Trump bars door to refugees, visitors from seven nations

[ilostmypassword]

9 minutes ago, ajarngreg said:

35-year-old armed toddlers included? 

Funny you should mention toddlers. In 2015 more Americans were killed by toddlers than by terrorists.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

So maybe Trump should ban toddlers, too?

[ajarngreg]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Funny you should mention toddlers. In 2015 more Americans were killed by toddlers than by terrorists.

http://www.snopes.com/toddlers-killed-americans-terrorists/

So maybe Trump should ban toddlers, too?

 

Honestly speaking, he acts like a toddler. Could he ban himself? 

[Thakkar]

The Onion is struggling to parody an already ridiculous administration, but this headline is a good effort:

 

"FBI Uncovers Al-Qaeda Plot To Just Sit Back and Enjoy Collapse of US"

 

http://www.theonion.com/article/fbi-uncovers-al-qaeda-plot-to-just-sit-back-and-en-35788

[Opl]

3 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

The stated reason for barring refugees—to protect Americans—is not just a lie, it's total BS.

 

The actual number of refugees who have become extremists in the United States has been estimated at between three and 12 — out of the more than 800,000 who have resettled here since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

https://www.newamerica.org/in-depth/terrorism-in-america/who-are-terrorists/

 

Whatever terrorist attacks have happened in America since 9/11 have been at the hands of homegrown terrorists not refugees or immigrants.

 

From 1975 to 2016, not a single American was killed in a terrorist attack on US soil from any of the 7 countries banned by Trump.
~ source: Alex Nowrasteh, CATO institute.

 

Meanwhile, in the same period, the number of Americans killed by other gun-toting Americans: 300,000

 

So what is the purpose of this flurry of activities and Executive Orders? 

To create chaos, sow divisions, rile up anger, help Bannon and his team of white supremacists identify staunch supporters/collaborators who can be counted on to join their future Brownshirts, identify enemies among the opponents who could lead resistance, who pose threats.

 

The chaos is also a prelude to stricter security laws.

 

The following are from past interviews Trump and Bannon have given. If reading it gives you a boner instead of a chill—congratulations, you're a future collaborator in the destruction of democracy.

 

 

Bannon (who openly wants to transform the Grand Old Party into a populist formation and has, it seems, established a relationship of trust with Jared Kushner )  knows exactly where he wants to lead Trump in the staging of the rupture that the new Administration wants to operate, when signing presidential decrees as well as during telephone conversations with foreign leaders.

A text initialed Saturday by Trump guarantees a role to the ideologist of the campaign in all strategic meetings of the National Security Council led by former General Michael Flynn.

 

So Bannon will be key in the definition and the declination of US Foreign Policy....

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/clips-from-breitbart-radio-show-reveal-trumps-relationship-with-stephen-bannon/2016/11/15/5854c606-ab89-11e6-8f19-21a1c65d2043_video.html

 

How Bannon flattered and coaxed Trump on policies key to the alt-right

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered-and-coaxed-trump-on-policies-key-to-the-alt-right/2016/11/15/53c66362-ab69-11e6-a31b-4b6397e625d0_story.html?utm_term=.5aebb6ad48e3

Edited January 30, 2017 by Opl

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

5 hours ago, Norrad said:

Trump should hurry up and build that wall! Best to keep all those dangerous Americans from getting out :-P

 

That's a pretty misleading chart, because the data focuses on 10 year averages of data -- instead of just the past year Dec. 2015-Dec. 2016 in the U.S. when there was a growing (perhaps unprecedented in the U.S.) spate of Muslim extremist terrorist attacks both by U.S.-born and immigrant Muslim fanatics, several of whom publicly made expressions of allegiance or admiration for various ISIL leaders and the like.

 

The terrorism death and injury toll in the U.S. from the past year isn't going to surpass generic gun violence nationwide, of course (which is its own form of lunacy and non-idealogic terrorism), but its certainly going to substantially bump up the chart's "jihadist terrorist"-related deaths. And of course the chart above doesn't reflect injuries/woundings at all.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

49 killed, 53 wounded -- terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslim

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack

13 wounded in car ramming & mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali emigrant

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Minnesota_mall_stabbing

10 wounded in mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali refugee

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

14 killed, 22 wounded - terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslims

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[lungmi]

Forget all the small discussions, we have to go to the center of the problem.  Trump wants to make  the US great again (he says  America, but he forgets Canada).  He can do  it, no Problem. First step:   Demolition ball for all what is American history culture and ethics.. And then? He will make his America great again, in his Hospital for dementia. I wish him the best. His followers put him there.

