9 ms·

First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries

First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US. Other than Iran (which imo shouldn't be on the list) we're bombing and droning all of those countries at the moment. It's insane to accept military age males from there for entry into the country, particularly if information about them is very sparse (which in war torn countries it typically is). But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to this country, "it's time to take a stand". The time to take a stand was back when Obama and Clinton armed extremists in Iraq and Syria -- years before Trump.

Scirra_Tom 10y ago
> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now. > But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to this country, "it's time to take a stand". Taking who started it out of the equation, I find it morally repugnant for the USA to destabilise a region then find it acceptable to callously turn away those who were victims of that away.
- general_ai 10y ago
  Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there is we need to stop arming ISIS, and join forces with Russia and Assad's government to destroy ISIS. It'll be over in a year or two. And if you find the US interventionism repugnant, congratulations, we now have a president who is against it, too.
  - Scirra_Tom 10y ago
    Simple right? Just destroy them. I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. He's well versed in Middle Eastern politics and warfare and crucially he's got a level head and able to think decisions through properly which he's proven since becoming president.
    - general_ai 10y ago
      Destroy the most radicalized, enforce Syrian law for the rest. There's nobody that can do the job better than the Syrian government (which is more "well versed" in local politics than any White House hack will ever be). That's the only way to minimize the body count.
      - mcguire 10y ago
        Yeah, supporting an anti-American dictator with a very dubious human rights record couldn't possibly backfire at all. Wasn't Syria one of ye old state sponsors of terrorism?
        general_ai 10y ago
        Do you think US' persistent attempts to depose him that have utterly wrecked his country maybe have anything to do with that? Moreover, do you think if the US helped him undo the damage that sentiment would change? IIRC, he did say that he would welcome our help.
        mcguire 10y ago
        Syria was on the state sponsors list when it was created in 1979. So, unless the al-Assads are prescient, probably not. More likely factors are the US support for Israel, Syrian support for Palestinians, particularly Hezbollah, and possibly leftovers of the cold war. As for US attempts to depose him, as far as I know, those only started after his 2011 crackdown on Arab Spring protesters, which set of the civil war. Syrian behavior after hypothetical help from the US to crush the rebellion, that would probably depend on how long a leash the Russians have.
- bassman9000 10y ago
  > He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now. That's a nice slippery slope you got in there. There's zero mention to muslims in the text of the order, and it's clearly stated that it's temporary, with several revision dates for assesment, the goal being to strengthen the vetting procedures. I bet most people commenting here haven't read it. Do it. Now. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
  - Scirra_Tom 10y ago
    What's wrong with using the slippery slope argument here? Regarding slippery slope logical fallacy: > This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. In this instance, plenty of reason and argument to believe this event will lead to another. It's what he campaigned on. > There's zero mention to muslims in the text of the order Plenty of Muslim mentions in his campaign.
    - bassman9000 10y ago
      > What's wrong with using the slippery slope argument here? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope > Plenty of Muslim mentions in his campaign. Not an argument, and irrelevant. Read. The. Text. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
  - cjslep 10y ago
    - A ban is not needed while revising the rules. - Revision doesn't mean suspension of the ban. - Temporary can mean indefinitely. - The overwhelming number of terrorists that commit acts of terrorism on American soil come from people born in the United States of America.
    - bassman9000 10y ago
raverbashing 10y ago
> It's insane to accept military age males from there for entry into the country That's why there's a procedure for obtaining a visa. Individuals from those countries can only go to the US in possession of a visa
- general_ai 10y ago
  Yes, and US government is making changes to this procedure.
- bassman9000 10y ago
