Breaking: Van mows down people walking on London Bridge.

[TemplarKormac]

Eat dicks treasonous scum.

WHOA NELLY!

Here's someone accusing someone else of treason! What has she done that would constitute treason? Disagree with you?

 

[Rustic]

Islam is the most fucked up cult the world had ever known... and the people that are standing up for it they can all fuck off.
'They shouted 'this is for Allah', as they stabbed indiscriminately' - How the London terror attack unfolded

 

[depotoo]

Islam is more than a religion, it is a theocracy, non compatible with a Constitutional Republic. Are there some that are liberal Islamists? Yes, but more traditionalists and reformists..

Islam-
Law and jurisprudence-

Sharia is the religious law forming part of the Islamic tradition.[110] It is derived from the religious precepts of Islam, particularly the Quran and the Hadith. In Arabic, the term sharīʿah refers to God's divine law and is contrasted with fiqh, which refers to its scholarly interpretations.[111][112] The manner of its application in modern times has been a subject of dispute between Muslim traditionalists and reformists.[110]

The time for running and hiding is over. It's time to fight back!

By......?

Well, A country could Start by closing all Mosque within its' borders. Ban the Koran and Burka. Simply declare islam is NOT a religion. It is a cult used for political takeover. A Criminal Terrorist organization. Almost Like the DNC? Maybe they will then leave to move to ME countries? If not .............. jail them if found to practice cult in public or organized gatherings. step 1. Or let your Children become Lebanon.

I have a religion too. Church of Golf. Several meetings a week. I am more religious than islam. I don't want you to convert. Can I be tax-exempt also? Where does the IRS draw the line? The religion of shopping?

It's always fascinating to see how people like you and those who agree with you are so willing to take away the rights and freedoms of other people who have done nothing wrong.

Maybe some day some people will decide your religion...isn't. And you can be jailed for practicing it, or gathering with fellow believers, or having scripture....oh wait. That's been done before hasn't it?

And this is exactly what ISIS is aiming for. More blood, more innocent bodies, more religious division and persecutions and Armegeddon and you'll play right in to it.

islam is not a religion, but a murderous cult. These muslims could level a major American city and behead babes in their cribs and you sob sisters would rush to their defense.

"islam is not a religion".....says who?

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

Eat dicks treasonous scum.

WHOA NELLY!

Here's someone accusing someone else of treason! What has she done that would constitute treason? Disagree with you?

Those who have allowed the enemy in the gates and who continue to advocate on their behalf will suffer the fate reserved for all traitors, Je Suis Breivik, if you think we can't find you you're wrong, if you think you're safe you're not, watch your back we are coming!

 

[Coyote]

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwhelmed by huge numbers of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

You have precisely diagnosed the problem.

And yet I see some liberals on this board wanting to take the European approach to immigration. Just look at how that's turning out thus far. Instilling quotas would ensure that a country could vet asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants properly. Trump's travel ban, regardless of what if you think its a "Muslim ban" or not is what I see as an attempt to do just that. However, some believe that we are being bigoted and intolerant if we do.

I got some simple advice as a brash young teenager "don't bite off more than you can chew."

Pardon me...my mouth is full and I'm having trouble chewing....burp...that's better

I don't believe in unlimited immigration either. But, in reality we take in VERY few refugees - a fraction of what other countries have to contend with yet we have more resources and space to deal with it. So I'm not concerned that we'll be over run faster than we can assimilate. I support it, as long as they are well vetted and within our capacity to integrate. And part of that reason is also, because our actions have in part led to the disintegration of those countries - we bear some responsibility for the refugee situation that other countries - less well equipt then we are, are having to bear the brunt of.

 

[Dsc]

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwhelmed by huge numbers of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

You have precisely diagnosed the problem.

And yet I see some liberals on this board wanting to take the European approach to immigration. Just look at how that's turning out thus far. Instilling quotas would ensure that a country could vet asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants properly. Trump's travel ban, regardless of whether you think its a "Muslim ban" or not is what I see as an attempt to do just that. However, some believe that we are being bigoted and intolerant if we do.

I got some simple advice as a brash young teenager "don't bite off more than you can chew."

They aren't "Liberals" they are Leftists. They are our enemies, just like the child killing ali-babbas are. Make no mistake, they need to GTFO pieces of shit the lot of them.