 

[Thakkar]

40 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

That's a pretty misleading chart, because the data focuses on 10 year averages of data -- instead of just the past year Dec. 2015-Dec. 2016 in the U.S. when there was a growing (perhaps unprecedented in the U.S.) spate of Muslim extremist terrorist attacks both by U.S.-born and immigrant Muslim fanatics, several of whom publicly made expressions of allegiance or admiration for various ISIL leaders and the like.

 

The terrorism death and injury toll in the U.S. from the past year isn't going to surpass generic gun violence nationwide, of course (which is its own form of lunacy and non-idealogic terrorism), but its certainly going to substantially bump up the chart's "jihadist terrorist"-related deaths. And of course the chart above doesn't reflect injuries/woundings at all.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

49 killed, 53 wounded -- terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslim

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack

13 wounded in car ramming & mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali emigrant

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Minnesota_mall_stabbing

10 wounded in mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali refugee

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

14 killed, 22 wounded - terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslims

 

Ok, let's look at raw numbers instead of averages. how many terrorist attacks  have there been in the last eight years?

 

Answer: 18 incidents as of Nov 28, 2016 with a total of 50 fatalities. The fatality number includes the perpetrators of the attacks. Most of the civilian fatalities occurred in 3 incidents: in Texas in 2009, The Boston bombing in 2013, and SAN Bernardino in 2015. ( http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html the compilation is comprehensive and well-sourced with all sources listed at the end)

 

This is no trivial number, but in comparison to the rest of the world, it is not huge. Considering the number of enemies the US has amassed with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its support of Israel despite its continued building of illegal settlements, it is surprisingly small and that has to be credited to the competent works by various agencies and police departments.

 

One life is as valuable as any other. The number of deaths from gun related ACCIDENTS is higher (much, much higher) than deaths from Islamic terrorism and yet almost nothing is done about sensible gun control. But I digress. Sorry.

 

Will Trump be able to reduce the number of "Islamist terrorist attacks" from the current average of 2.2 a year to something less? Perhaps. But so could any other president, because such prevention work is on-going regardless of president.

 

Talking tough and wagging your finger at an entire religion makes good headlines and gives bigots a nice boner but does nothing to actually reduce terrorism. If anything, such behavior by a leader risks scuttling much good work already being done to reduce terrorism.

[MadMuhummad]

4 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

When you make somebody sit in the back of the bus, it doesn't matter whether it's for 100 days or 100 years. Trump's action was a calculated and mean-spirited humiliation. There was no imminent need for this, other than to satisfy his narcissistic need to appear presidential.

I still give him the respect of following through with his pre-election promises, whether they're constitutional or not.

brttter than most elected politicians in recent history.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, MadMuhummad said:

I still give him the respect of following through with his pre-election promises, whether they're constitutional or not.

brttter than most elected politicians in recent history.

Yes to go ahead with something massively stupid and destructive because he promised to is certainly very admirable.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Thakkar said:

Ok, let's look at raw numbers instead of averages. how many terrorist attacks  have there been in the last eight years?

 

Answer: 18 incidents as of Nov 28, 2016 with a total of 50 fatalities. The fatality number includes the perpetrators of the attacks. Most of the civilian fatalities occurred in 3 incidents: in Texas in 2009, The Boston bombing in 2013, and SAN Bernardino in 2015. ( http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/wrjp255a.html the compilation is comprehensive and well-sourced with all sources listed at the end)

 

The numbers you're quoting above are incomplete and perhaps that's due to the differing and sometimes questionable judgments about just whether any particular attack is officially considered a terrorist attack.

 

But since the number of fatalities you quote is 50 total thru end of November 2016, that obviously doesn't include the June 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting that alone was responsible for 49 deaths and 53 or so wounded. There were varying officials statements opining on whether it was a terrorist attack, hate crime, combination of the two, etc.

 

But this was enough for me:

 

Quote

In a 9-1-1 call shortly after the shooting began, Mateen swore allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and said the shooting was "triggered" by the U.S. killing of Abu Waheeb in Iraq the previous month. He later told a negotiator he was "out here right now" because of the American-led interventions in Iraq and in Syria, and that the negotiator should tell the United States to stop bombing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

 

Previously, the U.S. government insisted that the 2009 Fort Hood mass shootings by a Muslim Army psychiatrist (13 dead and more than 30 others injured) was not (and has not since been) classified as a terrorist attack, despite pretty plain and clear evidence of Islamic extremism and ideology being core parts of the shooter's motivation, along with the fact that he was going to be deployed soon to Afghanistan.

