[besson3c]

Collect the entire set!

What a train wreck of an interview, this woman couldn't come across as being any dumber:

Anderson Cooper Stuns GOP Rep. On 'Terror Babies': 'They Did Not Tell Me You Were Going To Grill Me' (VIDEO)

[SpaceMonkey]

That is one big-ass flag pin.

[besson3c]

These Mexican and middle eastern babies are going to be indoctrinated as terrorists that are bred to harm America with their dirty bombs!

She dodged everything and just sputtered some of the most simplistic intellectual lightweight nonsense I've heard in a long time. I think my favorite part was her choosing not to address the notion that illegals having a baby in this country are still subject to deportation.

[OAW]

Well it's about time journalists have started to seriously challenge these outlandish statements coming from the right.

And I suppose it depends on what you mean when you say "this woman couldn't come across as being any dumber". If you are speaking of her intelligence ... then I would disagree. If you are speaking of her blatant fear-mongering and her apparent expectation that she wouldn't be called on it at some point ... then I agree wholeheartedly.

OAW

PS: Am I the only one who finds it pretty creepy that the woman's face doesn't move from her top lip up when she speaks?

[besson3c]

Not only that, but this middle eastern fear-mongering is really quite disgusting. How on Earth did the dominance of Mexicans in the general debate also grow to include middle eastern illegals?

I think I'm done ranting, sorry to subject all of you to this!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That is one big-ass flag pin.

I say it's not big enough. Should be the size of her head.

[hyteckit]

Fear mongering works on conservatives.

[Wiskedjak]

I always love when the phrases "it's well known" and "it's common knowledge" are used as a substitute when no actual evidence can be presented.

[ironknee]

no offense to anyone but as a new yorker, her accent sounds dumb...

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I always love when the phrases "it's well known" and "it's common knowledge" are used as a substitute when no actual evidence can be presented.

fox news always says, "some people are saying..."

is it a fact? no but some people have said it...

[turtle777]

I think she is a democratic hoax.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I think she is a democratic hoax.

-t

Who has been a congresswoman since 2002? That's quite the hoax...

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who has been a congresswoman since 2002? That's quite the hoax...

Some people are saying it's well known common knowledge that Debbie Riddle was a Liberal anchor baby planted in the Republican party 61 years ago. The Liberal agenda runs deep.

[besson3c]

And is it just a coincidence that her last name is "Riddle"?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who has been a congresswoman since 2002? That's quite the hoax...

She is a member of the Texas state legislature, not Congress.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

She is a member of the Texas state legislature, not Congress.

Ahh... sorry, I stand corrected.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And is it just a coincidence that her last name is "Riddle"?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

I say it's not big enough. Should be the size of her head.

I assume that's what they need to wear in Texas in order to make sure no one mistakes them for an illegal immigrant.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Despite the usual peanut gallery blather, what exactly is so impossible about this:

"...a supposed threat in which terrorist organizations send pregnant women to the United States to have their children, who would be US citizens but trained and raised abroad to be terrorists and could enter and leave the US without raising suspicion."

Anyone who can actually use their brain, rather than just make inane peanut gallery comments care to offer an actual fact-based argument as to why this couldn't happen? (I know, I know- a REAL difficult request in the poli-lounge).

It's a fact that there's 'birth tourism' in the US, where people from first-world nations fly to the US to have children that will have citizenship here. So far, lawmakers haven't done a thing to stop it, and there may actually not be anything that can be done to stop it short of revising the 14th Amendment to include at least one US native parent for citizenship. (Such a radical concept it's done virtually everywhere).

Why then is it so outrageous to consider that a terrorist group might also seek to try the same thing? What's stopping them? The stellar job we're doing currently of enforcing our 'ohhh soooo unfair' immigration laws?

I don't see where carrying out part one would even be all that hard, especially given the current brain-dead US immigration policy. Terrorist organizations would have to be downright stupid not to consider the possibility given our obvious weaknesses in that area, and I guess unlike many, I don't dismiss all terrorist groups as stupid.

