hot enough

There was no response from the US for all those years before 911 when OBL supposedly lived in Afghanistan. And when various and sundry attacks had taken place against the US. Why not response? There was no response from the US until the day of 911, when the US government and the US media immediately knew who had done it. How is that possible? What would any rational investigator say about that jumping to conclusions?

I know that they "are in no way comparable to 9/11". Korea was attacked and Korea has not ever attacked the US in "revenge". Same for Cambodia, Vietnam, Guatemala, Libya, Syria, ... .

There's no source. Are we to believe that you are an expert on the Arabic language?

Yours is merely an opinion, based on what, I have no idea. Could you provide a source that supports your notion?

There are many examples with a much much bigger scope. Vietnam, estimates of 3 million killed. Cambodia, estimates of 3/4 to a million killed. Korea, estimates of 3 million killed. Guatemala, ... .

I think that it is important for us all to provide fair and balanced positions on these issues. In Arabic, the word “Islam” means submission or surrender – however, it was derived from the root word “salam”. From this root word, you can also derive the words peace and safety. Many people feel that Islam implies some sort of enslavement to Allah, but others find it more helpful to define the word “Islam” as surrender. http://muslimvoices.org/word-islam-meaning/

Stability has zero to do with it. Countries cannot under international law invade sovereign nations. That would be Iraq and Afghanistan. Stability HAD zero to do with it. It was an invasion based on lies, of the most transparent variety . There's the lie right there. Volumes of them.

If you would like to start a thread, I would discuss it.

You could say things like that, which are not true. Ot you could look at where US involvement has caused civil wars, look at places where the US has overthrown the leaders, Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan; look at places where the US has been trying for years to overthrow the government, Syria. I think just with this cursory examination, we can see the connection between the refugee problem and the US. As Betsy has astutely pointed out; "Although what you're saying supports Trump's position that indeed, the USA has to be very wary of all people coming from such places. In other words, you're saying his action is justified." Justified, most assuredly, in the sense that if I were to murder one family, I'm not likely to have all the other relatives over for dinner.

If you look at where the vast majority of refugees are coming from and compare that to the countries the US has invaded, committed terrorist acts against, it's rather easy to see the connection.

Then it has reached the point where politicians have to speak up, in an honest, fair but forthright fashion and ask why all the countries of the world have to solve all the refugee problems caused by the US.

I think it does. That is the definition of refugee. Perhaps it was a jab at Trump, the US. But he only reiterated what has long been a Canadian tradition. And, we must remember how long it has figured in the American narrative.

Don't you think that your first sentence would be an accepted definition of 'refugee'. I personally don't think that there is any person who would ever think that there would be no screening and vetting.

The Clintons have been accused of many things. They are guilty of doing many, to be generous, less than good things. To think/suggest, if they have the power to pull off even this small number of incredibly evil deeds, that doesn't doesn't speak well about the entire system. Conspiracies being that they are always more than one person, always have a way of unraveling.