akflightmedic Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Fear Mongering to promote an Agenda???? What?? Would never happen...not in politics, not in religion, not ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uglyEMT Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Unfortunatly he is correct. We now have a naturalized US citizen as the #2 in Al Crappa. Boy was brough over at 12 years of age, grew up here in Miami, educated at the schools, and U of M got his degree, then in 2002 returned to the sandbox was trained and when we captured the ruling number 2 behind Bin Ahole this man, now 30, became #2. arab news USA Today So the Senator might have misspoke about where he heard the info (all the stories state FBI) but what he heard was true and not fear mongering. Might have exagerated the threat a little but he is on base with the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armymedic571 Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Fear Mongering to promote an Agenda???? What?? Would never happen...not in politics, not in religion, not ever! Funny because it's true. Down with the politicians:thumbsdown: . However, it is truely sad that some people are that dispicable!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted August 12, 2010 Author Share Posted August 12, 2010 Fear Mongering to promote an Agenda???? What?? Would never happen...not in politics, not in religion, not ever! AK, everyone has an agenda, it's not limited to politicians and religion. You have an agenda, I have one. We all do. Even atheists and agnostics have agendas. Unfortunatly he is correct. We now have a naturalized US citizen as the #2 in Al Crappa. Boy was brough over at 12 years of age, grew up here in Miami, educated at the schools, and U of M got his degree, then in 2002 returned to the sandbox was trained and when we captured the ruling number 2 behind Bin Ahole this man, now 30, became #2. arab news USA Today So the Senator might have misspoke about where he heard the info (all the stories state FBI) but what he heard was true and not fear mongering. Might have exagerated the threat a little but he is on base with the facts. But the story doesn't say where he was born. It says that he came to the United states in 1995 with his father. What the politicians in the original post are saying is that babies are being born in america by mothers who are taking them back to be trained as terrorists. I didn't see and if I missed it I'll digress, I did not see where it said that he was born here. That's what the original post was about. Babies being born in the Usa and being brought up in the terrorist camps as little terrorists and then sent to america because they have US citizenship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 AK, everyone has an agenda, it's not limited to politicians and religion. You have an agenda, I have one. We all do. Even atheists and agnostics have agendas. I agree we all have agendas...my specific reference was the fear mongering to promote it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uglyEMT Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Gotcha Ruff. Basically what you were saying is born here then brought back then brought here again but because of their citizenship less likely to be stopped at the border. I believe in the post I posted the man was Pakistani then brought here as a child where he gained his citizenship and education then travel to Afghanastan to train in the camps and now is #2. Sort of the same thing but in reverse I appologize for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted August 12, 2010 Author Share Posted August 12, 2010 Gotcha Ruff. Basically what you were saying is born here then brought back then brought here again but because of their citizenship less likely to be stopped at the border. I believe in the post I posted the man was Pakistani then brought here as a child where he gained his citizenship and education then travel to Afghanastan to train in the camps and now is #2. Sort of the same thing but in reverse I appologize for that. But it's really the same thing. He just wasn't born in the USA. But I also don't think they took him back to be raised a terrorist - it sounds like this guy "got Jihad" when he was here. Still it makes no difference, the end result is there - he hates big bad america. NOw he hates america but it doesn't seem like he hated america when he was growing up getting his education, jobs, friends etc. It's sort of like the conscientious objectors in the military - one case I remember specifically was the doctor who the military paid for her medical education and paid her a salary during all the time she was getting her school paid and when it came time to pay back her debt by serving in the military she refused to saying she objected to the war. But she sure didn't object when the military was paying for that 150K in school fees etc. Sort of hypocrytical if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I see your point Ruff, but those cases are the exception to the rule. Yeh it happens but not enough for it to be a concern. I also have to wonder if it was the plan all along. For example to say the new doctor is hypocritical is to state people are stagnant and never change. She could have entered the agreement full of patriotic idealism and as her education expanded, as her life progressed, her views could have changed. The situation could now be morally wrong for her. Is it fair at that time to force her to uphold her end of the bargain? Do we really want to set that precedent? Besides there are other positions for her, non combatant, stateside which are just as important. If she is booted out, she is liable for debt. So really not fair to judge with no knowledge of every detail of that particular case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Plain Ruff Posted August 13, 2010 Author Share Posted August 13, 2010 (edited) Ak, I also see your point. If I remember this particular doctors case, she was refusing to both go to Iraq and also refused to complete her term in the military. She said that she didn't agree with what the military was doing and she was requesting to get out of the military. I think in the end she was required to pay the military back for all the money it paid her since she did not complete her end of the bargain. Change of heart, I agree and will give anyone the right to do that. Morals change, thought processes change. But if you refuse to abide by the terms of your service then you should be required to pay back the medical school costs, which she I believe in the end did pay. Edited August 13, 2010 by Ruffems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tniuqs Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 Border control proponents have gone nucking futs: Well our Border Control IS nucking futs ! http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/08/12/bc-tamil-ship-sri-lanka-rcmp.html#socialcomments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts