations as a result? Not to mention the overall panic the "news" stations put into the public. Ill say it again, it only makes sense if you're making money off of it.

[SHaYap]

Headlines manipulated mentality and reality ... the media molded trend of the day ... it feeds the Economy ... it drives the market ... the blood sacrifices never stopped

~ it just changed Temples and manner of worship ~

[Farmer77]

how many Islamic terrorist attacks happen between 1993 (1st wtc bombing) and sept 11? i can't think of many. wiki says none, it was always low. we were safer pre 911 than after. without huge domestic dhs army, and patriot act, both of which if you look carefully, beyond slogans and propaganda, more aimed at Americans than at anyone else, any kid who can add 2 and 2, figuratevly speaking sees that

And we know the FBI had to build the bomb for those guys in '93...facepalm

[Merc14]

You do NOT acknowledge them as the authoritative representation of the religion nor yield to their maniacal claims as one would in accordance to whomever that makes such claims regardless of whatever the Religion being in question ...

It is not so complicated ... but some sectarian interests are hijacking this fight for advantage of their preferred faiths ... and that is the distastefulness of the complicity ~

I asked you what you call this war, because it is a war now and you have failed to do that. Not all Japanese wanted to fight the US and not all Germans wanted to fight England and many Americans did not want to be involved in another European conflict in 1939 or 1941 when Japan attacked. You and likely guy may not want to fight but your sworn enemy does and is so what do you do? You think you have ALL the answers three eyes and certainly have no problem lecturing others on their stupidity and prejudices (let's not mention your innate antisemitism) so how about enlightening us on your wonderful plan to make peace with certain parts of Islam all over the world?

Obama's plan is to tell them we really don't hate them and let thousands more unscreened people (please don't tell me they are screening these people beyond asking them if they are terrorists) in complete with they ISIS promise that they will infiltrate terrorist cells into those refugees. Merkel and the EU had the same plan, how is that working out? I love the brilliant meme that the terrorists were already in-country but that answers nothing because allowing refugees in was supposed to assuage the roiling anger of those Muslims already in their adopted countries and that certainly didn't work.

I am serious in this request. If someone has a way to negotiate with peopel who start at "We want you all dead, men, women, children,the elderly, the ill, all of you dead and gone. End of negotiation" then I am all ears.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Merc14

[Farmer77]

but that answers nothing because allowing refugees in was supposed to assuage the roiling anger of those Muslims already in their adopted countries and that certainly didn't work.

No allowing refugees in was supposed to house refugees. People who we made homeless through our own greed. If that gains good will as a result then great but doing the right thing is the reward for allowing refugees.

We're not "at war". ISIS is not going to bomb pearl harbor with an air force, nor are they going to sink the Lusitania with their submarines - unless the USA or their allies give them the ability. This nation being on a "war footing" over a small bunch of primitive, ignorant religious extremists is becoming more and more embarrassing. Particularly because we are so responsible for their existence in the first place and the american public seems to only be able to root for the creation of MORE environments which are ripe for the creation and growth of extremist groups.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Farmer77

[Jarocal]

Really? Why is that? We have open borders right? They can just walk in , go to a gun show, stock up and attack a mall or sporting event any time they wanted. Why hasnt that happened? How many europeans have been killed in terror attacks?

Seriously? A middle eastern guy buying a gun via private sale from some redneck at a gun show?

As often as they are called, racists, Islamophobes, etc. your trying to say that is where an Islamic radical will go to get a gun?

It would seem that Europes tradition of terrorism reaches much farther than just islam : http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/01/08/3609796/islamist-terrorism-europe/ so much so that Muslims terrorists are actually the minority over there.

being a minority does not make them an ineffectual threat.

Going further in 2015 , yes the year of the Paris attacks 146 people were killed by islamic terrorists in France. Think about that 146 people died from islamic terorrism in the same year that france had its worst terror attack in ten years. Does that really match the response? In terms of rights they gave away and in terms of the propaganda and subsequent actions of western nations as a result? Not to mention the overall panic the "news" stations put into the public. Ill say it again, it only makes sense if you're making money off of it.

Giving rights away never makes sense.

Honestly in regards to the response, price tag would be my main reservation. We better sell S.A.at least two dozen more of those littoral combat ships and about 50 F35's to offset some costs. Hell, I say sell some to Assad if it means digging our way out of debt.

[Astra.]

Really? Why is that? We have open borders right? They can just walk in , go to a gun show, stock up and attack a mall or sporting event any time they wanted. Why hasnt that happened? How many europeans have been killed in terror attacks?

It would seem that Europes tradition of terrorism reaches much farther than just islam : http://thinkprogress...rrorism-europe/ so much so that Muslims terrorists are actually the minority over there.