  And if you had read the text, which you clearly haven't, you'll see that there have been issues with the visa process, and the new administration wants to review it. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli... Go read it, now.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    Reviewing the visa process is fine However the lack of concern with Saudi Arabian citizens just shows how this is nothing but smoke and mirrors
    - guildwriter 10y ago
      "Saudi Arabia has long been at war with al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates. In August 1996, bin Laden called for jihad against both the United States and Saudi Arabia with the publication of his first fatwa. The 30-page “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Sanctuaries” prompted the kingdom to revoke the al Qaeda leader’s Saudi citizenship and to divest him of his family fortune. The kingdom’s conflict has continued in more recent years. In December, the Saudi defense minister established a coalition of 39 Muslim-majority countries with a specific mandate to combat al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Shiite terror group Hezbollah. Saudi counterterrorism security forces are on the front lines every day taking the fight to al Qaeda; hundreds of Saudi security officers have been killed in the line of duty at home, fighting Islamist militants. As recently as April 5, militants attacked and killed a senior Saudi security officer outside Riyadh. U.S. intelligence and security officials have been particularly effusive in describing the important role Saudi Arabia has played in cutting off the sophisticated global network of illicit finance used by terrorists. According to the State Department, “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s lack of success in Saudi Arabia can be attributed to the Saudi government’s continued domestic and bilateral efforts to … counter terrorism and violent extremist ideologies.” The truth is plain: Americans are safer today because the kingdom has foiled numerous al Qaeda terrorist plots targeting the U.S. homeland. Adam J. Szubin, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, recently praised the kingdom’s aggressive stance against terrorism as reflecting “the strength of U.S. and Saudi cooperation on countering the financing of terrorism.”" http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/20/saudi-arabia-is-a-great-american-ally-not-iran/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/20/saudi-arabia-is-a-great-... Our relationship and the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics are extraordinarily complicated. To simply boil down our relationship to the Saudis as "majority of 9/11 hijackers came from there, therefore terrorist state" is reductionist. The House of Saud is not a monolithic structure and there are a lot of differing opinions on how to take the country forward. Deeper reading into the nature of Middle Eastern politics and our relationships to people in the region should quickly reveal that nothing is simple. Pakistan is another good example. Supporting them is necessary for a variety of defense/political needs. Logistics with Afghanistan, pressure to be placed against the mujaheddin that use Pakistani tribes as a base of support, counter balance against China, etc. Yes Pakistan has a murky relationship with terrorism due to their use against India in proxy warfare. That doesn't change the reality that opting to alienate the Pakistanis just makes life worse for us. These are not one subject issues. Like anything else involving millions of people, our reasons for taking action are multi level and multi issue. It is an immense disservice to career diplomats and policymakers to reduce concerns down to a single thing. There are no clean answers.
msoad 10y ago
> military age males What that even means? A 30 years old PhD student researching quantum computing was barred from entering the U.S. You broad brush painted him too.
- obstacle1 10y ago
  A 30 year old male is a military-age male, PhD or not.
  - jhall1468 10y ago
    I mean, if we're already going to use faith-based targeting, might as well throw a little sexism in the mix for full effect.
    - ihsw 10y ago
      But it's true, men have borne the brunt of war in antiquity and in modernity. There is no sexism and frankly it's disheartening to hear people reach that far when the facts stare you right in the face. If we're going to take things to their logical conclusion then we'll have to accept re-inviting WWI into our collective consciousness -- an entire generation of young men were be wiped out then. The language is important because it exemplifies a state of total war[1] where the citizenry is divided into combatant and non-combatant, and all things considered that usually means men -- all young and old -- and everybody else are separated. Once separated we have a go at each-other and the last man standing wins. The term "military-aged male" offers insight into what we will have to face and hopefully whenever you see that it will be sobering for you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
