Terror Plots Against the US by Country of Origin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This pretty much sums up my refugee grandparents. But part of the deal is what happens with the second generation. I'm guessing many parents do this, but their kids recoil looking for 'identity'. They are then susceptible to homicidal messaging. If the community is not actively pushing back on this (is the immediate community doing enough?) and if you are not being pulled successfully into mainstream society, it's a problem. As we welcome 50,000 we need to be cognizant of what is happening in these communities to the first and second generation. The fact that the Pulse guy was hearing negative messaging in mosque, his dad was a terrible ass with vocal viewpoints who made trouble with the school about listening to women, the community knew he was weird, his coworkers lodged complaints that went nowhere, his wife did not turn him in, the FBI did not act on so many red flags, he could buy a gun (this loophole needs to be closed, and I'm a conservative. If the FBI is investigating you, you get on a waiting list for a gun - a long waiting list)--just makes me think we do not know how to properly deal with first and second generation refugees or immigrants from Islamic countries. We need to figure that out, first.

Prior generations had immigrants and children of immigrants assimilating, fighting in the Civil War, ww1, ww2. Not this conflict or negative messages. Some Christians changed here from RC or Eastern Orthodox to various Protestant denominations. Happy to be here, pay taxes, go to school, vote, belong to volunteer fire companies, etc.

FBI investigation with cause [ie mateen] should mean permanently no fly[unless leaving permanently ], no gun, no security job. No sponsering a bride etc.
But how do you deal with the bombers? Note police man and wife killed and the French Citizen Islamic Terrorist broadcast the video. Freaks.

No gun I can see... no fly permanently because you are on a list, perhaps unjustly? That's nuts. same with sponsoring a spouse. At some point there needs to be a formal process to contest being on a list with valid evidence for being on that list for me to agree to some of those prohibitions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This conversation is based on an infographic produced by the Heritage Foundation. Nothing produced by the Heritage Foundation is actually worthy of serious discussion.

That's fine - show me another data chart for country of citizenship of terrorists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

Are you implying we can't possibly identify regions/areas that have terrorist activities we should be concerned about? Are we this politically correct and stupid? How about we start with countries/regions where people came from already attacked us - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, areas of Belgium and France, Somalia ... ?

For Europe we deal with it the same way the UK and Canada denied entry to members of Westboro Baptist Church.

so banning 30 individuals of which we know names and last names is equal to dealing with 500 millions people from one of the largest economy in the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When earlier immigrants came:

1. They did not fly home frequently.
2. They did not communicate on a daily basis with the "old country"....
3. They did not have dual passports--because they seldom traveled.
4. Their allegiance changed to US--they may have been proud of their heritage, but their loyalties were not divided.
5. They did not criticize the US as much--because they were grateful to be here.

+1,000,000

Listen up, people.

-1,000,000. this is so 1980, when would be terrorists had to go to Afganistan or Yemen to train and get radicalized. there is Internet today people, this is how crazies like the guy in Orlando self radicalize, they may be born in the US, do not need any passport, not even the US one, they may never leave the US in their lifetime and they still get radicalized watching videos and doing chats with people the other side of the world. and none of the people who did attacks inspired by radical Islam in the US were immigrants (actually, even the one in Europe were second or third generation, born in France or Belgium)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

Are you implying we can't possibly identify regions/areas that have terrorist activities we should be concerned about? Are we this politically correct and stupid? How about we start with countries/regions where people came from already attacked us - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, areas of Belgium and France, Somalia ... ?

Do you see how silly is what you are saying? I understand it may make you feel better and safer saying let's ban all the terrorists but practically how would you do it? banning people from areas of Belgium and France? like how? if you are resident in Saint Denis in Paris you cannot have a VISA? so if a would be terrorist simply moves to another neighborhood then he would be allowed in the US? how do you check where people are from? where they were born? where they are legally residents? my brother and I worked for years in towns hundreds of miles from our parents' home and still had residency at my parents' home (in my country in Europe you need to officially tell the government where you live, often an officer of the local government visits you without notice and check that you are really leaving there, if you move somewhere else but do not communicate that t the government you keep the residency in the same place). so people can be resident in one place and actually live elsewhere. are you going to ban anybody residing in Brussels? or people who have resided there in the past 5 years? you can leave out entire countries (and what about people with dual US citizenship?) but how can you ban people from "areas of Belgium?"

