Donald Trump: Extremist Recruiter-In-Chief

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (24 posts)
  1. Don W profile image81
    Don Wposted 7 years ago

    The executive order Trump has issued effectively (and intentionally) bans Muslims, and prioritizes non Muslim refugees above Muslim refugees. I believe this is the best recruiting aid that extremists could have hoped for. It's more than anything they could ever have achieved themselves, and demonstrates a lack of understanding about the tactical and strategic ramifications of political decisions.

    You may not see them on the news, but make no mistake, there are US military and intelligence personnel on the ground, in some form, in all the countries Trump's executive order lists. You can be certain of it.

    Their safety and effectiveness depends, to varying degrees, on the cooperation and assistance of local people who perform a variety of different support roles (at great risk to themselves and their families). Trump has just told those people they are not fit to even visit the country.

    Extremists will welcome that message with open arms. They will use it as a recruitment tool for their cause. When even Iran warns that your actions are "a great gift to extremists and their supporters"(1), you know something has gone badly wrong.

    From a strategic perspective, people in Muslim majority countries have a vital role to play in combatting extremism. Targeting the very people who are currently actively fighting ISIS is counter-productive. You cannot defeat them that way. Anyone who thinks bans and bombs will defeat ISIS is, frankly, an idiot. 

    Even worse is the effect this may have on radicalism in non-Muslim countries. ISIS has supporters among native born US and European citizens. The San Bernardino terrorist attack was carried out by a US citizen (born in Chicago), as was the Orlando attack (born in New York). The bombings in London in 2007 were carried out by UK citizens. This order does nothing to reduce the risk of homegrown radicalism, but has the potential to make it much worse.

    Extremists have no need to travel to the US or Europe to carry out attacks. What they need is propaganda that enables them to recruit people already in those countries. Trump has just rewarded them with a massive boost to their propaganda material.

    I sadly predict (though I hope I;m wrong) there will be more terrorist attacks from homegrown sources, and less cooperation from Muslims in countries that are fighting ISIS. We have Trump, extremist recruiter-in-chief, to thank for that.

    (1) … iew=436947
    (2) … -citizens/

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      "The executive order Trump has issued effectively (and intentionally) bans Muslims"

      You forgot to mention that it also bans Christians, atheists, pagans, buddhists, taoists and any other religious affiliation.  Was that a mistake or intentionally done to give a false appearance of religious discrimination?

      You also seem to forget that the ban is a limited time one, until we can figure out how to tell the difference between a terrorist and the underground.  Was that intentional as well?

      "Targeted" is everyone wishing to leave those countries.  Or, alternatively, the jihadists that pose a danger, with everyone temporarily caught in the net, and intended to be released ASAP.  Or did you mean to insinuate that the true "target" is the underground there?

      "This order does nothing to reduce the risk of homegrown radicalism, but has the potential to make it much worse. "

      I am unable to detect any language in the original order that indicated American born trying to travel to the US from Syria (with a few exceptions) get  to do so at will.  Is it your intention to claim that they do? (Yes, I know the courts have put a stay on that group, but that doesn't change what the order states.)

      "and less cooperation from Muslims in countries that are fighting ISIS."

      Or, when they discover that most (or all, given time) of the rest of the world refuses to take them in, will they turn on the source of their agony and pay the blood price to eradicate it themselves?  We're already seeing some effort in that direction from the more advanced Muslim nations; will we see more?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Trump selected these 7 Muslims countries in general base on the high rate of Muslims and to put pressure on doing oil bussiness with the US.  Their destruction and their total take over of these oil countries cultures and Religion has not worked in the pass and will not for the US Corporatism Greed now.

        Trump's aim is to make US number 1 oil import and export country in the world.  Rather than to find natural alternative energy. War and destruction of nature works also with UN depopulation mandate. When US/Israel created the false flags of 9/11 and other places, they are willing to anything in the name of greed, while tooling Religion.

        Zionist don't care about Religion, so far money has made their world go round.

        The greatest NWO scam is finished, the whole world is on to America/Israel empire collapsing. The top two most hated countries in the world. Most of the world is all ready to  pile on America and finish them off. I can't stand to watch my good old friend crumble over a very few greedy bunch mental illness.

      2. Don W profile image81
        Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not going to argue here about whether it does or does not discriminate against Muslims. In my opinion it does, but this is about the strategic and tactical effects of the ban and its perception around the world.