meritt 10y ago
> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. A 90-day suspension and a ban are the same thing. ban is defined as "officially or legally prohibit." -- duration is irrelevant. > Second, it's not "Muslim" The executive order specifically exempts people of minority religions in those countries "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality". All of the countries in question have Islam as the primary religion. If it was targeting nationality only, they would not provide an exclusion for minority religions. The ban is targeting Muslims (and only Muslims) of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
- refurb 10y ago
  You completely failed to address the OP's comment about the largest Muslim countries in the world (Indonesian and Pakistan) not being a part of the ban. If Trump was targeting Muslims, wouldn't he have started there?
  - javajosh 10y ago
    Perhaps because he has business interests there? Pakistan is particularly interesting because the San Bernadino shooters were from there. Saudi Arabia is also not on the list, despite being the home of Wahabist terrorism. I'm totally against the ban, but these inconsistencies are revealing. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/01/26/countries-trump-business-interests-spared-immigration-ban/97089420/ http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/01/26/countr...
    - makomk 10y ago
      The inconsistent treatment of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is bipartisan and predates Trump's presidency by a long time. Remember how a number of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and their role was basically ignored? How the Saudis donated large sums to the Clinton Foundation? How we've provided large sums of military aid to Pakistan since 2001?
_callcc 10y ago
What this is really about for executives like Sam is Trump's meddling in the free movement of labor. Where the action goes wrong is in its banning of our Kurdish and Iraqi brothers and sisters who have fought alongside US & NATO troops for years now.
- maratd 10y ago
  > What this is really about for executives like Sam is Trump's meddling in the free movement of labor. Bingo. It would substantially increase the cost of labor in the short-term. Notice how there's no outrage over a dozen other outrageous things done by Trump over the last week ... just this specific one. > Where the action goes wrong is in its banning of our Kurdish and Iraqi brothers and sisters who have fought alongside US & NATO troops for years now. Agreed.
551199 10y ago
Obama is the only President who has been in war for everyday of his 8 year presidency. Bombing several countries at the same time. Obama's actions also created the vacuum for ISIS. At least he has his Nobel Peace Prize. No outcry or marches against Obamas actions, but goodness me when Trump has to clear the mess 'well take a stand against him'.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  One of these things happens abroad - out of sight, out of mind - another happens at home. One of these things happens as part of a (relatively) few "outrages", one of those things happens as part of a consistent torrent of outrages. One of these things is a fact and an action, the other is an interpretation. In case that isn't clear: The interpretation is "clearing the mess"; I sure as shit don't agree with you that that's what's going on, and I doubt Sam does, either - which is part of why he's posting this.
potatosoup 10y ago
We've been killing Muslim families in these countries for years, even under Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize winner.) Like or hate Trump, I'm surprised that now is the time to be outraged. It should've been ages ago.
- briholt 10y ago
  I suspect the outrage has less to do with a rational analysis of polices and world events and more to do with virtue signaling and groupthink.
  - potatosoup 10y ago
    I'd respect some of these people (like SamA, and Zuckerberg, and others) much more if they were consistent in their views. These millionaires/billionaires who supported Sec. of State Clinton during her election, fully knowing the loss of Muslim life her actions caused abroad, now virtue signaling about Trump -- I just don't know how to take them seriously.
    - refurb 10y ago
      I'm glad I'm not the only person that picked up on this. It's a little hypocritical to get outraged when the opposition does it and keep silent when your own party does the same thing.
      - guildwriter 10y ago