The hard part would be the part two- 18, 20 or however many years later the terrorist 'anchor baby' actually being raised/trained/willing to carry out some terror plot in the US, and everything going according to some master plan. Terror groups may not be full of completely stupid people, but I doubt most are really that capable of planning so far ahead.

Still, what's wrong with merely looking into the possibility of terrorist groups giving it a try, since it is actually possible and they clearly KNOW it's possible? Wait, let me guess, it's just too P.C. kneejerk-inspiring a subject to even bring up eh, since clearly all terrorists -now and forever- are minorities, and as we know, anything to do with minorities is off limits for rational discussion, just name-calling, baseless accusations, and pointing and yelling "RACISM!"

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Despite the usual peanut gallery blather, what exactly is so impossible about this:

"...a supposed threat in which terrorist organizations send pregnant women to the United States to have their children, who would be US citizens but trained and raised abroad to be terrorists and could enter and leave the US without raising suspicion."

Anyone who can actually use their brain, rather than just make inane peanut gallery comments care to offer an actual fact-based argument as to why this couldn't happen? (I know, I know- a REAL difficult request in the poli-lounge).

It's a fact that there's 'birth tourism' in the US, where people from first-world nations fly to the US to have children that will have citizenship here. So far, lawmakers haven't done a thing to stop it, and there may actually not be anything that can be done to stop it short of revising the 14th Amendment to include at least one US native parent for citizenship. (Such a radical concept it's done virtually everywhere).

Why then is it so outrageous to consider that a terrorist group might also seek to try the same thing? What's stopping them? The stellar job we're doing currently of enforcing our 'ohhh soooo unfair' immigration laws?

I don't see where carrying out part one would even be all that hard, especially given the current brain-dead US immigration policy. Terrorist organizations would have to be downright stupid not to consider the possibility given our obvious weaknesses in that area, and I guess unlike many, I don't dismiss all terrorist groups as stupid.

The hard part would be the part two- 18, 20 or however many years later the terrorist 'anchor baby' actually being raised/trained/willing to carry out some terror plot in the US, and everything going according to some master plan. Terror groups may not be full of completely stupid people, but I doubt most are really that capable of planning so far ahead.

Still, what's wrong with merely looking into the possibility of terrorist groups giving it a try, since it is actually possible and they clearly KNOW it's possible? Wait, let me guess, it's just too P.C. kneejerk-inspiring a subject to even bring up eh, since clearly all terrorists -now and forever- are minorities, and as we know, anything to do with minorities is off limits for rational discussion, just name-calling, baseless accusations, and pointing and yelling "RACISM!"

If you want to assess the possible risk as a theoretical exercise that's fine. The thing that's being laughed at in this thread, though, is that Riddle claimed that former FBI officials told her that these sorts of activities were actually happening as part of a terrorist plot -- that it was a real threat, not a theoretical one -- and then couldn't substantiate it when pressed.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If you want to assess the possible risk as a theoretical exercise that's fine. The thing that's being laughed at in this thread, though, is that Riddle claimed that former FBI officials told her that these sorts of activities were actually happening as part of a terrorist plot -- that it was a real threat, not a theoretical one -- and then couldn't substantiate it when pressed.

Right, and CNN or any news source has absolutely NEVER reported anything with unnamed sources. That's unheard of! If anyone tried it, what they're actually talking about should be dismissed and they should just be laughed at! HAHAHAHAHA! Look at that idiot! They reported that someone told them something and yet when pressed on a moment's notice didn't reveal thier source! HAHAHAHAHAHA! What an idiot! No one but a total idiot ever has confidential sources for anything! HAHAHAHAHA! It's so easy to be part of the peanut gallery! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[hyteckit]

Where is Jack Bauer when you need him?!!!