BTW, a white anglosaxon guy from Indiana from arrested in LA with an arsenal of weapon while waiting for the start of the gay parade there (after heightened security after the Orlando tragedy. sounds like you may want to add some areas of the US to the list.

[Anonymous]

A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

Are you implying we can't possibly identify regions/areas that have terrorist activities we should be concerned about? Are we this politically correct and stupid? How about we start with countries/regions where people came from already attacked us - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, areas of Belgium and France, Somalia ... ?

Do you see how silly is what you are saying? I understand it may make you feel better and safer saying let's ban all the terrorists but practically how would you do it? banning people from areas of Belgium and France? like how? if you are resident in Saint Denis in Paris you cannot have a VISA? so if a would be terrorist simply moves to another neighborhood then he would be allowed in the US? how do you check where people are from? where they were born? where they are legally residents? my brother and I worked for years in towns hundreds of miles from our parents' home and still had residency at my parents' home (in my country in Europe you need to officially tell the government where you live, often an officer of the local government visits you without notice and check that you are really leaving there, if you move somewhere else but do not communicate that t the government you keep the residency in the same place). so people can be resident in one place and actually live elsewhere. are you going to ban anybody residing in Brussels? or people who have resided there in the past 5 years? you can leave out entire countries (and what about people with dual US citizenship?) but how can you ban people from "areas of Belgium?"

BTW, a white anglosaxon guy from Indiana from arrested in LA with an arsenal of weapon while waiting for the start of the gay parade there (after heightened security after the Orlando tragedy. sounds like you may want to add some areas of the US to the list.

The problem really there are people who have no understanding of Geography, immigration, policy are throwing ideas to stop terrorism when they have no clue how hard it is. These are the same people who are buying into Trump's idea about stopping Terrorism. If Trump is shown a unmarked map I can bet that he cannot point Turkey from Uganda. I am feeling so sad and hopeless with his hate mongering and people buying into it!

[Anonymous]

When earlier immigrants came:

1. They did not fly home frequently.
2. They did not communicate on a daily basis with the "old country"....
3. They did not have dual passports--because they seldom traveled.
4. Their allegiance changed to US--they may have been proud of their heritage, but their loyalties were not divided.
5. They did not criticize the US as much--because they were grateful to be here.

Your list makes no sense. Just because people fly home frequently, and have regular communication with their family members and retain their old passports doesn't mean that these individuals aren't assimilating. It also doesn't mean that they have divided loyalties. Criticizing the US is what you are doing, but you are assimilated, I guess???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

I do not think Trump or his fans understand this... they also do not understand that majority of the mass death in US (barring 9/11) has been plotted inside US soil by American citizens and no amount of immigration ban will prevent those. One thing that can help is taking away people's access to mass murder weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

While this is very interesting, it might be more illuminating if more data about the American citizens were broken down.
Are the American terrorists recent immigrants? Of what extraction? Religious background?

Sorry but if they are all second generation Pakistanis then, we need to think about that. And I'm NOT a Trump supporter, at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

Are you implying we can't possibly identify regions/areas that have terrorist activities we should be concerned about? Are we this politically correct and stupid? How about we start with countries/regions where people came from already attacked us - Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, areas of Belgium and France, Somalia ... ?