        Another way to look at it is the problem that many people rely on the news to tell them when something bad is happening. If you don't analyze your sources constantly due to a variety of reasons, then you are suspect to being rendered blind simply by omission. If you don't realize how badly the media sphere has gotten polarized since the 2000s, it is easy to dismiss valid critiques as bad faith partisan smears. Consumption of the news in a single source method is a great way now to turn yourself into a partisan. In the age of a non stop stream of content with an unprecedented amount of choice, it can be difficult people to exert the discipline needed to consume in a method that creates a nuanced world view. People have jobs, kids, and things they'd rather do than confronting and synthesizing opposing viewpoints. It's just easier to wrap yourself in a bubble rather than change your worldview. The destruction of the era of responsible, sober journalism due to the economic realities and consumption habits of people is wreaking havoc in our political system. It doesn't help that there are inherent biases in many journalists themselves. We've placed an increased burden on the American population to sort through a cacophony of bias to create the truth. Is it a small wonder than considering people never had to before, we're falling so short now?
idlewords 10y ago
This is a de facto Muslim ban dressed up enough to make it constitutional. Please don't well-actually right now.
- ihsw 10y ago
  Then why are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, UAE, and Malaysia missing from this list? Serious question.
  - chinathrow 10y ago
    Because the buy a shitload amount of weapons from the US.
    - guildwriter 10y ago
      It's not that simple. "In the realm of extremist Islam, the Saudis are “both the arsonists and the firefighters,” said William McCants, a Brookings Institution scholar. “They promote a very toxic form of Islam that draws sharp lines between a small number of true believers and everyone else, Muslim and non-Muslim,” he said, providing ideological fodder for violent jihadists. Yet at the same time, “they’re our partners in counterterrorism,” said Mr. McCants, one of three dozen academics, government officials and experts on Islam from multiple countries interviewed for this article. Saudi leaders seek good relations with the West and see jihadist violence as a menace that could endanger their rule, especially now that the Islamic State is staging attacks in the kingdom — 25 in the last eight months, by the government’s count. But they are also driven by their rivalry with Iran, and they depend for legitimacy on a clerical establishment dedicated to a reactionary set of beliefs. Those conflicting goals can play out in a bafflingly inconsistent manner." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-ar...
  - MisterBastahrd 10y ago
    Because he's got business interests in those countries.
- 10y ago
scarmig 10y ago
Democrats totally destabilized the Middle East? Alternative facts, alternative reality.
- 010a 10y ago
  Both parties have had a _significant_ hand in it, dating back to GHWB and Clinton. Don't you forgot that either, lest we remember Obama as anything other than a President who liked droning brown people.
  - scarmig 10y ago
    You're shifting the goalposts, from the ridiculous assertion that Democrats destabilized the Middle East to "both parties have had bad policies in the Middle East." But let's run with it. Let's say that Obama killed 5k people with drones. This is a large overestimation, but let's compare. GWB killed over half a million Iraqis for no reason, and counting. He's indirectly responsible for the rise of ISIS in a way that no other President or SoS is.
    - 010a 10y ago
      No other President except Clinton.
    - general_ai 10y ago
      That's just with drones, and I'd say it's a very conservative number. He also funded and armed "moderate opposition" in Syria, al quaeda associted groups (Jabhat al-Nusra and others) there, and helped topple several governments. This displaced millions and killed hundreds of thousands. Here's Hillary laughing about it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
anarazel 10y ago
> Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US. I think that's an overly positive reading of what's happening. If this were an order from a president without a history for explicitly calling for muslim bans, you might be able to read it that way. I think it'd be very debatable even then, but in this situation it's imo a pretty clear step. Not mentioning "muslim majority" in the text itself is just an attempt to make it harder to legally challenge the order (establishment clause and that).
DanBC 10y ago
> was back when Obama and Clinton armed extremists Why did you leave out Bush and Bush?

