NYT says Middle Eastern Muslims, not Middle Eastern Muslim refugees, commit terrorism

Everyone can relax now.  The New York Times has produced a study showing that Muslim refugees from the Middle East don't commit acts of terrorism.  The acts of terrorism are actually committed by Muslim Middle Easterners who enter America on other grounds, therefore there is no reason to stop Muslim Middle Eastern refugees from entering America.  Are you following this?

All of the Sept. 11 attackers entered the United States using tourist, business or student visas. Since then, most of the attackers in the United States claiming or appearing to be motivated by extremist Islam were born in this country or were naturalized citizens. None were refugees.

This isn't exactly true.  But let's play along.

The Times claims that half of terrorist attacks were committed by men born in the U.S.  But with names like Nidal Malik Hasan, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, I'm guessing these aren't tenth-generation Americans who came over on the Mayflower.  We let their parents, Muslim Middle Easterners, into the country, and they were born here.  Had we not let their parents in, they wouldn't be born here, and more of us would be alive than there are today.

A number who came in were naturalized citizens.  Once again, if we hadn't let Muslim Middle Easterners into the country, they would not have become naturalized.

The Boston bombers were Muslims who were from war-torn Chechnya, where many Muslims were radicalized.  While their parents were not "refugees" in the formal sense, they came into America requesting "political asylum," which isn't very different from refugee status.  For whatever the reason, the administration of George W. Bush let this terrorist family in, and several years later, the maimed and killed people of Boston paid the price.

But even technically speaking, the claim that no refugees are involved in terrorism is simply untrue.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) came out with a list of 12 vetted refugees in the past year alone who quickly joined jihad plots to attack the United States.  This includes "refugees" who provided material support to al-Qaeda, one who left the U.S. to join ISIS, and several who tried to buy weapons for terrorists and/or provide support for them.

So the Times' claim that refugees aren't involved with terrorism is simply a lie, like many things published in the Holocaust-denying "paper of record."

But even if what the Times wrote were 100% true, in their own article they are making it clear that Middle Eastern Muslims who get into America are the ones who commit acts of terrorism.  The Times seems to be unintentionally making the argument not only to exclude Muslim Middle Easterners from refugee status, but to exclude Muslim Middle Easterners from entering the country on any grounds, since it is on other grounds that the terrorists they cite got into the country.

Of course, they didn't make that obvious conclusion; they just wanted to vindicate unvetted Muslim Middle Eastern refugees, which they seem to think America desperately needs more of.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.

Everyone can relax now.  The New York Times has produced a study showing that Muslim refugees from the Middle East don't commit acts of terrorism.  The acts of terrorism are actually committed by Muslim Middle Easterners who enter America on other grounds, therefore there is no reason to stop Muslim Middle Eastern refugees from entering America.  Are you following this?

All of the Sept. 11 attackers entered the United States using tourist, business or student visas. Since then, most of the attackers in the United States claiming or appearing to be motivated by extremist Islam were born in this country or were naturalized citizens. None were refugees.

This isn't exactly true.  But let's play along.

The Times claims that half of terrorist attacks were committed by men born in the U.S.  But with names like Nidal Malik Hasan, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, and Abdul Malik Abdul Kareem, I'm guessing these aren't tenth-generation Americans who came over on the Mayflower.  We let their parents, Muslim Middle Easterners, into the country, and they were born here.  Had we not let their parents in, they wouldn't be born here, and more of us would be alive than there are today.

A number who came in were naturalized citizens.  Once again, if we hadn't let Muslim Middle Easterners into the country, they would not have become naturalized.

The Boston bombers were Muslims who were from war-torn Chechnya, where many Muslims were radicalized.  While their parents were not "refugees" in the formal sense, they came into America requesting "political asylum," which isn't very different from refugee status.  For whatever the reason, the administration of George W. Bush let this terrorist family in, and several years later, the maimed and killed people of Boston paid the price.

But even technically speaking, the claim that no refugees are involved in terrorism is simply untrue.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) came out with a list of 12 vetted refugees in the past year alone who quickly joined jihad plots to attack the United States.  This includes "refugees" who provided material support to al-Qaeda, one who left the U.S. to join ISIS, and several who tried to buy weapons for terrorists and/or provide support for them.

So the Times' claim that refugees aren't involved with terrorism is simply a lie, like many things published in the Holocaust-denying "paper of record."

But even if what the Times wrote were 100% true, in their own article they are making it clear that Middle Eastern Muslims who get into America are the ones who commit acts of terrorism.  The Times seems to be unintentionally making the argument not only to exclude Muslim Middle Easterners from refugee status, but to exclude Muslim Middle Easterners from entering the country on any grounds, since it is on other grounds that the terrorists they cite got into the country.

Of course, they didn't make that obvious conclusion; they just wanted to vindicate unvetted Muslim Middle Eastern refugees, which they seem to think America desperately needs more of.

This article was written by Ed Straker, senior writer of NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.