Do you see how silly is what you are saying? I understand it may make you feel better and safer saying let's ban all the terrorists but practically how would you do it? banning people from areas of Belgium and France? like how? if you are resident in Saint Denis in Paris you cannot have a VISA? so if a would be terrorist simply moves to another neighborhood then he would be allowed in the US? how do you check where people are from? where they were born? where they are legally residents? my brother and I worked for years in towns hundreds of miles from our parents' home and still had residency at my parents' home (in my country in Europe you need to officially tell the government where you live, often an officer of the local government visits you without notice and check that you are really leaving there, if you move somewhere else but do not communicate that t the government you keep the residency in the same place). so people can be resident in one place and actually live elsewhere. are you going to ban anybody residing in Brussels? or people who have resided there in the past 5 years? you can leave out entire countries (and what about people with dual US citizenship?) but how can you ban people from "areas of Belgium?"

BTW, a white anglosaxon guy from Indiana from arrested in LA with an arsenal of weapon while waiting for the start of the gay parade there (after heightened security after the Orlando tragedy. sounds like you may want to add some areas of the US to the list.

The terrorists in the recent Paris and Brussels attack are from a couple of concentrated areas. Until there is a sophisticated process developed that can filter out bad applicants, we have no choice but to deny people from those areas. You don't see terrorist attacks happening in Japan. Maybe its tough immigration policy has something to do with it.

You already made up your mind that it's impossible to implement the ban. Why are you wasting time finding these corner cases to help your straw man argument against the impossible? Just sit back and let competent leaders do it. It's not that hard once you take out the political correctness out of the equation. No plan can filter out ALL the bad elements. But that doesn't mean we should do nothing and accept this is going to be the norm of our lives.

[Anonymous]

It's a very simple act to cancel "all* visas of people from Islamic countries and expel them. Jimmy Carter did in 1979 revoke 50,000 Iranian visas and ban all immigration to US from Iran. Note No actual terror attacks had been carried out by Iranians against US.

It is also very simple to revoke US citizenship of all naturalized citizens from these countries including their US born offspring, particularly those linked with Islam extremism. The FBI knows who they are.

It is also very easy to shut down all mosques associated with these activities. Mateen's mosque was known to harbor this, and his Imam had called for execution of gays. Why is he still running free?

The only issue is this: the understanding that we are at war. Jihad is war. During WW2, Japanese Americans were interned for this reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we are discussing Trump's plan to ban "immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies" I went looking what the data looks like.

http://www.heritage.org/multimedia/infographic/2013/07/terror-plots-against-the-us-by-country-of-origin

If this chart is correct, we are going ban citizens of UK to enter US for the time being...

What are we going to do about American citizens which tops the chart?

While this is very interesting, it might be more illuminating if more data about the American citizens were broken down.
Are the American terrorists recent immigrants? Of what extraction? Religious background?

Sorry but if they are all second generation Pakistanis then, we need to think about that. And I'm NOT a Trump supporter, at all.

Sorry but they are White Supremacists, hate gays or abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

I do not think Trump or his fans understand this... they also do not understand that majority of the mass death in US (barring 9/11) has been plotted inside US soil by American citizens and no amount of immigration ban will prevent those. One thing that can help is taking away people's access to mass murder weapon.

And private aircraft. And hardware store shopping for bomb ingredients. And motor vehicles. What else, Einstein?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A major threat to the world is not from any country but from Al Qaeda, a non-state, composed of people from many countries. That is why member of Al Qaeda are considered "enemy combatants," because Al Qaeda is an organization and has not protection under the Geneva Convention. Same for ISIL and ISIS -- they are not countries but a conglomeration of people from many countries including France, Belgium and the UK and Germany as well as the middle eastern countries mentioned.

I do not think Trump or his fans understand this... they also do not understand that majority of the mass death in US (barring 9/11) has been plotted inside US soil by American citizens and no amount of immigration ban will prevent those. One thing that can help is taking away people's access to mass murder weapon.

And private aircraft. And hardware store shopping for bomb ingredients. And motor vehicles. What else, Einstein?

With the exception of bomb ingredient, those things are regulated way more extensively than guns. Guns shouldn't be any different. Bombs that kill 49 people are hard to make.