        A US citizen does not need to physically travel anywhere to become radicalized. Why would you think that? Radicalization is simply the process by which someone adopts extremist political views. Propaganda on social media, blogs, and forums are all potential sources of radicalization. Nobody needs a visa to go on the internet.

        The majority of people fighting (and dying at the hands of) Muslim extremists, are Muslims. They have already paid the "blood price" for fighting the likes of ISIS.

        Do you deny that this is a propaganda coup for extremists? Do you deny it makes the job of military and intelligence personnel operating in Muslim majority countries that much harder? Do you deny it deters Muslims in those countries offering their assistance? Do you deny that the ban does absolutely nothing to reduce the risk of attacks carried out by native US and European citizens?

    2. Live to Learn profile image60
      Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Let's be honest here, Don. Your complaint that Trump has handed over a propaganda tool is ridiculous. Because, it appears that you are implying that there is a solution to the terrorism. We can all somehow kiss and be friends; if we, somehow, figure out what they want us to do. It's not going to happen. Doesn't matter what we do or don't do. Terrorism is alive and well and will lumber on and they will be able to recruit many whether they like Trump and his policies or not.

      1. Don W profile image81
        Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        No, it implies that doing things that make the situation even worse that it is, is probably not the best way to go. It's not about figuring out what "they" want "us" to do. It's about figuring out how we (non-terrorists) deal with terrorists in a smart way. If the aim is to reduce risk of harm, then doing something that increases the risk of harm, is idiotic.

        1. Live to Learn profile image60
          Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Even worse than it is

          Well, there is where our opinions deviate sharply. We can't make it worse than it is. In my opinion. We have a bunch of fanatics who hate western civilization and are hell bent on bringing it down and plunging the world into a reign of terror and darkness. I'd be curious what is worse than that.

          You talk about a smart way of dealing with terrorists. I don't see how attempting to approach the problem from an angle of intellectual thoughtfulness (which usually involves compassion and consideration) could work when you are dealing with ignorance and hatred. That hasn't been working too good, thus far.

  2. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 7 years ago

    I predicted much of what is happening now. Where America gets pulled away from inside with race wars and political sides, a second civil war.

    Mexico and China have just declared war with US. Russia has a cold war on and on the edge of a nuke war. US most dangerous thing of all is fighting in southern China seas. Muslim ban is unamerican, unconstitutional and against international law.  US is being pulled apart from the outside too. US won't get a chance to build their economy which has been lost to the Federal Reserve debt anyway.  Putin warns America people to keep their guns. Trump needs to be impeach or hospitalized for his mental meltdown. Or he may get killed like Hitler.  Good enough writing on the wall for me being in South America.

  3. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    History Lesson for Liberals ;

    If Trumps executive order and implementation of proper immigration vetting  is a propaganda recruiting tool  for Islamic terrorism , Then These same Islamic  Terrorists must have absolutely LOVED President Obama and his  war against  constitutionally regulated  immigration vetting  and lack of proper border  protections!   

    Democrats must have absolutely no  politically generated  memory whatsoever !   FDR , a flaming Democrat not only interred the Japanese American citizens in concentration camps during WWII but confiscated there properties all over the western US  ! 

    THEN , he  turned away tens of thousands of Jewish  refugees  who came to America on cruise liners before , during and after the Nazi -Holocaust during the  Second World War !

  4. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    People , There is NO solution to terrorism , such is the definition and nature of modern terror .  While Liberals  wring their hands ,    jumping through P,.C. hoops trying to pacify a  fanatical culture trying to dominate all other  world cultures ;   terrorism not only lives on but  thrives without any U.S. help

    Modern terrorism needs no recruiting posters- -it's simply evil ,   But get used to it , it isn't going anywhere soon , neither is Trump as a matter of fact !

    1. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Let me just repeat the points already stated. Address them when you're good and ready:

      There are US military and intelligence personnel on the ground in all the countries Trump's executive order lists. This order makes their tasks more difficult and puts them in greater danger.

      Muslim majority countries have a vital role to play in combatting extremism. Targeting the very people who are currently actively fighting ISIS is counter-productive. Bans and bombs will not defeat ISIS. 

      ISIS has supporters among native born US and European citizens. This order does nothing to reduce the risk of homegrown terrorism, but has the potential to make it worse.