We need Jack Bauer to shoot those terrorist babies and their moms.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Right, and CNN or any news source has absolutely NEVER reported anything with unnamed sources. That's unheard of! If anyone tried it, what they're actually talking about should be dismissed and they should just be laughed at! HAHAHAHAHA! Look at that idiot! They reported that someone told them something and yet when pressed on a moment's notice didn't reveal thier source! HAHAHAHAHAHA! What an idiot! No one but a total idiot ever has confidential sources for anything! HAHAHAHAHA! It's so easy to be part of the peanut gallery! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Usually if you can't reveal your source, you at least reveal why you can't (e.g. "senior administration officials declined to speak for attribution because they were unauthorized to discuss the substance of the negotiations, but said blah blah blah.") Riddle didn't indicate why she could not reveal her source.

Really, Crash, it was a train-wreck of an interview on her part. Even you, in your diatribe above, seemed to think the idea was a bit ridiculous ("Terror groups may not be full of completely stupid people, but I doubt most are really that capable of planning so far ahead.") So, coupled with her inability to source her information, it's worth a laugh. I'm sorry you feel so much allegiance for your "team" that you can't laugh along with us.

Laugh! Be happy! This is not srsbusiness!

[besson3c]

"...a supposed threat in which terrorist organizations send pregnant women to the United States to have their children, who would be US citizens but trained and raised abroad to be terrorists and could enter and leave the US without raising suspicion."

How would you raise a baby abroad to be a terrorist, and how would this influence be so strong that it overwhelms the local culture and environment and results in the baby once it has reached adulthood to become a terrorist? What does illegal immigration have to do with these sinister plot? I mean, you could legally immigrate to the US with the same plot just as the 9/11 hijackers did.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would you raise a baby abroad to be a terrorist, and how would this influence be so strong that it overwhelms the local culture and environment and results in the baby once it has reached adulthood to become a terrorist? What does illegal immigration have to do with these sinister plot? I mean, you could legally immigrate to the US with the same plot just as the 9/11 hijackers did.

The recent Russian spy ring case is a good example. Those people weren't even raised in the United States and their Russian handlers could barely keep control of some of them after so long (there was a great exchange published in the news about one of the couples asking permission to buy a new house).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Usually if you can't reveal your source, you at least reveal why you can't (e.g. "senior administration officials declined to speak for attribution because they were unauthorized to discuss the substance of the negotiations, but said blah blah blah." Riddle didn't indicate why she could not reveal her source.

It doesn't sound at all like that's what she came on the show to talk about- the whole thing starts off with "You told our producer..." and then Anderson Cooper lays out the argument, not the guest. It's a classic ambush. Yeah, she's not a fast on her feet speaker, yes it's stupid to tell a CNN producer something thinking they may actually be fair with you, so Cooper and Co. knew they'd easily get some milage out of it. And look! They did! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! So clever! So funny! So useful! It's not news, it's a reality show! Next up, Big Brother!

Meanwhile, did they actually prove anything she told their producer wasn't true, or wasn't told to her? No.

Wow such substance!

Really, Crash, it was a train-wreck of an interview on her part. Even you, in your diatribe above, seemed to think the idea was a bit ridiculous ("Terror groups may not be full of completely stupid people, but I doubt most are really that capable of planning so far ahead.") So, coupled with her inability to source her information, it's worth a laugh. I'm sorry you feel so much allegiance for your "team" that you can't laugh along with us.

Laugh! Be happy! This is not srsbusiness!

HAHAHA! You peanut gallery guys are such deeeeep thinkers! HAHAHAHAHAH! Oh wait, you don't have to actually think about ANYTHING, just make jabs, dumb comments about Mexicans and the Middle East and laugh at your own jokes that are just sooooo witty! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Meanwhile, my original question stands to anyone that actually meets the working brain criteria, all three or four that still even bother with this place.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Meanwhile, did they actually prove anything she told their producer wasn't true, or wasn't told to her? No.

The way the real world works is that when you (Riddle) make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not CNN.

Meanwhile, my original question stands to anyone that actually meets the working brain criteria, all three or four that still even bother with this place.

