|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy.
Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best?
|
I don't think it has as much to do with bigotry as it has to do with stupidity. This is the same guy that said the US shouldn't allow the American doctors that helped with ebola in West Africa to reenter the country. He likely genuinely believes this ban would improve security.
|
United Kingdom10021 Posts
I have no doubt that Trump believes he is doing the right thing. I don't think the bigotry is intended, but it is there. There is absolutely no sympathy for innocent victims of this, ALL of whom are exactly the same people that ISIS would love to see suffer. He couldn't give a shit about them because of their country of origin, that is bigotry.
I think stupidity and bigotry in this case are two sides of the same coin.
|
On January 29 2017 21:29 Madkipz wrote:Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy. Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best?
Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums.
My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable.
|
On January 29 2017 21:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I have no doubt that Trump believes he is doing the right thing. I don't think the bigotry is intended, but it is there. There is absolutely no sympathy for innocent victims of this, ALL of whom are exactly the same people that ISIS would love to see suffer. He couldn't give a shit about them because of their country of origin, that is bigotry.
I think stupidity and bigotry in this case are two sides of the same coin.
The right thing for whom? He has "incidentally" excluded just right countries so that the impact on his business is minimizes. Does it really leave any room to paint his intentions as good for anyone else than himself?
I could somehow understand when people supported Trump in the campaign, in particular given how Clinton was painted as the enemy of the common folk. But now when he does things that are clearly moronic? There are people who lived in the US, had houses, lives etc. and now they are stuck outside, their families and work left behind, just because they happened to travel abroad in an unfortunate time. This kind of incompetence is just not expected from a US president.
|
On January 29 2017 21:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 21:29 Madkipz wrote:Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy. Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best? Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums. My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable.
Just slam "prevent terrorism" on an act, and you can pass whatever you want. Trump's 2 predecessors have already done this plenty of times.
What people "feel" is dangerous and what the actual threats are are very different things. Many of us are terrified by big spiders, but feels safe riding a horse, for example.
Things like not bombing foreign countries and advocating understanding and equal rights would actually prevent terrorism. The extremes on both sides of this WANT this to escalate, so they can gather more support and legitimize their horrible actions.
As for Saudi Arabia, they basically ARE in the south what ISIS has been trying to create in the north. But once billions of $ is on the line, no country can affort to care about anything else, not even that Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
|
United Kingdom10021 Posts
On January 29 2017 21:58 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 21:43 Jockmcplop wrote:
I have no doubt that Trump believes he is doing the right thing. I don't think the bigotry is intended, but it is there. There is absolutely no sympathy for innocent victims of this, ALL of whom are exactly the same people that ISIS would love to see suffer. He couldn't give a shit about them because of their country of origin, that is bigotry.
I think stupidity and bigotry in this case are two sides of the same coin. The right thing for whom? He has "incidentally" excluded just right countries so that the impact on his business is minimizes. Does it really leave any room to paint his intentions as good for anyone else than himself? I could somehow understand when people supported Trump in the campaign, in particular given how Clinton was painted as the enemy of the common folk. But now when he does things that are clearly moronic? There are people who lived in the US, had houses, lives etc. and now they are stuck outside, their families and work left behind, just because they happened to travel abroad in an unfortunate time. This kind of incompetence is just not expected from a US president.
You have discussed things with Trump supporters, surely?
You must know by now that he can literally do nothing wrong in many people's eyes. No matter how much he screws this stuff up, they will celebrate him, and if he happens to screw it up in a bigoted, xenophobic way, all the better for them.
He knows this too, so doesn't have to even bother trying to get the details right.
That's what makes him so dangerous. His incompetence is celebrated.
To be fair to Trump, I don't really think his business interests have much to do with it. The list of seven countries was originally made by Obama when he signed in that Visa Waiver thing in 2015. I don't know many details of it but I know that Trump's order specifically referred to this as the basis of the choice of 7 countries.
|
His incompetence has only been celebrated thus far because the effects of his policies are only gradually being realized, particularly by his biggest fans. Once his doltish economic/trade policies can sink in, his cheerleaders will start having to pay more for basic things, deal with the Obamacare replacement, and maybe even pay more in taxes to subsidize the building of the wall.
|
On January 29 2017 22:06 farvacola wrote:
His incompetence has only been celebrated thus far because the effects of his policies are only gradually being realized, particularly by his biggest fans. Once his doltish economic/trade policies can sink in, his cheerleaders will start having to pay more for basic things, deal with the Obamacare replacement, and maybe even pay more in taxes to subsidize the building of the wall.