      Extremists have no need to travel to the US or Europe to carry out attacks. They can groom willing volunteers at a distance, which they have successfully done. You don't need a visa to go on the internet. Trumps order does nothing to reduce the risk of this.

      When you're able to address those issues, let me know.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        An interesting compilation, Don, but not sure I can agree with all of.

        Just how does a travel ban on all but military make the jobs of those personnel more difficult.  I'm not following this, unless you're implying that removing some people, both terrorist and not, from the country will make it easier.

        Absolutely agree, but am unable to figure out how the ban hurts that.  Taking those that are fighting ISIS out of the country seems counter-productive to their continuing their fight. 

        Once more, banning travel from Syria doesn't seem to have much affect on ISIS supporters in a different country.  Can you explain more fully?

        The ban will not stop long distance recruiting instruction, no.  But that has nothing to do with the things it WILL help with, does it?  It's like saying that bans on driving with bald tires is useless because it does nothing to halt the death toll from drunk drivers.

      2. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        Lets see then ,In the gist of your questions lies a message ,   You really believe  as many do ,  that we must strategically cow -tow to the extremists of the world ?

        -The danger to troops and intelligence people "on the ground " were there to begin with and  THAT is why  we are there to begin with .
        - The countries "targeted " are all too often complicit with the very extremists that we ARE targeted for immigration vetting . The problem being THEY are not targeting their extremist elements. THAT is why we are .
        -I.S.I.S. has supporters among native born and immigrated people here - DUH !   Exactly why the executive order was invoked to begin with .
        - The recruitment from afar that you speak of  is but the single  uncontrollable factor and yet - You believe that an open door policy for  for immigration is far better ? truly understand controlled immigration ,......... NOT .

        Note ---- One number alone AND  from the Obama administration - says that there are over six thousand MISSING  foreign student visa holders within US borders !  I cannot imagine how high the TRUE number really is , This is present immigration policy  and that's Okay with you ?
        An open door policy for immigration isn't okay with a majority of Americans .

        1. Don W profile image81
          Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

          Wanting to be smart in how you deal with something is not the same as wanting to "cow-tow". You seem to have an aversion to being smart.

          - It doesn't matter why those people are there. They are there! Making their tasks even more difficult and increasing the danger they already in is not, by any reckoning, smart. It's stupid.

          - People in those countries (Muslims) are also helping the US military and US intelligence in ways you will never hear about. And the Muslim ban does not target extremists. It targets everyone who lives in those countries (which happen to be mostly Muslim). That type of shotgun approach isn't smart. It's stupid.

          - Great, we agree, ISIS already has native-born supporters in the US and Europe. President Bannon's Muslim ban does nothing to reduce the risk of those people committing attacks. All it does is causes harm to hundreds of thousands of ordinary Muslims who have nothing to do with extremism and simply want to get on with their lives. Like it or not, these people are vital to defeating extremism. These are the people who should be encouraged to advocate against extremism right within the heart of its source. Bombs and bans cannot do that! Hurting Muslims who are allies, in the vain chance of stopping an extremist, is like cutting off your nose to spite of your face. It isn't smart. It's stupid. 

          - It's about cost vs. benefit. Whatever benefit you think there is in this Muslim ban, is far outweighed by the cost of it in terms of all the things mentioned. That fact is so obvious, I that I refuse to believe Bannon is stupid enough not to know it. He's too shrewd. I think something else is afoot. This is a political act to consolidate power, test fault lines within the federal agencies etc. Bannon is testing the boundaries.Seeing what he can get away with. If that's not the case, that means they are really just dumb. I'm not sure which is worse.

    2. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Cops, furniture and lightning each kill more people than terrorist do. I can name a 1000s of other things that kill more people than terrorist. Why don't we have a war on these worst killers like bad food like sugar then work our way down to the least killing thing like Muslims terrorist.

      Or would this cut into the fun of true massive killers and cut into the over high profits for the rich.

      I get called crazy for extremely good sense.

  5. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 7 years ago

    I heard on the news Iran is banning American citizens. It could carry out to the other 7  Muslims countries to ban US also.

    Does anyone find this friendly and healthy for foreign Relationships. ?