I pray Shit doesn't hiot the fan, but I have a list.. some people need to die. Make a list and check it twice.

 

[DarkFury]

Eat dicks treasonous scum.

WHOA NELLY!

Here's someone accusing someone else of treason! What has she done that would constitute treason? Disagree with you?

Those who have allowed the enemy in the gates and who continue to advocate on their behalf will suffer the fate reserved for all traitors, Je Suis Breivik, if you think we can't find you you're wrong, if you think you're safe you're not, watch your back we are coming!

Those who make the choice seldom die. That is the fate of the little person. By the time leaders of the country die the little is long gone.

 

[Coyote]

I think it's more about real risk assessment rather than perceived risk - especially risks who's simplest solutions seem to involve conveniently scapegoating minorities for complex problems.

I didn't say anything about scapegoating minorities. In fact you've seen me defending them. There are people on this thread who want to take overly simplistic, blatantly unconstitutional measures against them. All I want is a rigorous vetting system, which I view is well within the bounds of our Constitution.

I agree - I was speaking broadly and partially in response to a lot of what is being said in this thread. And I agree about a rigorous vetting system, though I think we have a one in place that has been quite rigorous.

But what is the real risk that you will be involved in something this terrible? Chances are more likely you will be injured by a drunk driver or a random shooting then by a terrorist.

Sigh.

Coyote, nothing in life is a certainty, not even your safety. I can't take the "this will never happen to me" approach. Those people on that bridge didn't think they'd be mowed down by terrorists today. But they were.

Exactly! That's kind of the point I was making. It's not "this will never happen to me" - it's how likely is something to happen and how much should I worry about it? It means you take common sense security measures to protect our citizens, but it also means you look at how much of a threat it actually is when weighing the possible curtailment of people's rights and liberties.

I think we have to be careful. Look at all the rhetoric abounding. Look at people actively calling for totally innocent citizens to be rounded up, shot, expelled (never mind they've lived generations in the land of their citizenship) to foreign nations.

For the record, I am not one of those issuing such rhetoric. However, I think we're being TOO careful. We throw caution to the wind in order to be more accepting and tolerant of other people. That's what Europe is doing and it is suffering dearly for it.

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwelmed by huge numbers of migrants, assylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

Isolation is always the first thing immigrants do from the Irish in the 20s to the Vietnamese in the 70s. The difference was they did not bring the violence with them. Now the Cubans did but they were from Castro's prisons and mental hospitals.[/QUOTE]

Actually...that's not entirely true. Many immigrant groups have been accused of bringing violence, gangs etc. The Irish, Russians, Italians - good lord how can you forget the Mafia?

 

[DarkFury]

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwhelmed by huge numbers of migrants, asylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

You have precisely diagnosed the problem.

And yet I see some liberals on this board wanting to take the European approach to immigration. Just look at how that's turning out thus far. Instilling quotas would ensure that a country could vet asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants properly. Trump's travel ban, regardless of what if you think its a "Muslim ban" or not is what I see as an attempt to do just that. However, some believe that we are being bigoted and intolerant if we do.

I got some simple advice as a brash young teenager "don't bite off more than you can chew."

Pardon me...my mouth is full and I'm having trouble chewing....burp...that's better

I don't believe in unlimited immigration either. But, in reality we take in VERY few refugees - a fraction of what other countries have to contend with yet we have more resources and space to deal with it. So I'm not concerned that we'll be over run faster than we can assimilate. I support it, as long as they are well vetted and within our capacity to integrate. And part of that reason is also, because our actions have in part led to the disintegration of those countries - we bear some responsibility for the refugee situation that other countries - less well equipt then we are, are having to bear the brunt of.

What would be the harm of taking none for five years?