Going further in 2015 , yes the year of the Paris attacks 146 people were killed by islamic terrorists in France. Think about that 146 people died from islamic terorrism in the same year that france had its worst terror attack in ten years. Does that really match the response? In terms of rights they gave away and in terms of the propaganda and subsequent actions of western nations as a result? Not to mention the overall panic the "news" stations put into the public. Ill say it again, it only makes sense if you're making money off of it.

You really need to take your head out of the sand and stop underestimating this evil scourge (ISIS) and what they could be capable of if given the opportunity. They have already shown interest in a Nuclear facility in Belguim. Fortunately tho - their plans (whatever that was) were foiled. That doesn't mean they will stop trying.

Point is ISIS needs to be KILLED off - they are dangerous and nothing but a menace to the world.

http://www.huffingto..._b_8259978.html

[Merc14]

No allowing refugees in was supposed to house refugees.

You obviously didn't read my link or my post. I was relating what Obama was trying to accomplish and linked his speeh along with his reasoning. You are wrong, once again. Also, you never completed your homework re. what is socialism. Why not?

People who we made homeless through our own greed. If that gains good will as a result then great but doing the right thing is the reward for allowing refugees.

WTF are you talking about? Explain this statement. Who was made homeless by whose greed and please provide proof, not just your hysterical CT rantings? Dude, you're starting to sound like yamato.

We're not "at war". ISIS is not going to bomb pearl harbor with an air force, nor are they going to sink the Lusitania with their submarines - unless the USA or their allies give them the ability.

What do you want to label it, a misunderstanding? When someone is blowing up civilians all over the world because they people don't approve of other's ideology then it is WAR. Plain and simple son.

This nation being on a "war footing" over a small bunch of primitive, ignorant religious extremists is becoming more and more embarrassing.

O for chrissakes! How has the "war' upset your life? Most people in this country haven't a clue we have troops fighting overseas. You must mean you want more support so F eberyone else and let teh terrorists attack, as long as you are coddled.

Particularly because we are so responsible for their existence in the first place and the american public seems to only be able to root for the creation of MORE environments which are ripe for the creation and growth of extremist groups.

Islam has been at war with the world for centuries and stop blaming us, western culture, for people who are abngry because they require that the entire world abide by their stone age religion. You know what you sound like farmer, one of the democrats who blamed the west for the Soviet's depravities. They wanted to surrender as well and cursed Reagan for facing off with the monsters. When the soviets fell I didn't hear a word form the cowardly cringers, just more hate and new socialist adventures to cheer on. Only an idiot blames himself because his crazy neighbor wants to shoot the idiot's kids.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Merc14

[Likely Guy]

You obviously didn't read my link or my post. I was relating what Obama was trying to accomplish and linked his speeh along with his reasoning.

The Washington Examiner link, where Obama says nothing about 100,000 Syrian refugees?

[Merc14]

The Washington Examiner link, where Obama says nothing about 100,000 Syrian refugees?

I am going by what he said in his speech. It is bizarre how much confusion the man sows on something he has been told is not his decision to make by SCOTUS.

Then there is this little nugget http://rightwingnews...m_campaign=cotr

Test drive? Who knows but you have to read the Daily Mail to see the story. Why?

Have to go The Daily Mail to read this story

http://www.dailymail...ter-Sunday.html

Edited March 29, 2016 by Merc14

[Likely Guy]

I am going by what he said in his speech....

What exactly did he say in his speech? You continually trotting out right wing web sites and bloggers saying that he's going to admit 100,000 Syrians is getting tiring. They are either lying or intentional misinterpreting what he says.

I searched for a transcript of his 'Easter speech' and it hasn't been posted yet. Tell you what, find me a direct quote from Obama where he says he's going to admit 100,000 Syrians this year and I'll admit that I'm wrong. Can you do that?

[Sakari]

What exactly did he say in his speech? You continually trotting out right wing web sites and bloggers saying that he's going to admit 100,000 Syrians is getting tiring. They are either lying or intentional misinterpreting what he says.

I searched for a transcript of his 'Easter speech' and it hasn't been posted yet. Tell you what, find me a direct quote from Obama where he says he's going to admit 100,000 Syrians this year and I'll admit that I'm wrong. Can you do that?

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/03/27/our-openness-refugees-how-we-fight-isis-obama-reiterates-pledge-bring-100000-muslim

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/facts-about-the-syrian-refugees/

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/world/middleeast/obama-directs-administration-to-accept-10000-syrian-refugees.html?_r=0

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-doubles-down-on-refugee-promise/article/2586899

[Merc14]

What exactly did he say in his speech? You continually trotting out right wing web sites and bloggers saying that he's going to admit 100,000 Syrians is getting tiring. They are either lying or intentional misinterpreting what he says.