Scirra_Tom 10y ago

> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now. > But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to this country, "it's time to take a stand". Taking who started it out of the equation, I find it morally repugnant for the USA to destabilise a region then find it acceptable to callously turn away those who were victims of that away.

general_ai 10y ago
Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there is we need to stop arming ISIS, and join forces with Russia and Assad's government to destroy ISIS. It'll be over in a year or two. And if you find the US interventionism repugnant, congratulations, we now have a president who is against it, too.
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  Simple right? Just destroy them. I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. He's well versed in Middle Eastern politics and warfare and crucially he's got a level head and able to think decisions through properly which he's proven since becoming president.
  - general_ai 10y ago
    Destroy the most radicalized, enforce Syrian law for the rest. There's nobody that can do the job better than the Syrian government (which is more "well versed" in local politics than any White House hack will ever be). That's the only way to minimize the body count.
    - mcguire 10y ago
      Yeah, supporting an anti-American dictator with a very dubious human rights record couldn't possibly backfire at all. Wasn't Syria one of ye old state sponsors of terrorism?
      - general_ai 10y ago
        Do you think US' persistent attempts to depose him that have utterly wrecked his country maybe have anything to do with that? Moreover, do you think if the US helped him undo the damage that sentiment would change? IIRC, he did say that he would welcome our help.
        mcguire 10y ago
        Syria was on the state sponsors list when it was created in 1979. So, unless the al-Assads are prescient, probably not. More likely factors are the US support for Israel, Syrian support for Palestinians, particularly Hezbollah, and possibly leftovers of the cold war. As for US attempts to depose him, as far as I know, those only started after his 2011 crackdown on Arab Spring protesters, which set of the civil war. Syrian behavior after hypothetical help from the US to crush the rebellion, that would probably depend on how long a leash the Russians have.
bassman9000 10y ago
> He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now. That's a nice slippery slope you got in there. There's zero mention to muslims in the text of the order, and it's clearly stated that it's temporary, with several revision dates for assesment, the goal being to strengthen the vetting procedures. I bet most people commenting here haven't read it. Do it. Now. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
- Scirra_Tom 10y ago
  What's wrong with using the slippery slope argument here? Regarding slippery slope logical fallacy: > This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. In this instance, plenty of reason and argument to believe this event will lead to another. It's what he campaigned on. > There's zero mention to muslims in the text of the order Plenty of Muslim mentions in his campaign.
  - bassman9000 10y ago
    > What's wrong with using the slippery slope argument here? https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope > Plenty of Muslim mentions in his campaign. Not an argument, and irrelevant. Read. The. Text. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli...
- cjslep 10y ago
  - A ban is not needed while revising the rules. - Revision doesn't mean suspension of the ban. - Temporary can mean indefinitely. - The overwhelming number of terrorists that commit acts of terrorism on American soil come from people born in the United States of America.
  - bassman9000 10y ago

raverbashing 10y ago

> It's insane to accept military age males from there for entry into the country That's why there's a procedure for obtaining a visa. Individuals from those countries can only go to the US in possession of a visa

general_ai 10y ago
Yes, and US government is making changes to this procedure.
bassman9000 10y ago
And if you had read the text, which you clearly haven't, you'll see that there have been issues with the visa process, and the new administration wants to review it. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-musli... Go read it, now.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Reviewing the visa process is fine However the lack of concern with Saudi Arabian citizens just shows how this is nothing but smoke and mirrors
  - guildwriter 10y ago
    "Saudi Arabia has long been at war with al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates. In August 1996, bin Laden called for jihad against both the United States and Saudi Arabia with the publication of his first fatwa. The 30-page “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Sanctuaries” prompted the kingdom to revoke the al Qaeda leader’s Saudi citizenship and to divest him of his family fortune. The kingdom’s conflict has continued in more recent years. In December, the Saudi defense minister established a coalition of 39 Muslim-majority countries with a specific mandate to combat al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Shiite terror group Hezbollah. Saudi counterterrorism security forces are on the front lines every day taking the fight to al Qaeda; hundreds of Saudi security officers have been killed in the line of duty at home, fighting Islamist militants. As recently as April 5, militants attacked and killed a senior Saudi security officer outside Riyadh. U.S. intelligence and security officials have been particularly effusive in describing the important role Saudi Arabia has played in cutting off the sophisticated global network of illicit finance used by terrorists. According to the State Department, “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s lack of success in Saudi Arabia can be attributed to the Saudi government’s continued domestic and bilateral efforts to … counter terrorism and violent extremist ideologies.” The truth is plain: Americans are safer today because the kingdom has foiled numerous al Qaeda terrorist plots targeting the U.S. homeland. Adam J. Szubin, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, recently praised the kingdom’s aggressive stance against terrorism as reflecting “the strength of U.S. and Saudi cooperation on countering the financing of terrorism.”" http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/20/saudi-arabia-is-a-great-american-ally-not-iran/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/20/saudi-arabia-is-a-great-... Our relationship and the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics are extraordinarily complicated. To simply boil down our relationship to the Saudis as "majority of 9/11 hijackers came from there, therefore terrorist state" is reductionist. The House of Saud is not a monolithic structure and there are a lot of differing opinions on how to take the country forward. Deeper reading into the nature of Middle Eastern politics and our relationships to people in the region should quickly reveal that nothing is simple. Pakistan is another good example. Supporting them is necessary for a variety of defense/political needs. Logistics with Afghanistan, pressure to be placed against the mujaheddin that use Pakistani tribes as a base of support, counter balance against China, etc. Yes Pakistan has a murky relationship with terrorism due to their use against India in proxy warfare. That doesn't change the reality that opting to alienate the Pakistanis just makes life worse for us. These are not one subject issues. Like anything else involving millions of people, our reasons for taking action are multi level and multi issue. It is an immense disservice to career diplomats and policymakers to reduce concerns down to a single thing. There are no clean answers.