 

[depotoo]

Grounds for Revocation of Naturalization - Chapter 2, Part L, Volume 12 | Policy Manual | USCIS
Discovery that a person failed to comply with any of the requirements for naturalization at the time the person became a U.S. citizen renders his or her naturalization illegally procured. This applies even if the person is innocent of any willful deception or misrepresentation. [2]

In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on the following grounds:


A. Person Procures Naturalization Illegally

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if he or she procured naturalization illegally. Procuring naturalization illegally simply means that the person was not eligible for naturalization in the first place. Accordingly, any eligibility requirement for naturalization that was not met can form the basis for an action to revoke the naturalization of a person. This includes the requirements of residence, physical presence, lawful admission for permanent residence, good moral character, and attachment to the U.S. Constitution. [1]


B. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation [3]

1. Concealment of Material Fact or Willful Misrepresentation

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if there is deliberate deceit on the part of the person in misrepresenting or failing to disclose a material fact or facts on his or her naturalization application and subsequent examination.


In general, a person is subject to revocation of naturalization on this basis if:


•The naturalized U.S. citizen misrepresented or concealed some fact;

•The misrepresentation or concealment was willful;

•The misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material; and

•The naturalized U.S. citizen procured citizenship as a result of the misrepresentation or concealment. [4]


This ground of revocation includes omissions as well as affirmative misrepresentations. The misrepresentations can be oral testimony provided during the naturalization interview or can include information contained on the application submitted by the applicant. The courts determine whether the misrepresented or concealed fact or facts were material. The test for materiality is whether the misrepresentations or concealment had a tendency to affect the decision. It is not necessary that the information, if disclosed, would have precluded naturalization. [5]


2. Membership or Affiliation with Certain Organizations

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization. [6] In general, a person who is involved with such organizations cannot establish the naturalization requirements of having an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States. [7]


The fact that a person becomes involved with such an organization within five years after the date of naturalization is prima facie evidence that he or she concealed or willfully misrepresented material evidence that would have prevented the person’s naturalization.


C. Other than Honorable Discharge before Five Years of Honorable Service after Naturalization

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if:


•The person became a United States citizen through naturalization on the basis of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces; [8]


•The person subsequently separates from the U.S. armed forces under other than honorable conditions; and


•The other than honorable discharge occurs before the person has served honorably for a period or periods aggregating at least five years. [9]

They are citizens, but if naturalized their citizenship can be revoked, through judicial action.

The First was written for US citizens, not for the world.

and the terrorist supporter has now confirmed her identity.

"Terrorist supporter", eh? That label covers everyone who doesn't agree with you on trashing the 1st Amendment, doesn't it?

What about the US citizens who are Muslim?

But they would have to commit a crime, like a terrorist act, to have it revoked. Surely you wouldn't revoke it arbitrarily...would you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Eat dicks treasonous scum.

WHOA NELLY!

Here's someone accusing someone else of treason! What has she done that would constitute treason? Disagree with you?

Those who have allowed the enemy in the gates and who continue to advocate on their behalf will suffer the fate reserved for all traitors, Je Suis Breivik, if you think we can't find you you're wrong, if you think you're safe you're not, watch your back we are coming!

Are you high on something? Drunk perhaps?

 

[DarkFury]

I think it's more about real risk assessment rather than perceived risk - especially risks who's simplest solutions seem to involve conveniently scapegoating minorities for complex problems.

I didn't say anything about scapegoating minorities. In fact you've seen me defending them. There are people on this thread who want to take overly simplistic, blatantly unconstitutional measures against them. All I want is a rigorous vetting system, which I view is well within the bounds of our Constitution.

I agree - I was speaking broadly and partially in response to a lot of what is being said in this thread. And I agree about a rigorous vetting system, though I think we have a one in place that has been quite rigorous.

But what is the real risk that you will be involved in something this terrible? Chances are more likely you will be injured by a drunk driver or a random shooting then by a terrorist.

Sigh.

Coyote, nothing in life is a certainty, not even your safety. I can't take the "this will never happen to me" approach. Those people on that bridge didn't think they'd be mowed down by terrorists today. But they were.

Exactly! That's kind of the point I was making. It's not "this will never happen to me" - it's how likely is something to happen and how much should I worry about it? It means you take common sense security measures to protect our citizens, but it also means you look at how much of a threat it actually is when weighing the possible curtailment of people's rights and liberties.

I think we have to be careful. Look at all the rhetoric abounding. Look at people actively calling for totally innocent citizens to be rounded up, shot, expelled (never mind they've lived generations in the land of their citizenship) to foreign nations.

For the record, I am not one of those issuing such rhetoric. However, I think we're being TOO careful. We throw caution to the wind in order to be more accepting and tolerant of other people. That's what Europe is doing and it is suffering dearly for it.

