Quote:
If it had been done with some consideration and guidance in how to implement it, it might not have been unreasonable. That wasn't the case. It was a cluster in which border officers had no clear instructions on who was or wasn't allowed. They even kept turning people back after the courts ordered a stay on the EO. Six of the seven countries covered were already under the strictest vetting process for those seeking to come to the US. Syria was the one not already named in current laws. Trump had a chance to name Saudi Arabia and the UAE, places were nationals have come to the US to commit terrorist acts. This EO wasn't some reasonable attempt at preventing a bad guy in. It didn't include places where known bad guys have come from, and was just a mess in implementation. Which doesn't matter to Trump, for it was just political pandering to his base that he can point too has keeping his campaign promise, and he will shift blame to someone else if someone asks why it didn't work. |
Quote:
Correct. The 90-day pause to review did NOT include places where known bad guys come from, such as Saudi Arabia. The list was NOT drafted by Trump. The list was drafted by Obama. You may be happy with the prior vetting process, but I see no problem with the new White House homeowner making sure all the "doors to the nation", so to speak, are properly locked for our safety. |
Quote:
He could have added as many countries as he wished. Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Egypt not being included was a choice made he and his team. People have come from all of them that have committed terrorists acts in this country, but they are also places where Trump has businesses. |
Quote:
Saudi, UAE and Egypt all have functioning security systems and governments that control the territory withing their borders. Should we be shocked that DJT doesn't have a hotel in Somolia or the Sudan? It strikes me as a fundamentally misguided security model to only afford heightened scrutiny to a population after it has successfully perpetrated an act rather than assessing threats prospectively. |
It is also misguided to issue an order without giving the effected agencies at least a heads up. That's why the implementation was such a boon doggle.
A pause on travlers is fine, but it could have been done without the disruption that did occur; highlighting the administration's inexperience and providing recruitment propaganda for terrorists groups. |
Quote:
Quote:
This is a barn doors argument in which not all the horses have fled. Many of the 9/11 criminals, and the planner, were Saudi Arabian. The royalty there still supports the teaching of wahhabism at the very least. Not including that country under the same visa vetting process as Iran has very little to do with security. Trump giving them a pass to them and other countries in this EO is just evidence of "draining the swamp" was nothing more than rhetoric, and his administration isn't going to be some changing force in Washington, but that it is no different than previous ones. |
Quote:
As a matter of logic, it does not follow that because is due regarding counties with broken security services and extraordinary domestic chaos, than one must not afford greater scrutiny where a longstanding state sponsor of terror is involved. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The conclusion that not putting Saudi on the list has little to do with security isn't well founded. Quote:
|
So the real reason for the travel 'ban' or pause is because those countries on the list are run by governments that are uncooperative with sharing their counter terrorism intelligence (if it exists) with the US or they do not do a good job of keeping track of this stuff? On the other hand, we were fine without the ban still.
As much as I hate the Saudis and Wahhabism, what I keep hearing is that the Wahhabi clerics have got the Sauds (who probably do not even believe that stuff) by the balls since Wahhabi extremists violently took control of the holy sites in 1979. I hear that, like you said, Saudi Arabia takes terrorism extremely seriously when it is within their borders (can't say the same for outside of their borders that they sponsor or used to), has radicalization programs, and shares its intel. Pakistan, on the other hand, lol. Iraq was just removed from the list since they have a government and coalition in place that cooperates closely with the US and it also has translators that served US forces. But why won't Trump just cite the real reasons then? He's just pandering to xenophobes with his us vs. them rhetoric. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
DJT clearly announced that he would seek to reduce immigration before he was elected. He was elected, and is now doing what one might have anticipated he would do if elected. Pandering? That's how representative government is supposed to work. |
When you're a powerful person who has huge global influences and of whoms decisions can influence and affect people in all corners of the globe, you have to deliver things a certain way.
"I Donald J Trump am calling for a complete ban on all Muslims into the United States" Those were his exact words if I remember correctly, and no doubt they were his exact intentions too. Why even say that? Why deliver it in such a demoralising offensive way? Why even mention "Muslims" why not just tell people he was considering a temporary travel ban from citizens of countries where terrorism is very active? Is Ireland included? They must be the terror capital of Europe, car bombs and uncovered terror plots almost every week, both religious and political motives, but those stories might offend the Irish heritage in the US, and don't help the islamophibic population in the US build thier hate, so probably don't get aired. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.