You're still avoiding the point I made. Pop quiz, Craig: What did the former Terrorist in Chief tell Muslims their duty in the war on America was? Choose one of the following:

a) Sit on the sidelines and be a cheerleader.
b) Just send a check.
c) Kill Americans, whenever and however you can.
d) None of the above.

The difference between my point and yours, Craig: We can count dead bodies on the streets of this country. And because the Islamist terrorists are always quick to take credit, we know who's responsible.

But while there's no question that funding for terrorism does come from this country, how do we know just how "significant" it is? We only know about the funding we succeed in interrupting. Or, if we happen to catch a terrorist accountant overseas and he happens to keep really accurate books . . . But since we stop it when we know about it, obviously we can't know how much we don't stop. Which puts us back in the assumption business, doesn't it?

And for some reason, the difference between "ignorance of the law" and "no way for the donor to know" (since the Big Fish doesn't name his charity "Dollars for Death to Americans") just plain does not seem to penetrate that rock hard cranium of yours.
The FBI won't take a case to court if they can't prove it. And if they can't come up with proof that Fatima in Detroit knew that the Palestinian Widows and Orphans Charitable Fund was a cover for money to support terrorism, then they have no case. Has absolutely NOTHING to do with ignorance of the law. Which is why it'd be a piece of cake for a lawyer to defend her . . . and why the FBI isn't ever going to get many of the little fish. And we're only assuming--again--that there are a lot of those little fish in the lake. But we only KNOW who they are when we catch the Big Fish who's collecting the Dollars for Death to Americans. And we still don't know whether they're guilty of anything. (See the above explanation, for the umpteenth time.)

Me, I prefer to stick with what we can prove. And whenever you feel like discussing something that's not based on assumptions--like how many people American Muslims kill in this country, which is rock solid--then we can talk about facts.

Last edited by L. Brown; 09/20/19 07:40 AM.