Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who is sincerely embarking on the epic of keeping America safe. He has signed an executive order banning entry of people from seven countries, namely Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and Somalia. These countries are labeled as terrorist states since their governments have been sponsoring act of terrorism across the globe. If the people of these 7 nations have any objection to an immigration law enforced by any country in the world, they should redirect their protest toward their own terrorist governments, who are the main root cause and responsible for such ban.
The order has been criticized for excluding Saudi Arabia, while wrongly claiming it was participating in 911 attack. The fact of matter is that the 911 act of terrorism was carried out by the citizens of Saudi Arabia and not its state. The immigration order was issued without any warning because it was going to ban the terrorists from entering the country, it was not planned to warn them in advance, which would result in a futile outcome. The new immigration law imposed by anti-establishment president Trump is strongly supported by the Americans who love their country and concern about the future of their next generations. [DID]
Within a day of President Donald Trump signing an executive order banning entry of people from seven countries, protests sprang up at airports across the United States. Demonstrators and activist groups called the ban unconstitutional, and administration officials scrambled to clarify who would be affected by the new rules.
We went through the order to resolve what is clear and what remains murky.
Who is affected?
The order states, “I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order.” Specifically, the order targets people from countries originally listed by the Obama administration as terrorist hotbeds — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Read more…
There is a contradiction in this report; we all know that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (Qods Force) was designated as terrorist organization by the US State Department. The question is why in chapter 6 of State Department’s report on terrorism 2013, the name of the IRGC – Qods Force has been deleted from the list of the Foreign Terrorist Organizations! Has IRGC-QF been delisted? ![DID]
Well, the contact actually goes well beyond 1993, in fact Al-Qaeda and also the IRI are the US-made babies. They both were introduced to the world by Jimmy Carter in 1979. They were in service to US to do its dirty job against communism during the cold war. US delivered military aids to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan to fight against the Soviet Union invasion and provided logistic and strategic support to the IRI to take over the government in Iran to create a green belt under the USSR. …….. the full editor’s view is posted below this article. [DID]
In a revelation missing from the official investigations of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the FBI placed a human source in direct contact with Osama bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance terrorist attacks in the United States, according to court testimony in a little-noticed employment dispute case.
“It was the only source I know in the bureau where we had a source right in al Qaeda, directly involved,” Edward J. Curran, a former top official in the FBI’s Los Angeles office, told the court in support of a discrimination lawsuit filed against the bureau by his former agent Bassem Youssef. Read more…
Every year, around the world, old conflicts worsen, new ones emerge and, occasionally, some situations improve. There is no shortage of storm clouds looming over 2013: Once again, hotspots old and new will present a challenge to the security of people across the globe.
There is, of course, an arbitrariness to most lists — and this list of crises to watch out for in 2013 is no different. One person’s priority might well be another’s sideshow, one analyst’s early warning cry is another’s fear-mongering. In some situations — Central Asia, perhaps — preventive action has genuine meaning: The collapse into chaos has yet to happen. More complicated is anticipating when it will happen, what will trigger it, and how bad it will be. In others — Syria, obviously — the catastrophe is already upon us, so the very notion of prevention can seem absurd. It has no meaning save in the sense of preventing the nightmare from worsening or spreading. Read more…