Which I addressed. It's fine to consider out-of-the-box threats, but Riddle made a different claim than the one you posed.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How would you raise a baby abroad to be a terrorist, and how would this influence be so strong that it overwhelms the local culture and environment and results in the baby once it has reached adulthood to become a terrorist? What does illegal immigration have to do with these sinister plot? I mean, you could legally immigrate to the US with the same plot just as the 9/11 hijackers did.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture a guess- it might be possible if the kid were taken to a terrorist training camp and never taught anything outside of radical Islamic or some other form of militant ideology.

Now, I know this is going to be a difficult concept for some- but try to get past laughing at your own jokes for a second to consider it- I'm talking here what's within the realm of possibility, not whether or not it's probable. (Peanut gallery: you might want to consult a dictionary to help you decipher the meaning of those two different p-words.)

And you do raise a good point (whoa! A first? )- there's nothing about the whole issue that automatically ties in with illegal immigration- as it's more logical that it would be better attempted using a person who's acquired a legitimate visa. It's really yet another possible abuse regarding the outdated status of the the 14th Amendment.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The way the real world works is that when you (Riddle) make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not CNN.

Show me where she, on air, made the claim.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Show me where she, on air, made the claim.

The first 30 seconds? She did not dispute Cooper's characterization of the claim she made to his producer, and said that the claim came from former FBI officials.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Anyone who can actually use their brain, rather than just make inane peanut gallery comments care to offer an actual fact-based argument as to why this couldn't happen? (I know, I know- a REAL difficult request in the poli-lounge).

Of course it *could* happen. But, honestly, would it be practical? What could you possibly gain from raising a child born in America to be a terrorist that you couldn't get in *much* less time from recruiting a fully grown American citizen?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course it *could* happen. But, honestly, would it be practical? What could you possibly gain from raising a child born in America to be a terrorist that you couldn't get in *much* less time from recruiting a fully grown American citizen?

Of course it's not practical, and he even acknowledged as such. But he's so determined to argue that CNN treated her unfairly that he can't even laugh at Riddle's expense.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

She did not dispute Cooper's characterization of the claim she made to his producer, and said that the claim came from former FBI officials.

So she brought it up? Or did Cooper.

And did Cooper disprove that the claim came from a former FBI official?

Seriously, you really are going to try to float that CNN (or any news agency for that matter) never reports something and says "unnamed sources tell us..." and that each time they use that, they say "we can't tell you why our source is unnamed because..."?

The biggest irony here is, if this had been some pet issue of CNN's producer's, they'd gladly cite a government hack in their camp AS their source for whatever pet issue is being pushed! "Congressperson so-and-so tells us that fifty million green jobs have been created, and all the polar bears are dead because mankind uses lightbulbs...!"

[Wiskedjak]

There are *so* many plausible ways of attacking the US, you should just put a curtain made of iron around the country to insure it's security.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Of course it's not practical, and he even acknowledged as such. But he's so determined to argue that CNN treated her unfairly that he can't even laugh at Riddle's expense.

He may have. But, I think it's time that politicians, both liberal and conservative, start to expect to be called on their stupid claims.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So she brought it up? Or did Cooper.

She did, to his producer, which he relayed on air. By not arguing against this, she tacitly acknowledges that Cooper's characterization of her claim is accurate. Even her protest about his "grilling" her strengthens this tacit admission, because she reiterates that she made the claim to his producer.

And did Cooper disprove that the claim came from a former FBI official?

Why would he be interested in disproving it? She made a salacious allegation without providing information that could be used to independently confirm it. He's asking for the identity of who gave her the information. She declined to tell him. End of story. It is her responsibility to introduce evidence to back up her claim, and if she doesn't want to do so, then her claim is weaker for it, which is why we find it so funny.

Seriously, you really are going to try to float that CNN (or any news agency for that matter) never reports something and says "unnamed sources tell us..." and that each time they use that, they say "we can't tell you why our source is unnamed because..."?