msoad 10y ago

> military age males What that even means? A 30 years old PhD student researching quantum computing was barred from entering the U.S. You broad brush painted him too.

obstacle1 10y ago
A 30 year old male is a military-age male, PhD or not.
- jhall1468 10y ago
  I mean, if we're already going to use faith-based targeting, might as well throw a little sexism in the mix for full effect.
  - ihsw 10y ago
    But it's true, men have borne the brunt of war in antiquity and in modernity. There is no sexism and frankly it's disheartening to hear people reach that far when the facts stare you right in the face. If we're going to take things to their logical conclusion then we'll have to accept re-inviting WWI into our collective consciousness -- an entire generation of young men were be wiped out then. The language is important because it exemplifies a state of total war[1] where the citizenry is divided into combatant and non-combatant, and all things considered that usually means men -- all young and old -- and everybody else are separated. Once separated we have a go at each-other and the last man standing wins. The term "military-aged male" offers insight into what we will have to face and hopefully whenever you see that it will be sobering for you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

meritt 10y ago

> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place. A 90-day suspension and a ban are the same thing. ban is defined as "officially or legally prohibit." -- duration is irrelevant. > Second, it's not "Muslim" The executive order specifically exempts people of minority religions in those countries "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality". All of the countries in question have Islam as the primary religion. If it was targeting nationality only, they would not provide an exclusion for minority religions. The ban is targeting Muslims (and only Muslims) of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

refurb 10y ago
You completely failed to address the OP's comment about the largest Muslim countries in the world (Indonesian and Pakistan) not being a part of the ban. If Trump was targeting Muslims, wouldn't he have started there?
- javajosh 10y ago
  Perhaps because he has business interests there? Pakistan is particularly interesting because the San Bernadino shooters were from there. Saudi Arabia is also not on the list, despite being the home of Wahabist terrorism. I'm totally against the ban, but these inconsistencies are revealing. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/01/26/countries-trump-business-interests-spared-immigration-ban/97089420/ http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/01/26/countr...
  - makomk 10y ago
    The inconsistent treatment of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is bipartisan and predates Trump's presidency by a long time. Remember how a number of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and their role was basically ignored? How the Saudis donated large sums to the Clinton Foundation? How we've provided large sums of military aid to Pakistan since 2001?

_callcc 10y ago

What this is really about for executives like Sam is Trump's meddling in the free movement of labor. Where the action goes wrong is in its banning of our Kurdish and Iraqi brothers and sisters who have fought alongside US & NATO troops for years now.

maratd 10y ago
> What this is really about for executives like Sam is Trump's meddling in the free movement of labor. Bingo. It would substantially increase the cost of labor in the short-term. Notice how there's no outrage over a dozen other outrageous things done by Trump over the last week ... just this specific one. > Where the action goes wrong is in its banning of our Kurdish and Iraqi brothers and sisters who have fought alongside US & NATO troops for years now. Agreed.

551199 10y ago

Obama is the only President who has been in war for everyday of his 8 year presidency. Bombing several countries at the same time. Obama's actions also created the vacuum for ISIS. At least he has his Nobel Peace Prize. No outcry or marches against Obamas actions, but goodness me when Trump has to clear the mess 'well take a stand against him'.