    1. colorfulone profile image79
      colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The Iran Treaty was something we wanted in the military only because we needed to offset it to Saudi Arabia.  The Treaty itself and the provisions have to be re-examined by the new administration. The amount of money that was spent for hostages was in the billions of dollars, that was incredible, and has to be held accountable.

      Iran has already broke the treaty twice by firing missiles.

      1. Live to Learn profile image60
        Live to Learnposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        And there is the problem with dealing with fanatics. They will lie to your face to achieve a goal and then turn around and do exactly what moves toward completing their fanatical plans; with no regard for their given word that they will do otherwise. Because it is permitted within Islam to lie to the unbeliever. So, for a fanatic, all of that would be within bounds. This is not the only religion I have heard allows deception toward those outside of its faith; so if anyone is going to complain that I have a problem with Islam I have this problem with any belief structure which can be used to allow the individual to consider the use of deception when dealing with others somehow rubber stamped on a cosmic level.

        I wonder what the liberal dissenters will say when they send a missile into Israel and annihilate most of that population. Because, the annihilation of Israel is their stated goal.

        Reasonable people can disagree and remain reasonable. A fanatic is not a reasonable person and should never be treated as such. No matter how politically correct it may be deemed to do so.

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Personally I would be quite happy to find that no American military personnel could enter any of those 7 countries.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

        With you there.

  6. ZipperConstantine profile image80
    ZipperConstantineposted 7 years ago

    Wow, more fake writing!

  7. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    So, anyone that cannot or simply will not see the importance of a CONTROLLED  immigration policy from ALL parts of the world  is simply blinded by leftist rhetoric .  I believe that the simple fact alone that IN ONE WEEKEND of Trumps new  executive order , ---That so many people were jammed up in airports ---is a direct indicator of the drastic need of more controls .

  8. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

    Don W,
    One , Any  - " aversion to being smart " ,--is not mine but yours. And it   lies wholly in the liberal ideologies that totally support  this continued disastrous  world refugee  migration. Just some of the points  ;the crime  , financial exploitations of these families  , the incredible amounts of added border protections that European countries have invested ,  the sea born  drowning's,   the incredible amounts of hunger , starvation  of children ,the unnatural cultural clashes ,  policing and  military costs ,   The cultural shock alone for eleventh century dwellers into today's Europe and America . Where exactly has the refugee  settlements been a success ? Germany ? England ? Greece ? France ?
    -Each of these countries have their own economic problems
    -It would have been far better off to set up and protect safe spaces in their own countries
    -I thought you liberals knew ALL about safe spaces

    Two . The people in place who are "helping " our intelligence services  aren't  the ones in flight , they\se people  actually care about the future of their own cultures and countries and remain .Refugees are just that , refugees .

    Three , our policies towards LEGAL immigration isn't the same as the radically infused refugee problem to begin with , That is part and parcel  to the blindness of your opinion , WHY do your ideologies  constantly throw the two in together ?

    Four ",Cost and Benefit " It would have been far , far cheaper to not have allowed the totally disastrous Obama - Clinton foreign policies to have created a world refugee crisis to begin with ,remember your  "Arab Spring"  Syria , Lebanon , Yemen , even Iraq , Iran , Afghanistan , on and on ......what disastrous results , .Apparently you know extremely little about "Cost and Benefit " better leave that to the trump administration .

    All The spent  treasures and embassy , soldiers  lives !  How soon you've forgotten .

    But you want to call me stupid ?

    1. Don W profile image81
      Don Wposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You've got no real answers because there is nothing sensible you can say to defend this idiocy.

      All you can do is go on about liberal ideology blah blah blah, Clinton and Obama blah blah blah like a broken record.

      Every one of the points I made in my last comment still stand. You've said nothing that even remotely addresses them:

      Making the lives of your own military and intelligence people even harder, is stupid.

      Hurting the people who are helping you, is stupid.

      Hurting Muslims who have nothing to do with extremism, but are crucial in defeating it at the source, is stupid.

      Issuing this ban, knowing that the benefit is outweighed by the cost, is either stupid or a strategic move to consolidate power. Either is worrying.

      Oh and we can all post pictures. Here's one for you:

      Here's another:

      And another:

      And yes they're all children, because (as always) they're the ones who are suffering the most. But it's okay, they're probably not Christians, so they're less important, right? Turning men women and children in this state away is immoral. Being scared is no excuse for it. You should be utterly ashamed of yourself for trying to defend it.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)