*Prompter Thread* (NO personal attacks, NO trolling)

[rickyh24]

Originally Posted by Rodey

I thought it was common knowledge that the Saudis funded 9/11? Pretty easy to see how providing them with weapons is not a good idea.

What kind of weapons did Isis use to conduct the 9/11 attacks?


I'm not worried about another 9/11 happening because we are giving them these helicopters etc and enhancing their cyber and border security.

[DMBstandUP1984]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/t...=vicetwitterus

They should go back to not releasing transcripts of his phone calls

[rickyh24]

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

"During a presidential debate Trump also said Saudis were “people that push gays off buildings” and “kill women and treat women horribly,” according to the Washington Post. He has also claimed the Saudi government had ties to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks."

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timei...3Fsource%3Ddam

Trump agrees

I don't think anyone in here has said Saudi didn't have ties to 9/11. Like Rodney said, common knowledge.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by rickyh24

What kind of weapons did Isis use to conduct the 9/11 attacks?


I'm not worried about another 9/11 happening because we are giving them these helicopters etc and enhancing their cyber and border security.

Saudi shifted most of its military assets to Yemen, which hurt the US in the fight against Isis. The fear is that this arms deal will end up in Yemen and not actually against Isis.

And why would we trust the Saudis to do the right thing this time?

[rickyh24]

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

Saudi shifted most of its military assets to Yemen, which hurt the US in the fight against Isis. The fear is that this arms deal will end up in Yemen and not actually against Isis.

And why would we trust the Saudis to do the right thing this time?

A lot has changed since then. I understand this outlook though. I'm not gonna sit hear and pretend I was in a room with them while the deal went down and assume either way though. We will see what happens. This deal doesn't make me fear for our safety though.

[justink]

Manchester bomber spent three weeks in Libya and Syria prior to the act.

Both countries on Trump's travel ban.

Do you think the Manchester explosion would have happened had The UK been using a Trump like travel ban?

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by justink

Manchester bomber spent three weeks in Libya and Syria prior to the act.

Both countries on Trump's travel ban.

Do you think the Manchester explosion would have happened had The UK been using a Trump like travel ban?

He was born in the U.K. He probably had the proper documentation to go back and forth. Just like someone born in America would be able to.

[DMBstandUP1984]

http://bit.ly/2riQoGP

[Lee3691]

Originally Posted by justink

Manchester bomber spent three weeks in Libya and Syria prior to the act.

Both countries on Trump's travel ban.

Do you think the Manchester explosion would have happened had The UK been using a Trump like travel ban?

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

He was born in the U.K. He probably had the proper documentation to go back and forth. Just like someone born in America would be able to.

Boo ya........

[justink]

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

He was born in the U.K. He probably had the proper documentation to go back and forth. Just like someone born in America would be able to.

Originally Posted by Lee3691

Boo ya........

...That's not how the travel ban works.

It's not where you were born. It's where you've traveled and where you're coming from since you left. Anyone who spent time in Libya or Syria gets a closer look.

I think it's fair to say that 22 people could still be alive had that travel ban been in effect for the U.K.

[Climb2safety]

Originally Posted by justink

Manchester bomber spent three weeks in Libya and Syria prior to the act.

Both countries on Trump's travel ban.

Do you think the Manchester explosion would have happened had The UK been using a Trump like travel ban?

Really grasping now.

[justink]

Originally Posted by Climb2safety

Really grasping now.

How so? It's a simple question that nobody has bothered to put forth a thoughtful answer.

I think it's certainly worthy of discussion and not insults.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by justink

...That's not how the travel ban works.

It's not where you were born. It's where you've traveled and where you're coming from since you left. Anyone who spent time in Libya or Syria gets a closer look.

I think it's fair to say that 22 people could still be alive had that travel ban been in effect for the U.K.

He was being closer looked because of his travels. But he was a citizen of the U.K. net effect would have been the same.

[mthawk07]

As far as I understood the second version of the travel ban, American citizens wouldn't be denied re-entry into the country because of that silly thing called the Constitution. So how would a travel ban like the one proposed have prevented this?

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by justink

...That's not how the travel ban works.

It's not where you were born. It's where you've traveled and where you're coming from since you left. Anyone who spent time in Libya or Syria gets a closer look.

I think it's fair to say that 22 people could still be alive had that travel ban been in effect for the U.K.

Closer look how?

Like, what does the travel ban say are the specifics of "a closer look"?

[Route_2]

US citizens are exempt from Trump's travel ban, so it would not have helped at all in this case.

Rest assured that US citizens who travel to terror hot spots and reenter US were already being looked at prior Trump's election.

Conclusion: Trump style travel ban would have changed nothing regarding Manchester bomber.