 

Perhaps the U.S. Army at the time wasn't too keen on acknowledging to the world that they had a U.S. born, radicalized Islamic fundamentalist terrorist serving as an officer in their ranks. Much neater to just call it an act of "workplace violence."

 

Quote

 

Hasan's description of motives

In August 2013, Fox News released documents from Hasan in which he explained his motives. Most of the documents included the acronym "SoA", which is considered shorthand for "Soldier of Allah." In one document, Hasan wrote that he was required to renounce any oaths that required him to defend any man-made constitution over the commandments mandated in Islam. In another document, he wrote "I invite the world to read the book of All-Mighty Allah and decide for themselves if it is the truth from their Lord. My desire is to help people attain heaven by the mercy of their Lord."^[144]

In another document, Hasan wrote that there is a fundamental and irreconcilable conflict between American democracy and Islamic governance. Specifically:

. . . in an American democracy, 'we the people' govern according to what 'we the people' think is right or wrong, even if it specifically goes against what All-Mighty God commands.

He further explained that separation of Church and State is an unacceptable attempt to get along with unbelievers, because "Islam was brought to prevail over other religions" and not to be equal with or subservient to them.^[144]

 

 

 

and

 

Quote

Once, while presenting what was supposed to be a medical lecture to other psychiatrists, Hasan talked about Islam, and said that, according to the Koran, non-believers would be sent to hell, decapitated, set on fire, and have burning oil poured down their throats. A Muslim psychiatrist in the audience raised his hand, and challenged Hasan's claims.^[111] According to the Associated Press, Hasan's lecture also "justified suicide bombings."^[112] In the summer of 2009, after completion of his programs, he was transferred to Fort Hood.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting#Possible_motives

 

So, let's not go off quoting statistics that try to gloss over or underrepresent just what's been going on here.

Edited January 30, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The numbers you're quoting above are incomplete and perhaps that's due to the differing and sometimes questionable judgments about just whether any particular attack is officially considered a terrorist attack.

 

But since the number of fatalities you quote is 50 total thru end of November 2016, that obviously doesn't include the June 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting that alone was responsible for 49 deaths and 53 or so wounded. There were varying officials statements opining on whether it was a terrorist attack, hate crime, combination of the two, etc.

 

But this was enough for me:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

 

Previously, the U.S. government insisted that the 2009 Fort Hood mass shootings by a Muslim Army psychiatrist (13 dead and more than 30 others injured) was not (and has not since been) classified as a terrorist attack, despite pretty plain and clear evidence of Islamic extremism and ideology being core parts of the shooter's motivation, along with the fact that he was going to be deployed soon to Afghanistan.

 

Perhaps the U.S. Army at the time wasn't too keen on acknowledging to the world that they had a U.S. born, radicalized Islamic fundamentalist terrorist serving as an officer in their ranks. Much neater to just call it an act of "workplace violence."

 

and

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting#Possible_motives

 

So, let's not go off quoting statistics that try to gloss over or underrepresent just what's been going on here.

So, given that the numbers with these incidents excluded would amount to a fraction of 1 percent of all murders committed in the USA within a given year, with these incidents included the numbers would amount to a massive fraction of 1 percent of all murders committed in the USA within a given year.

[3NUMBAS]

Gert Wilders agrees it's a good start 

[Thakkar]

17 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The numbers you're quoting above are incomplete and perhaps that's due to the differing and sometimes questionable judgments about just whether any particular attack is officially considered a terrorist attack.

 

But since the number of fatalities you quote is 50 total thru end of November 2016, that obviously doesn't include the June 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting that alone was responsible for 49 deaths and 53 or so wounded. There were varying officials statements opining on whether it was a terrorist attack, hate crime, combination of the two, etc.

 

But this was enough for me:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

 

Previously, the U.S. government insisted that the 2009 Fort Hood mass shootings by a Muslim Army psychiatrist (13 dead and more than 30 others injured) was not (and has not since been) classified as a terrorist attack, despite pretty plain and clear evidence of Islamic extremism and ideology being core parts of the shooter's motivation, along with the fact that he was going to be deployed soon to Afghanistan.

 

Perhaps the U.S. Army at the time wasn't too keen on acknowledging to the world that they had a U.S. born, radicalized Islamic fundamentalist terrorist serving as an officer in their ranks. Much neater to just call it an act of "workplace violence."

