Quote:
Originally posted by tw
Well since you are more interested in personal attacks rather than facts, then get this fact. Terrorist are only massing in your brain. Yes you are that stupid. Or you can stop with your nonsense now. Stick to facts.
Anyone can recruit terrorists most anywhere. That is a fact. Most everywhere can be fertile ground for an extremist. So why would terrorists not use illegal immigration channels? Investing in a major terror attack is a major undertaking. People who become terrorists are typically so extremist as to require extensive training and extra careful planning. Need we cite Richard Reed who could not even give himself a hot foot? Need we cite Mousai. Complications for any terrorist attack are why Cheney et al insisted only states could perform such terrorism.
Entering America via illegal immigration channels is just too risky. Terrorist would use easier channels such as passports and visas - legal channels. When two out of three illegal immigrants get caught, then that channel is just too unreliable for terrorist use. Easier to go to England, get a plane to Canada (no passport required), then enter the US. It’s all legal.
But then if terrorists were so desperate to get into the US, where are those attacks every month. Oh. There is not and was not a massive world wide terror organization that required military deployment to the borders. Where are all these masses of terrorist that must exist according to your world perspectives? Only those hyped in a mythical 'war on terrorism' see terrorists 'massing' everywhere. The threat is minor, easily solved when law enforcement is permitted to do its job, and is an internal threat. Worldwide, the great acts of terrorism come from domestics.
Threat of terrorism via illegal immigration is obviously not how it would be done. Where they are recuited makes near zero difference. How they can be implemented in a plan is obviously far more critical. This terrorism threat is wildly over hyped in speculation to those who feel rather than first learn facts.
Noboxes - learn to post logically or we will have to discuss the penis hanging below your mother. We can make this messy - or you can end it now by being logical and civil. I did not start personal attacking. I am not the one who should stop it now. I am also not the one promoting 'fears and myths'; rhetoric from a George Jr administration and Rush Limbaugh. You have facts? Then post those facts - without all that smug mockery.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
They cannot sell their sugar because our politicians created that problem. Bullshit is not answering the question: why did virtually the entire world walk out three days early in Cancun blaming the US for unfair trading? Why did they complain that we – using corporate welfare - make many agricultural jobs virtually impossible in Central and South American and Africa? It is their fault that American taxpayers subsidized sugar by 50%. It is their fault that the world's most productive producers of methanol cannot sell to the US? Oh. It’s not our fault that we should freely enrich the rich - at the expense of other nations?
When you are ready to stop denying the Doha round of GAAT, and then we are ready to discuss what has and has not created illegal immigration. They don't live in a hellhole. They live in what could be some of the world’s most productive region for sugar, cotton, methanol, corn, et al ... if America went back to being a free trade nation.
Did they dump sugar on world markets at prices lower than it costs to produce? No. America does that. We do that to enrich selective campaign fund contributors. And no, it is not your problem if you are the rich subsidized agricultural business executive being paid by the US government to pervert world sugar prices. But if you define why a hellhole exists in what could be productive nations, then tell us why virtually all nations pointed at the US in Cancun? Obviously they must be mistaken. Those involved in world agricultural trade point fingers at the problem makers – US and France.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
A mass of 17 terrorists. Now we must deploy troops on the Canadian border because terrorist acting as illegal Canadian immigrants are trying to kill us? Or maybe it is nothing more than a law enforcement problem?
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
Absolutely when what is not a mass is one or two. Or maybe the entire hype and fear about terrorism is too much hooey. Maybe all those terrorist attacks stopped before 11 September demonstrate what terrorism is really about, how much a threat it really is, and what is necessary to stop terrorism.
Terrorism tied to illegal immigration is akin to selling cheese mined from the moon.
Central America is so ripe for terrorism. Therefore terrorist will come from Central America. Maybe we should drink a Molson and think about it first.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by tw
I was looking for an official definition for a 'mass of terrorists'. Found this picture from Abu Ghraid. A mass is five naked terrorists.
Apparently many have weird ideas of what massing is. Just watch Catholics chanting every Sunday morning.
|
tw,
I'm happy to see that your opinions aren't prejudiced by any knowledge on the subject. You come across as a been nowhere, done nothing kind of person who simply regurgitates what others have written and tries to reduce everyone else to that same low common denominator. Of course, your selections reflect only your agenda. Herein,
I've regurgitated what
you have written. Enjoy, it's your reward for continuing to amuse me as I requested.