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwelmed by huge numbers of migrants, assylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

Isolation is always the first thing immigrants do from the Irish in the 20s to the Vietnamese in the 70s. The difference was they did not bring the violence with them. Now the Cubans did but they were from Castro's prisons and mental hospitals.

Actually...that's not entirely true. Many immigrant groups have been accused of bringing violence, gangs etc. The Irish, Russians, Italians - good lord how can you forget the Mafia?[/QUOTE]
Oh I did not forget them but it took far longer for it to take hold. And it did start in their little on enclaves.

 

[Coyote]

Why we do not hear about something like that in Japan or Korea? Because there no muslims there.

They have Muslims in Japan but they are very restricted.

Actually - that's a myth, they aren't restricted at all.

 

[Coyote]

Why we do not hear about something like that in Japan or Korea? Because there no muslims there.

They have Muslims in Japan but they are very restricted.

Actually - that's a myth, they aren't restricted at all.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Pardon me...my mouth is full and I'm having trouble chewing
.

So, What kind of hors d'euvres are they serving at your celebration gala, anyway?

 

[DarkFury]

My 3rd wife was reported for lying on her application.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pardon me...my mouth is full and I'm having trouble chewing....burp...that's better

My goodness gracious... what terrible manners!

 

[Coyote]

I think it's more about real risk assessment rather than perceived risk - especially risks who's simplest solutions seem to involve conveniently scapegoating minorities for complex problems.

I didn't say anything about scapegoating minorities. In fact you've seen me defending them. There are people on this thread who want to take overly simplistic, blatantly unconstitutional measures against them. All I want is a rigorous vetting system, which I view is well within the bounds of our Constitution.

I agree - I was speaking broadly and partially in response to a lot of what is being said in this thread. And I agree about a rigorous vetting system, though I think we have a one in place that has been quite rigorous.

But what is the real risk that you will be involved in something this terrible? Chances are more likely you will be injured by a drunk driver or a random shooting then by a terrorist.

Sigh.

Coyote, nothing in life is a certainty, not even your safety. I can't take the "this will never happen to me" approach. Those people on that bridge didn't think they'd be mowed down by terrorists today. But they were.

Exactly! That's kind of the point I was making. It's not "this will never happen to me" - it's how likely is something to happen and how much should I worry about it? It means you take common sense security measures to protect our citizens, but it also means you look at how much of a threat it actually is when weighing the possible curtailment of people's rights and liberties.

I think we have to be careful. Look at all the rhetoric abounding. Look at people actively calling for totally innocent citizens to be rounded up, shot, expelled (never mind they've lived generations in the land of their citizenship) to foreign nations.

For the record, I am not one of those issuing such rhetoric. However, I think we're being TOO careful. We throw caution to the wind in order to be more accepting and tolerant of other people. That's what Europe is doing and it is suffering dearly for it.

I know you're not - I don't mean to imply you are. I am not sure how comparable we are to Europe for several reasons. One is our approach to immigration and integration is very different. The other is Europe has been overwelmed by huge numbers of migrants, assylum seekers, refugees far faster than can be assimilated or vetted. In addition - in many European countries - immigrants have not integrated well, isolating themselves in enclaves and but also, they haven't been able to share in the same economic and job opportunities that native born citizens have.

Isolation is always the first thing immigrants do from the Irish in the 20s to the Vietnamese in the 70s. The difference was they did not bring the violence with them. Now the Cubans did but they were from Castro's prisons and mental hospitals.

Actually...that's not entirely true. Many immigrant groups have been accused of bringing violence, gangs etc. The Irish, Russians, Italians - good lord how can you forget the Mafia?

Oh I did not forget them but it took far longer for it to take hold. And it did start in their little on enclaves.[/QUOTE]

The only real difference is technology.

 

[Dsc]

Not all immigrant groups preach that to go to "Allah" you need to slaughter innocents

That MIGHT be a difference.

 

[DarkFury]

Why we do not hear about something like that in Japan or Korea? Because there no muslims there.

They have Muslims in Japan but they are very restricted.

Actually - that's a myth, they aren't restricted at all.

Unless you are a Buddhist you are restricted.