 

and

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting#Possible_motives

 

So, let's not go off quoting statistics that try to gloss over or underrepresent just what's been going on here.

There's no glossing or under representing going on.

 

the Fort Hood numbers are included. The Orlando numbers aren't because an official determination has not yet been made as to its nature.

 

even if including the Orlando shootings as Islamic Terrorism, the argument does not change.

 

the executive order does nothing to make America safer and probably makes things worse. To reiterate my argument earlier in the thread: this actions seems to be about throwing red meat to Trump's Deplorables, fermenting divisions, creating chaos, providing smokescreen for other actions, identifying enemies and friends of the regime, etc. it is definitely NOT about securing safety for Americans from Islamic terrorism.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

So, given that the numbers with these incidents excluded would amount to a fraction of 1 percent of all murders committed in the USA within a given year, with these incidents included the numbers would amount to a massive fraction of 1 percent of all murders committed in the USA within a given year.

I'm not sure what your point is. Unfortunately in the U.S., random criminal gun violence (because of woefully lax gun laws) is always going to exceed pretty much anything in terms of the number of incidents and the fatalities involved.

 

But when you get at least 4 separate Islamic fundamentalist-motivated mass casualty attacks in the space of just one year in the U.S, that ought to be a pretty strong wake-up call to anyone with half a brain that there's a growing pattern of Islamic radicalism occurring inside the U.S. by both U.S. born and foreign-born Muslims.

 

BTW, the running list of Islamic-related mass casualty attacks in the U.S. that I've been posting here hasn't thus far included, but should, the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings by a pair of Chechen emigrant brothers Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev who were motivated by Islamic extremist beliefs. So add in three more dead and several hundred injured from that attack.

 

Quote

During questioning Dzhokhar alleged that he and his brother were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that they were self-radicalized and unconnected to any outside terrorist groups, and that he was following his brother's lead. He said they learned to build explosive devices from an online magazine of the al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen.^[19] He also said they had intended to travel to New York City to bomb Times Square. On April 8, 2015 he was convicted of thirty charges, including use of a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death,^[7][20] and the following month was sentenced to death.^[21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[JetsetBkk]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:19 PM, WaywardWind said:

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:40 PM, zorro1 said:

Well he can't ban American terrorism obviously. But he can stop the terrorist from abroad.

Even one life saved is worth the effort. American lives should not become collateral damage just to be politicaly correct

Good on you trump

If that were the true goal - stopping terrorists from abroad - then why leave off the list the countries where terrorists historically have originated from?  Two reasons that I can think of - oil, and Trump investments.

 

 

The list is Obama's. 

 

 

[Thakkar]

Some good news:

 

The ACLU which is defending the affected travelers reported that they have, over the weekend, received over $24M from over 350,000 individual doners.

 

To put this in perspective, they normally get $4 million A YEAR from online donations.

[Jingthing]

Gert Wilders agrees it's a good start 

La Pen and the Greek NeoNazis as well.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Some good news:

 

The ACLU which is defending the affected travelers reported that they have, over the weekend, received over $24M from over 350,000 individual doners.

 

To put this in perspective, they normally get $4 million A YEAR from online donations.

 

I hope the ACLU is successful in challenging the application of the travel ban against citizens of the listed countries who are:

--employees of the U.S. government and military

--holders of valid U.S. green cards

--even B (business) holders.

--and even a humanitarian exception for children, those needing medical care, etc.

 

But the rest, NO.

 

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

But when you get at least 4 separate Islamic fundamentalist-motivated mass casualty attacks in the space of just one year in the U.S, that ought to be a pretty strong wake-up call to anyone with half a brain that there's a growing pattern of Islamic radicalism occurring inside the U.S. by both U.S. born and foreign-born Muslims.

 

 

4 attacks?  What year was that?

[ilostmypassword]

11 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

The list is Obama's. 

 

 

As I understand it, the list was created by congress and included in the budget bill. So Obama's choice was to veto the bill or let this list get through. He didn't create it.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, lungmi said:

Trump wants to make  the US great again (he says  America, but he forgets Canada)

He can do  it, no Problem. First step: Demolition ball for all what is American history

culture and ethics..

You need to read up better on your understanding of U.S. history.

 

U.S. history is replete with immigration restrictions and popular anti-immigrant movements against people of various countries at various points in time for all kinds of different reasons. Almost everyone has been on the losing end of those immigration restrictions at some point in U.S. history, including Chinese, Irish, Italians, Germans, Japanese, and on and on. Not saying that's good, just saying, that's the real history of things, contrary to your belief.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

4 attacks?  What year was that?