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by justink

...That's not how the travel ban works.

It's not where you were born. It's where you've traveled and where you're coming from since you left. Anyone who spent time in Libya or Syria gets a closer look.

I think it's fair to say that 22 people could still be alive had that travel ban been in effect for the U.K.

Only word in this post that matters. It could have. Or it could not have. We don't know and never will.

The only thing I will say that sort of gets on the same side as this, is that apparently the dude WAS 'known' or on a watchlist...whatever that means. Now, I get watch list shit is problematic, but I don't think anyone would have issue with a guy on a watch list being looked at closer for going to countries like that.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by justink

How so? It's a simple question that nobody has bothered to put forth a thoughtful answer.

I think it's certainly worthy of discussion and not insults.

I'm not saying it's not worthy of discussion. But since he was a U.K. Citizen who was already being monitored because of his travels I don't think it would have made much of a difference.

[rickyh24]

Did I just see somebody drop a "boo ya" in here?

[justink]

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

He was being closer looked because of his travels. But he was a citizen of the U.K. net effect would have been the same.

Originally Posted by cazzie34

Closer look how?

Like, what does the travel ban say are the specifics of "a closer look"?

Well, for one, the explosion wouldn't have happened because he wouldn't have been allowed entry.

He wouldn't have been allowed entry until they verified that he wasn't in the two highly travelled ISIS training camp countries to be trained by ISIS and their associates.

[DMBstandUP1984]

http://bit.ly/2riQoGP

First on CNN: AG Sessions did not disclose meetings with Russian officials, DOJ says

[justink]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

Only word in this post that matters. It could have. Or it could not have. We don't know and never will.

The only thing I will say that sort of gets on the same side as this, is that apparently the dude WAS 'known' or on a watchlist...whatever that means. Now, I get watch list shit is problematic, but I don't think anyone would have issue with a guy on a watch list being looked at closer for going to countries like that.

Should have said WOULD. see my above post.

I agree with the second part of your post.

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by justink

Well, for one, the explosion wouldn't have happened because he wouldn't have been allowed entry.

He wouldn't have been allowed entry until they verified that he wasn't in the two highly travelled ISIS training camp countries to be trained by ISIS and their associates.

Give me the exact language of the executive order that says this. Not doubting you since you seem 100% sure that you are right. Just cite the executive order that specifically changes how we are doing things where a citizen would not have been allowed back in.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by justink

Well, for one, the explosion wouldn't have happened because he wouldn't have been allowed entry.



He wouldn't have been allowed entry until they verified that he wasn't in the two highly travelled ISIS training camp countries to be trained by ISIS and their associates.

I think you're missing the U.K. Citizen point.

He also might have traveled to Libya via Tunisia which might not have raised the same red flags had it have just been Libya and back. Since Tunisia was not on the travel ban list.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

Give me the exact language of the executive order that says this. Not doubting you since you seem 100% sure that you are right. Just cite the executive order that specifically changes how we are doing things where a citizen would not have been allowed back in.

I'm reading over it now trying to find US citizens that visit one of the counties on the ban. So far it says US citizens are exempt.

What is funny is section 1 of the EO is all about 9/11. But Saudi Arabia is not on the list

[cazzie34]

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

I'm reading over it now trying to find US citizens that visit one of the counties on the ban. So far it says US citizens are exempt.

What is funny is section 1 of the EO is all about 9/11. But Saudi Arabia is not on the list

Don't do his homework.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by cazzie34

Don't do his homework.

Haha. I'm trying to find out for myself.

But it doesn't really outline if a Muslim born in America visits a country on the list and then they come back.

But in this situation it's a moot point he likely entered Libya through a country and back again in a country not on the list.

Now would he have been brought in a room and interrogated (like they weren't supposed to being doing but did) yeah probably but likely would have been released and monitored.

[justink]

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

Haha. I'm trying to find out for myself.

But it doesn't really outline if a Muslim born in America visits a country on the list and then they come back.

But in this situation it's a moot point he likely entered Libya through a country and back again in a country not on the list.

Now would he have been brought in a room and interrogated (like they weren't supposed to being doing but did) yeah probably but likely would have been released and monitored.

It doesn't have to be a Muslim. Not all Terrorists are muslims, remember.

[DMBstandUP1984]

Originally Posted by justink

It doesn't have to be a Muslim. Not all Terrorists are muslims, remember.

Yup. We are talking about a specific person and event at this time though. But your open mindfulness doesn't go unnoticed.

[coldengrey12]

Originally Posted by DMBstandUP1984

http://bit.ly/2riQoGP

First on CNN: AG Sessions did not disclose meetings with Russian officials, DOJ says

Under another president, this would be a revelation.

Under this numb nuts, it's just par for the course.

Sad!