I searched for a transcript of his 'Easter speech' and it hasn't been posted yet. Tell you what, find me a direct quote from Obama where he says he's going to admit 100,000 Syrians this year and I'll admit that I'm wrong. Can you do that?

I meant his twitter here. http://www.thegatewa...-in-next-2-yrs/

The speech was to show how carefully he tiptoes around linking islam to terrorism.

The twitter account is Obama's and they are his words so the site isn't relevant. Do you expect Mother Jones and the NY Times? I am forced to use right leaning sites because the MSM has rendered themselves as useless as Pravda during the Soviet days. They just don't report things that hurt the party. Sadly, the best sources for information are overseas but when using right wing sites I stick to the subject's direct words, tweets etc. so bias isn't an issue. You can't find bad news about democrats in your press bud.

BTW, all. I had some work done on my back today and am not anywhere near 100% intellectually because of the meds so please bear with me and maybe I'll cease posting until after the meds wear off. My bad for posting.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Merc14

[Likely Guy]

http://nation.foxnew...g-100000-muslim

http://www.factcheck...yrian-refugees/

http://www.nytimes.c...ugees.html?_r=0

http://www.washingto...article/2586899

Thanks for the links but the first is a useless counterpoint because it references the same useless Washington Examiner article.

The second however does say, "Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina repeatedly have claimed that the Obama administration plans to accept anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 Syrian refugees. That’s false. By law, the administration can admit slightly more than 10,000 in fiscal year 2016, and no refugee commitments can be made beyond that."

The third says, "WASHINGTON — President Obama, under increasing pressure to demonstrate that the United States is joining European nations in the effort to resettle Syrian refugees, has told his administration to take in at least 10,000 displaced Syrians over the next year."

And the fourth is the same lying Washington Examiner article.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Sakari]

Thanks for the links but the first is a useless counterpoint because it references the same useless Washington Examiner article.

The second however does say, "Trump, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina repeatedly have claimed that the Obama administration plans to accept anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 Syrian refugees. That’s false. By law, the administration can admit slightly more than 10,000 in fiscal year 2016, and no refugee commitments can be made beyond that."

The third says, "WASHINGTON — President Obama, under increasing pressure to demonstrate that the United States is joining European nations in the effort to resettle Syrian refugees, has told his administration to take in at least 10,000 displaced Syrians over the next year."

And the fourth is the same lying Washington Examiner article.

Thanks for proving my point.

Wasn't proving anyone's....I am at work, things going smooth, so bored.

One link showed his tweet........

And does it really matter?......Arguing over a trivial number?

He is letting them in, period.

[Merc14]

Maybe thread on immigration and refugees is called for as this thing has gone way off topic.

[Likely Guy]

I meant his twitter here. http://www.thegatewa...-in-next-2-yrs/

We've addressed that in this thread already.

Obama said: "We're also increasing the number of Syrian and other refugees we admit to the U.S. to 100,000 per year for the next two years." That does not mean 100,000 Syrians.

While the right wing article writer states: "In September Barack Obama bragged on Twitter the US would increase the number of Syrian “refugees” by 100,000 in the next two years."

My reading comprehension is fine.

[Likely Guy]

Wasn't proving anyone's....I am at work, things going smooth, so bored.

One link showed his tweet........

And does it really matter?......Arguing over a trivial number?

He is letting them in, period.

I'm bored as well, but what bothers me are fake news sites and bloggers that lie and/or intentionally distort the truth. That, and I'm worried that people sometimes believe their lies and use them to further a misguided agenda.

Edited March 29, 2016 by Likely Guy

[Merc14]

We've addressed that in this thread already.

Obama said: "We're also increasing the number of Syrian and other refugees we admit to the U.S. to 100,000 per year for the next two years." That does not mean 100,000 Syrians.

While the right wing article writer states: "In September Barack Obama bragged on Twitter the US would increase the number of Syrian “refugees” by 100,000 in the next two years."

My reading comprehension is fine.

His words are picked for a reason and the courts have called him on his horrible policies last year http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSKCN0SZ04W20151110 The SCOTUS will split which means the lower court decision stands. Obama will do his worst before that decision is reached and we will have tens of thousands from Iraq and Syria fed into the country unless Congress acts, which it won't. Nitpicking his words is as irrelevant as wondering which tree will burn in a forest fire

[Likely Guy]

And does it really matter?......Arguing over a trivial number?

He is letting them in, period.

There's a big difference between 10k and 100k yes?

And why not let them in? They are families who've been there for up to five years. Do you really believe that ISIS planted fighters in refugee camps that long ago, with their families?