But will they blame Trump or will they blame the Democrats?
|
On January 29 2017 22:07 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 22:06 farvacola wrote:
His incompetence has only been celebrated thus far because the effects of his policies are only gradually being realized, particularly by his biggest fans. Once his doltish economic/trade policies can sink in, his cheerleaders will start having to pay more for basic things, deal with the Obamacare replacement, and maybe even pay more in taxes to subsidize the building of the wall. But will they blame Trump or will they blame the Democrats?
For this usually China is blamed!
That's the trick, when you can paint enough enemies, you can always find someone to blame!
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there.
|
United Kingdom10021 Posts
I'm getting information here from a website I know nothing about, mic.com (so I have no idea whether this is credible or not)
https://mic.com/articles/166845/the-list-of-muslim-countries-trump-wants-to-ban-was-compiled-by-the-obama-administration#.4iKwbHT0K
At the initial signing of the restrictions, foreigners who would normally be deemed eligible for a visa waiver were denied if they had visited Iran, Syria, Sudan or Iraq in the past five years or held dual citizenship from one of those countries.
In February 2016, the Obama administration added Libya, Somali and Yemen to the list of countries one could not have visited — but allowed dual citizens of those countries who had not traveled there access to the Visa Waiver Program. Dual citizens of Syria, Sudan, Iraq and Iran are still ineligible, however.
So, in a nutshell, Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen — and now, Trump is looking to bar immigration and visitors from the same list of countries.
|
On January 29 2017 22:12 Kipsate wrote:
Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there.
Only Syria is an especially mentioned nation from this executive order. The rest of the nations are referred to a law passed during Obamas admin. The Liberals are mad but the list is from Obama and Trump just using it.
for reference it was called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015”
|
On January 29 2017 21:58 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 21:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 29 2017 21:29 Madkipz wrote:Being from France I'd think you'd have different sympathies. Toddlers don't drive trucks into a beachfront full of people. The fact that this rarely happens has nothing to do with wanting to minimize blowback from countries negatively impacted by US foreign policy. Edit; but you probably knew this already so why play the "They're all bigots" card when you know that's disingenuous at best? Well i also live in norway, and muslim terrorist have a record of 0 death in the last decade against 70+ for anti muslim far right racist scums. My point is that muslim terrorist make a completely marginal amount of victims in the US and that targetting whole countries and an entire faith with a ban is stupid and despicable. Just slam "prevent terrorism" on an act, and you can pass whatever you want. Trump's 2 predecessors have already done this plenty of times. What people "feel" is dangerous and what the actual threats are are very different things. Many of us are terrified by big spiders, but feels safe riding a horse, for example. Things like not bombing foreign countries and advocating understanding and equal rights would actually prevent terrorism. The extremes on both sides of this WANT this to escalate, so they can gather more support and legitimize their horrible actions. As for Saudi Arabia, they basically ARE in the south what ISIS has been trying to create in the north. But once billions of $ is on the line, no country can affort to care about anything else, not even that Osama Bin Laden and the vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Even the Bush admin included Saudi Arabia in their Middle Eastern immigrant registration program and Bush was golfing buddies with the House of Saud.
On January 29 2017 22:18 Madkipz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 22:12 Kipsate wrote:
Can someone explain to me what the commonalities between the banned countries are? They look like failed majority muslim states on paper(with the exception of EVIL IRAN WOOOOH) but Lebanon isn't on there. Only Syria is an especially mentioned nation from this executive order. The rest of the nations are referred to a law passed during Obamas admin. The Liberals are mad but the list is from Obama and Trump just using it. for reference it was called "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015”
The act which allows them to reassess countries annually so that Trump could have added additional countries to the list? And doesn't restrict dual citizens or multiple other aspects of Trump's act? Sorry, throwing hissy fits over drastically altering an Obama decision doesn't make this any less pants on head retarded.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
So, if he capeable of adding and excluding countries either way that still doesn't explain Lebanon not being on that list. Saudi and Egypt makes sense due to geopolitics+bases there.
|
The timing of the 'muslim ban' and subsequent justified outrage seems like a smokescreen for the real news.