At least... Dec. 2015 to Dec. 2016:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Orlando_nightclub_shooting

June 2016 - 49 killed, 53 wounded -- terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslim

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Ohio_State_University_attack

Nov. 2016 - 13 wounded in car ramming & mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali emigrant

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Minnesota_mall_stabbing

Sept. 2016 - 10 wounded in mass stabbing -- terrorist attack by Muslim/Somali refugee

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_San_Bernardino_attack

Dec. 2015 - 14 killed, 22 wounded - terrorist shooting attack by U.S. born Muslims

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I have pretty much nothing but loathing when it comes to Trump as president.

 

But when it comes to immigration policy, I don't want to see the U.S. follow in the sorry, crime and extremist-ridden footsteps of Germany, France, Belgium, Sweden and others.

[Jingthing]

You need to read up better on your understanding of U.S. history.

 

U.S. history is replete with immigration restrictions and popular anti-immigrant movements against people of various countries at various points in time for all kinds of different reasons. Almost everyone has been on the losing end of those immigration restrictions at some point in U.S. history, including Chinese, Irish, Italians, Germans, Japanese, and on and on. Not saying that's good, just saying, that's the real history of things, contrary to your belief.

It's wasn't good then. It's not good now.

[JetsetBkk]

10 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

As I understand it, the list was created by congress and included in the budget bill. So Obama's choice was to veto the bill or let this list get through. He didn't create it.

 

  Well of course he didn't create the list personally !  It was his administration's -  and nothing to do with oil or Trump investments as the uneducated lefties suggest...

 

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 4:19 PM, WaywardWind said:

If that were the true goal - stopping terrorists from abroad - then why leave off the list the countries where terrorists historically have originated from?  Two reasons that I can think of - oil, and Trump investments.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Just now, Jingthing said:

It's not good then. It's not good now.

The reasons for excluding or restricting immigration by those various national groups in the past were mostly, AFAIK, based in ethnic/nationalistic prejudice and economics-job protection. And I certainly don't support ethnic or nationalistic prejudice as the basis for immigration restrictions.

 

However, in the current circumstance, the temporary restrictions (and presumably the eventual permanent policies) are supposed to be aimed at preventing an influx of potential Muslim extremism into the U.S.  And unlike the prior eras, no one's going to make a legitimate argument that Muslim extremism and terrorism isn't a legitimate, real thread to the U.S. and its citizens.

 

Now, it's perfectly possible to have a debate on whether the specific policy promulgated by Trump is the correct/best way to prevent an influx of Muslim extremism into the U.S.  But nobody much seems to want to have that discussion. Instead, it's all been about, no, you shouldn't impose any more restrictions on the abilities of Muslims to enter the U.S. or you're engaging in religious discrimination.

 

To me, whatever we end up doing, I hope we're engaging in a very strong form of terrorist/terrorism discrimination.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's a suggestion:

 

I'd say, waive Trump's policy for any adult Muslim who's willing to come to the U.S. and successfully complete say two years of paid community service working with Jewish charities, Christian-Catholic charities, gay and lesbian groups, etc etc.

 

If they successfully complete that kind of program and show they can integrate with U.S. society and be tolerant of those around them who may hold different beliefs and views and faiths, then I'd say -- WELCOME TO AMERICA.

 

You're the kind of immigrants the U.S. should want. Because that kind of person is what the U.S. really is supposed to be about. Not the ones who fester in anger because those around them don't necessarily hold the same beliefs and they can't abide those who don't.

 

Edited January 30, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[KhonKaenKowboy]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Thakkar said:

 

Will Trump be able to reduce the number of "Islamist terrorist attacks" from the current average of 2.2 a year to something less? Perhaps. But so could any other president, because such prevention work is on-going regardless of president.

 

Trump's main focus is not on reducing terrorist incidents - although he would like to. It is on preventing FUTURE attacks that could be as bad as 9/11 or even worse. There have been reports of Islamic terrorist groups trying to buy radioactive materials to put together a dirty bomb.

Citing statistics about former terrorist attacks completly ignores the fact that Islamic Terrorism is growing and they want to create as many casualties as possible.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Ulysses G.

[elliss]

On ‎28‎/‎01‎/‎2017 at 2:19 PM, nottocus said:

Excellent news.

 

  I will second that ,  from  a  born again  Christian .