Never? No, but it's common practice, when citing anonymous sources, to relay why they chose to remain anonymous (it's part of having an editorial board and all of that stuff). You appear to be under the impression that I inherently trust anonymous sources when they appear in news articles, and that there is some hypocrisy here. No, I apply the same initial skepticism for anonymous accounts in the news media. Usually, though, in the news media, there is at least a factual context in which to place the anonymous accounts. Riddle provided nothing. Again, funny.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

And did Cooper disprove that the claim came from a former FBI official?

A former FBI official told *me* that she's lying.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course it *could* happen. But, honestly, would it be practical?

I don't know, but really, are terrorists the most practical people in the world? They're mostly extremists dedicated to hopelessly stupid ideas.

What could you possibly gain from raising a child born in America to be a terrorist that you couldn't get in *much* less time from recruiting a fully grown American citizen?

What is gained from taking a child and raising it from birth among a cult? (You do realize this happens ALL THE TIME, don't you?)

I'd say the 'benefit' to the person doing such a thing is that you often gain 'true believers' because in a controlled environment (and again, people *really* think it's not possible to set that up, even though, as mentioned, it happens all the time) you can raise someone who adheres to a belief set you want them to, and you can almost virtually guarantee the results, and that you're likely to be able to trust the person completely because in addition to having a legit US birth cert, they're also 'one of your own' 100% from birth.

Take the Mafia-do you think perhaps a person raised in a mob setting is going to be more trusted among the mob to be a loyal solider, more than someone who grew up an outsider to the mob?

A homegrown citizen might always be suspect for retaining some allegiance to the country they came from. Someone you've hand-grown would probably produce much more favorable (from a terrorist's point of view) results.

Now, again, is it likely that half these rag-tag groups of wanna-be badasses are actually capable of any of this? I don't know, in most cases, probably not. But is it possible, even practical on many levels IF you actually do have the ability to carry it out? Actually, I'd say yes.

Practically speaking, what would it really entail? Get someone in to have a kid- the kid is a citizen, take the kid and stick them in some extremist camp halfway around the world, raise them teaching them ANYTHING you want to instill in them, and -given an organization that actually survives and thrives in the interim- harvest the results in 18 or more years. If you're any kind of terror group that's actually got anything going for it other than smoke and mirrors, then you surely MUST be doing many steps of this already- IE: you've got camps in remote hellholes around the globe, and you're training children in your warped ideology in the hopes of raising your future fighters.

What's really so hard about adding the extra bonus of automatic US citizen on top of it?

Again, an ACTUAL argument would be welcomed.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

There are *so* many plausible ways of attacking the US, you should just put a curtain made of iron around the country to insure it's security.

Or just make lame jokes about all of them, but then whine "WHY DIDN'T ANYONE DO ANYTHING!!!!?!!!!" the next time there's a terror attack.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

She did, to his producer, which he relayed on air.

Which is an incredible lame ambush, especially if it's not the subject she actually came on to talk about. I see it makes for good 'reality TV' for lamebrains, but really, it accomplishes SQUAT.

The sad thing is, it's actually an interesting story. A real news organization might have actually looked into it, found out whatever there was to find out- wait, that might actually mean consulting their OWN sources- even some that are unnamed! *gasp!* then doing an actual FACTUAL broadcast about it.

But then, that sort of thing would bore the peanut-heads who'd tune over to Big Brother instead.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

What is gained from taking a child and raising it from birth among a cult? (You do realize this happens ALL THE TIME, don't you?)

Of course it happens all the time; every religion does it. That's why I specifically asked what the benefit would be of raising an American-born child to be a terrorist (with Islamic terrorist being assumed)

I'd say the 'benefit' to the person doing such a thing is that you often gain 'true believers' because in a controlled environment (and again, people *really* think it's not possible to set that up, even though, as mentioned, it happens all the time) you can raise someone who adheres to a belief set you want them to, and you can almost virtually guarantee the results, and that you're likely to be able to trust the person completely because in addition to having a legit US birth cert, they're also 'one of your own' 100% from birth.

