CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:31
Arguments:27
Total Votes:31
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 72 Terrorists have come from the 7 Banned Countries (25)

Debate Creator

outlaw60(15368) pic



72 Terrorists have come from the 7 Banned Countries

San Francisco's Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruled against Trump's travel ban, saying, "The government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States." But it turns out that 72 people from those seven countries have been convicted on terrorism charges since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies. "Thirty-three of the 72 individuals from the seven terror-associated countries were convicted of very serious terror-related crimes, and were sentenced to at least three years imprisonment," wrote director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan. "The crimes included use of a weapon of mass destruction, conspiracy to commit a terror act, material support of a terrorist or terror group, international money laundering conspiracy, possession of explosives or missiles, and unlawful possession of a machine gun."
 Another 17 claimed to be refugees from the countries in question -- Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan and Syria --  three came disguised as "students," and a whopping 25 went on to U.S. citizens.

Yet again the Progressives love of Muslims are put on display as to the terrorist they are !
Add New Argument
3 points

The Hungarian government's crackdown on Muslim migrants makes President Trump to look decidedly liberal.

Bounty hunters chasing immigrants on horseback and in helicopters. A 110 mile razor wire fence, bans on new mosques are just some of the measures Hungry is employing to make Hungry a bad choice for Muslim migrants who were described as ''no good, and advised to go back''.

Hungary's prudent and far seeing Prime Minister Orban, has positioned himself as defender of Europe's Christian traditions.

He echoed the thoughts of the vast majority of ordinary European citizens, and undoubtedly well beyond Europe, by saying, ''everything which is taking place now before our eyes threatens to have explosive consequences for the whole of Europe''.

In France and Holland the anti Muslim immigrant politicians Marine le Pen and Geert Wilders are riding high in the polls reflecting the strong anti Muslim immigrant feelings of the populations of these two nations.

President Trump is fighting an uphill battle against the loonie left idiots whose misplaced liberal policies will cause unnecessary death and destruction across the United States.

Time for America to take note and take proactive action rather than listen to the appeasers and then shuting the door after the horse has bolted.

2 points

Maybe we should put the person(s) who discovered this in charge of extreme vetting the refugees ;)

1 point

The Progressive Left wants all Muslims from any country in the US without vetting because they are all peaceful. Progressives love religion when it comes to the Religion of Islam.

1 point

Yeah, but Trump is in charge and if he cannot order a travel ban he sure as hell dictate who does the vetting ;)

1 point

Fact vs Feelings ! What separates Progressives and Republicans on Terrorist Muslims is truly Fact vs Feeling !

seanB(950) Disputed
1 point

It's not that simple. Do you know just how easy it is to be arrested for terrorism charges in the US? Merely opining with free speech, against the actions of the US military or against the unjust killings of innocents abroad, is grounds for arrest under the Patriot act (incitement of terrorism), particularly if you are brown-skinned and Muslim.

It's censorship for a political agenda.

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

It is very simple you Progressives love Muslims and see them as no threat ! Fact vs Feelings

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

You can't argue facts Progressive because your feelings mean nothing !

1 point

77 terrorists from 7 countries since 2001, that's less than 1 per year per country. I am not sure that qualifies as an argument for extreme vetting.

Cocopops(347) Disputed
1 point

Why don't you go along and quote your statistics to the families and loved ones of the victims of Islamic terrorist atrocities.

Try to wake up shit head and become aware of what's happening in world in which you live.

It was a single Islamic terrorist who killed 186 innocent people in Nice Frence, and one that killed 14 in San Bernardino.

In the France incident 200 people suffered horrific injuries and 22 were maimed in the San Bernardino atrocity .

The Islamic terrorist threat is exacerbated by sanctimonious numbskulls like you.

Your type of mindless bullshit gives succour and encouragement to the Muslim terrorists.

To repeat myself, wake up and smell what it is you're shovelling.

Narwhal(56) Disputed
1 point

Your emotional argument doesn't do anything to undermine the validity of the statistics, however. Additionally, citing European terrorist attacks doesn't really have any persuasive value, as the nature of their immigration is different and the nature of their counter terrorism efforts are different. We do not have a Schengen Zone equivalent, for example, and we are not seeing a mass-influx of economic refugees, such as the type France, Italy and Germany have seen.

Our refugees are coming in through an intensive, long process which weeds out the very type of unskilled, unassimilatable (made up word but I think you get it's "meaning") that Europe is having problems with.

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

Mention has been made by you that there is no reason for extreme vetting ? Did i read that right ?

Inc4t(43) Disputed
1 point

We need to normalize this for impact of each terrorist act and population size, otherwise just looking af pure number of terrorists oer country per year is misleading.

1 point

Site your sources?----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antrim(1287) Disputed
2 points

You typed three words and you spelt one, the first one, incorrectly.

Do smarten yourself up old bean.

-Yuri-(284) Disputed
1 point

Okay see the insults you add already prove you are not here to debate your here to piss others off. Here I will re-word this for you so you can understand. Give me your sources to your points listed above or they are all invalid.

outlaw60(15368) Disputed
1 point

It is deemed necessary that one has do your homework for you ?

-Yuri-(284) Disputed
1 point

My homework? it is his point to prove not me.-----------------

1 point

I suggest you check out the linkids included below, as the nature of the charges included are not relevent to the stateded purpose of the ban according to the President.

Comparing 3 guys laundering money to active, violent terrorists is rather dishonest, as is pointing to them as validation of a ban intended to prevent violent attacks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/02/13/stephen-millers-claim-that-72-from-banned-countries-were-implicated-in-terroristic-activity/

Mind you I'm not a big Washington Post fan, but they have sufficient citations foe independent research and verification in this instance.

outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

If you want to link to The Washington Compost that holds zero credibility ! It is a Left Wing Rag !

foratag(257) Clarified
2 points

Outlaw, your OP is a little bit off. It is NOT the ninth circuit court. Please refer to it more accurately as the ninth CIRCUS court. Thank you! LOL

1 point

The fact is that banned countries produced only a small number of terrorisfs over the years may first seem like stastically insignificant, but when you compare it with other countries normalized for population size then it may become more apparent.