Stephen "Let's form a church militant"/"Destroy the State" Bannon now has a permanent spot on the NSC. Of course there'll be Putin's buddy Tillerson as SoS but notably Trump's decided that Tillerson's more experienced deputy is also no longer necessary for meetings. All of this whilst the head of US intelligence is somehow no longer worthy of an automatic invite, or the head of the military? The intelligence community need to get their act together and shut this shit down before it gets more dangerous. A guy like Bannon should NEVER have this much access/power.
|
On January 29 2017 22:43 Scarecrow wrote:
The timing of the 'muslim ban' and subsequent justified outrage seems like a smokescreen for the real news. Bannon getting a permanent spot on the NSC. Of course there'll be Putin's buddy Tillerson as SoS but notably Trump's decided that Tillerson's more experienced deputy is also no longer necessary for meetings. All of this whilst the head of US intelligence somehow isn't an automatic invite, or the head of the military? The intelligence community need to get their act together and shut this shit down before it gets more dangerous. A guy like Bannon should NEVER have this much access/power.
I was actually about to talk about this. Apparently Trump has decided a media editor is more important to have on the National Security Council than the Director of National Intelligence or the fucking chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I'm not sure if this is Trump being petulant because the DNI and/or chairman said something mean to him in a meeting or if Bannon just has him wrapped around his finger. Either way, I don't really see how this can be justified in any universe.
|
On January 29 2017 16:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 16:16 Kamisamanachi wrote:
Not regular poster here, but i just want to ask one thing. how the hell did countries like pakistan and especially, saudi arabia escaped out of his order?
i mean, Pakistan has been proven factory for terrorists since many years and is also a place where gangsters like Dawood Ibrahim and terrorists like osama bin laden took refuge under government. what stops trump from issuing orders against them if he wants to sign order for countries? , some of which are very less dangerous places than the ones i mentioned. It's a well-known fact that the most prominent US "partners" in the regions are among the most important state sponsors of terrorism.
so it's a buddy buddy system after all, isn't it? "i get oil from saudi and i fund terrorism in pakistan through weapons i provide, so those states should be avoided"
|
On January 29 2017 23:20 Kamisamanachi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 16:18 LegalLord wrote:On January 29 2017 16:16 Kamisamanachi wrote:
Not regular poster here, but i just want to ask one thing. how the hell did countries like pakistan and especially, saudi arabia escaped out of his order?
i mean, Pakistan has been proven factory for terrorists since many years and is also a place where gangsters like Dawood Ibrahim and terrorists like osama bin laden took refuge under government. what stops trump from issuing orders against them if he wants to sign order for countries? , some of which are very less dangerous places than the ones i mentioned. It's a well-known fact that the most prominent US "partners" in the regions are among the most important state sponsors of terrorism. so it's a buddy buddy system after all, isn't it? "i get oil from saudi and i fund terrorism in pakistan through weapons i provide, so those states should be avoided"
Trump got money from Saudi Arabia?
|
On January 29 2017 23:20 Kamisamanachi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2017 16:18 LegalLord wrote:On January 29 2017 16:16 Kamisamanachi wrote:
Not regular poster here, but i just want to ask one thing. how the hell did countries like pakistan and especially, saudi arabia escaped out of his order?
i mean, Pakistan has been proven factory for terrorists since many years and is also a place where gangsters like Dawood Ibrahim and terrorists like osama bin laden took refuge under government. what stops trump from issuing orders against them if he wants to sign order for countries? , some of which are very less dangerous places than the ones i mentioned. It's a well-known fact that the most prominent US "partners" in the regions are among the most important state sponsors of terrorism. so it's a buddy buddy system after all, isn't it? "i get oil from saudi and i fund terrorism in pakistan through weapons i provide, so those states should be avoided"
Something like that, yes. The willingness of the US to use terrorists to achieve their short-term geopolitical goals is a long-running issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
