Terrorists want to decide America's election
January 3 2016 By Abiodun Giwa
News report says that the Somalia Al-Shabbab terrorists organization has released a video using Donald Trump's demand for banning of Moslems as a recruitment tool.
What does that suggest coming after three weeks of argument between Trump and Hillary Clinton over Clinton's assertion that terrorists have been using Trump's statement in a video as recruitment tool? The video did not exist before and after Clinton made her statement, but was released after the debate about videos the likely existence of a Trump video as a tool for recruitment by terrorists.
The development clearly shows that the terrorists are watching political debates in the US with keen interest and would do what is required to advance their own interests. They know who they want as a president in the US and will do anything to influence the elections in their own favor. It is therefore not surprising that they have come up with a video based on the imagination of one of the presidential candidates, who think banning Moslems from entering the country for a period, to allow the people's representatives decide on what to do about the hell called terrorism.
With the terrorists seizing upon the application of civil rights of a bloc to advance their own cause Is a sign that terrorism may not go away very soon; that the bleeding from diversion of funds from developments at home to fighting terrorism will be a permanent feature and that the questionable characters using the Islamic religion to commit atrocities have vital escape route via ability to influence election in the country.
They do have a large bloc of voters capable of determining who wins the presidential election, and among who are a large number, for religion reasons, would listen to dance to al-Shabab's tune. Of course, democracy is a political ideal and one of its fine principles if the freedom of expression and association. But these ideals don't include the lack of ideas to address serious issues that may have become a threat to our existence. But for the what certain politicians would gain to become whatever they want, they will leave the problems to persist, since it can always be used a one of the means to get into or remain in office.
In that case, there would never be a drastic measure targeted toward a permanent resolution of any problem. Terrorism as a festering problem has made lives unsafe. Immigration as a festering problem has thrown the workbook for livable city over the windows. But yet rather adequately addressing these problems, politicians of the liberal nature prefer to allow them fester and use them as carrots to win votes. Lack of management to tackle immigration has transformed homelessness in major cities , because life here is no longer like in the paradise as people. People now complain of working and working with no savings to fall back upon in case of emergencies, because income does not increase, while rents and prices of goods are sky rocketing.
Who are those who gain from uncontrolled immigration? The employers of labor who will be free to offer any amount for any work done without commiseration to the quality of labor since there are more than required number seeking the same spot in employment. What has been happening to the management of immigration has been extended to terrorism.
"I will kill the terrorists. We will take the fight to them. I will be different to President .............who has been deficient in the fight against terrorism," are some of the words we hear from the campaign trail, as if these set of politicians are the first to fight terrorism. None of them have offered any useful different suggestion from what we have already known. Would not it make a big difference if for once we make the representatives of people in the land where terrorists are bred to sit down with our own representatives here to discuss what to do to stop the breeding of terrorists in their land to make us safer here? And if a temporary cessation in travel from that land will serve a purpose, what is wrong in suggesting it as Trump has done?
Is it because the suggestion is against our ideal of freedom of association and religious tolerance? And so we must continue to accommodate the senseless killings by terrorists to maintain an ideal and religious tolerance? In what way has Trump's suggestion targeted to kill freedom of association and religious tolerance? Who cares if terrorists decide to use a video trumpeting the suggestion for their own gain? Shouldn't we here do what is necessary to protect ourselves?
What does that suggest coming after three weeks of argument between Trump and Hillary Clinton over Clinton's assertion that terrorists have been using Trump's statement in a video as recruitment tool? The video did not exist before and after Clinton made her statement, but was released after the debate about videos the likely existence of a Trump video as a tool for recruitment by terrorists.
The development clearly shows that the terrorists are watching political debates in the US with keen interest and would do what is required to advance their own interests. They know who they want as a president in the US and will do anything to influence the elections in their own favor. It is therefore not surprising that they have come up with a video based on the imagination of one of the presidential candidates, who think banning Moslems from entering the country for a period, to allow the people's representatives decide on what to do about the hell called terrorism.
With the terrorists seizing upon the application of civil rights of a bloc to advance their own cause Is a sign that terrorism may not go away very soon; that the bleeding from diversion of funds from developments at home to fighting terrorism will be a permanent feature and that the questionable characters using the Islamic religion to commit atrocities have vital escape route via ability to influence election in the country.
They do have a large bloc of voters capable of determining who wins the presidential election, and among who are a large number, for religion reasons, would listen to dance to al-Shabab's tune. Of course, democracy is a political ideal and one of its fine principles if the freedom of expression and association. But these ideals don't include the lack of ideas to address serious issues that may have become a threat to our existence. But for the what certain politicians would gain to become whatever they want, they will leave the problems to persist, since it can always be used a one of the means to get into or remain in office.
In that case, there would never be a drastic measure targeted toward a permanent resolution of any problem. Terrorism as a festering problem has made lives unsafe. Immigration as a festering problem has thrown the workbook for livable city over the windows. But yet rather adequately addressing these problems, politicians of the liberal nature prefer to allow them fester and use them as carrots to win votes. Lack of management to tackle immigration has transformed homelessness in major cities , because life here is no longer like in the paradise as people. People now complain of working and working with no savings to fall back upon in case of emergencies, because income does not increase, while rents and prices of goods are sky rocketing.
Who are those who gain from uncontrolled immigration? The employers of labor who will be free to offer any amount for any work done without commiseration to the quality of labor since there are more than required number seeking the same spot in employment. What has been happening to the management of immigration has been extended to terrorism.
"I will kill the terrorists. We will take the fight to them. I will be different to President .............who has been deficient in the fight against terrorism," are some of the words we hear from the campaign trail, as if these set of politicians are the first to fight terrorism. None of them have offered any useful different suggestion from what we have already known. Would not it make a big difference if for once we make the representatives of people in the land where terrorists are bred to sit down with our own representatives here to discuss what to do to stop the breeding of terrorists in their land to make us safer here? And if a temporary cessation in travel from that land will serve a purpose, what is wrong in suggesting it as Trump has done?
Is it because the suggestion is against our ideal of freedom of association and religious tolerance? And so we must continue to accommodate the senseless killings by terrorists to maintain an ideal and religious tolerance? In what way has Trump's suggestion targeted to kill freedom of association and religious tolerance? Who cares if terrorists decide to use a video trumpeting the suggestion for their own gain? Shouldn't we here do what is necessary to protect ourselves?
HTML Comment Box is loading comments...