Sure. But what would be the advantage of a thoroughly indoctrinated terrorist having a legit US birth certificate?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Which is an incredible lame ambush, especially if it's not the subject she actually came on to talk about. I see it makes for good 'reality TV' for lamebrains, but really, it accomplishes SQUAT.

No ambush. I'm going to assume that a member of the Texas state legislature has experience in how television media works, and knows that the interview with the producer is a trial run for them to figure out what the on-camera talent will ask you on air (they want to make sure you are going to be interesting). Thus, you know that juicy stories you tell a producer, like secret knowledge of new terrorist plots, are sure to be repeated on air. The alternative is what? She just mentioned it offhand, while she and Cooper's producer were having a casual gab-fest about something completely unrelated to her upcoming interview on-air? Doesn't sound too likely. Although it would be potentially more hilarious.

The sad thing is, it's actually an interesting story. A real news organization might have actually looked into it, found out whatever there was to find out- wait, that might actually mean consulting their OWN sources- even some that are unnamed! *gasp!* then doing an actual FACTUAL broadcast about it.

It's hard to look into it if the person who introduced you to the information is claiming secret knowledge. If CNN looks into it and finds nothing, Riddle can still claim secret knowledge. Wiskedjk made the point more succinctly than I did above. Except the CIA told me that the FBI is just jerking him around.

[hyteckit]

How dare the liberal media ask for proof to back up conservatives' make up claims.

When Pres. Bush was president, the liberal media never question conservatives' made up BS.

Why can't the liberal media just ask questions conservatives want to answer.

Ask Sharron Angle.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Of course it happens all the time; every religion does it. That's why I specifically asked what the benefit would be of raising an American-born child to be a terrorist (with Islamic terrorist being assumed)

A valid US birth certificate.

Sure. But what would be the advantage of a thoroughly indoctrinated terrorist having a legit US birth certificate?

Umm.. gee, let's see here... virtually guaranteed easy access into a country you want to attack, by someone you've raised as a total believer in your cause?

Assuming one is already in the business of creating 'thoroughly indoctrinated terrorists' what exactly would be the the advantage of a thoroughly indoctrinated terrorist who DIDN'T have access to a place you wanted to attack?

Really, I can understand an argument as to why someone would try, but as for the REASONS why someone might want to, are these difficult concepts to grasp?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's hard to look into

There it is, the reason a news orginzation can't be expected to dig up stories on thier own, find and develop their own sources on the stories, and then actually report facts rather than pull lame ambush tactics on their guests.

"That would be too hard!"

[hyteckit]

Ambush tactics? Hehe...

Just as E=mc^2 is a liberal conspiracy.

Or Bike-sharing is a communist UN plot supported by liberals.

Colorado Republican Dan Maes: Dem's Support For Bikes Is A U.N. Plot | TPMDC

Forget Jack Bauer. Let's get agent Mulder.

I want to believe.

[Rumor]

Sounded to me more like she just wanted to get on the news to bitch about immigration and use the "sleeper cell anchor baby" line as an excuse.

[hyteckit]

Update on "Terror Babies".

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - Evening Buzz: 'Terror Babies' Taking Aim at U.S.? « - CNN.com Blogs

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Umm.. gee, let's see here... virtually guaranteed easy access into a country you want to attack, by someone you've raised as a total believer in your cause?

Assuming one is already in the business of creating 'thoroughly indoctrinated terrorists' what exactly would be the the advantage of a thoroughly indoctrinated terrorist who DIDN'T have access to a place you wanted to attack?

Really, I can understand an argument as to why someone would try, but as for the REASONS why someone might want to, are these difficult concepts to grasp?

Well, it's not as though "easy access" into the US has been a problem for non-US-citizen terrorists, even after the security was tightened, has it? It just doesn't seem to me that raising US-born terror babies would be worth the effort only to obtain a US-citizenship.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Wow, that was a painful interview. She sounded...crazy.

greg