RangerScience 10y ago
One of these things happens abroad - out of sight, out of mind - another happens at home. One of these things happens as part of a (relatively) few "outrages", one of those things happens as part of a consistent torrent of outrages. One of these things is a fact and an action, the other is an interpretation. In case that isn't clear: The interpretation is "clearing the mess"; I sure as shit don't agree with you that that's what's going on, and I doubt Sam does, either - which is part of why he's posting this.

potatosoup 10y ago

We've been killing Muslim families in these countries for years, even under Obama (a Nobel Peace Prize winner.) Like or hate Trump, I'm surprised that now is the time to be outraged. It should've been ages ago.

briholt 10y ago
I suspect the outrage has less to do with a rational analysis of polices and world events and more to do with virtue signaling and groupthink.
- potatosoup 10y ago
  I'd respect some of these people (like SamA, and Zuckerberg, and others) much more if they were consistent in their views. These millionaires/billionaires who supported Sec. of State Clinton during her election, fully knowing the loss of Muslim life her actions caused abroad, now virtue signaling about Trump -- I just don't know how to take them seriously.
  - refurb 10y ago
    I'm glad I'm not the only person that picked up on this. It's a little hypocritical to get outraged when the opposition does it and keep silent when your own party does the same thing.
    - guildwriter 10y ago
      Another way to look at it is the problem that many people rely on the news to tell them when something bad is happening. If you don't analyze your sources constantly due to a variety of reasons, then you are suspect to being rendered blind simply by omission. If you don't realize how badly the media sphere has gotten polarized since the 2000s, it is easy to dismiss valid critiques as bad faith partisan smears. Consumption of the news in a single source method is a great way now to turn yourself into a partisan. In the age of a non stop stream of content with an unprecedented amount of choice, it can be difficult people to exert the discipline needed to consume in a method that creates a nuanced world view. People have jobs, kids, and things they'd rather do than confronting and synthesizing opposing viewpoints. It's just easier to wrap yourself in a bubble rather than change your worldview. The destruction of the era of responsible, sober journalism due to the economic realities and consumption habits of people is wreaking havoc in our political system. It doesn't help that there are inherent biases in many journalists themselves. We've placed an increased burden on the American population to sort through a cacophony of bias to create the truth. Is it a small wonder than considering people never had to before, we're falling so short now?

idlewords 10y ago

This is a de facto Muslim ban dressed up enough to make it constitutional. Please don't well-actually right now.

ihsw 10y ago
Then why are Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, UAE, and Malaysia missing from this list? Serious question.
- chinathrow 10y ago
  Because the buy a shitload amount of weapons from the US.
  - guildwriter 10y ago
    It's not that simple. "In the realm of extremist Islam, the Saudis are “both the arsonists and the firefighters,” said William McCants, a Brookings Institution scholar. “They promote a very toxic form of Islam that draws sharp lines between a small number of true believers and everyone else, Muslim and non-Muslim,” he said, providing ideological fodder for violent jihadists. Yet at the same time, “they’re our partners in counterterrorism,” said Mr. McCants, one of three dozen academics, government officials and experts on Islam from multiple countries interviewed for this article. Saudi leaders seek good relations with the West and see jihadist violence as a menace that could endanger their rule, especially now that the Islamic State is staging attacks in the kingdom — 25 in the last eight months, by the government’s count. But they are also driven by their rivalry with Iran, and they depend for legitimacy on a clerical establishment dedicated to a reactionary set of beliefs. Those conflicting goals can play out in a bafflingly inconsistent manner." https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-ar...
- MisterBastahrd 10y ago
  Because he's got business interests in those countries.
10y ago

scarmig 10y ago

Democrats totally destabilized the Middle East? Alternative facts, alternative reality.

010a 10y ago
Both parties have had a _significant_ hand in it, dating back to GHWB and Clinton. Don't you forgot that either, lest we remember Obama as anything other than a President who liked droning brown people.
- scarmig 10y ago
  You're shifting the goalposts, from the ridiculous assertion that Democrats destabilized the Middle East to "both parties have had bad policies in the Middle East." But let's run with it. Let's say that Obama killed 5k people with drones. This is a large overestimation, but let's compare. GWB killed over half a million Iraqis for no reason, and counting. He's indirectly responsible for the rise of ISIS in a way that no other President or SoS is.
  - 010a 10y ago
    No other President except Clinton.
  - general_ai 10y ago
    That's just with drones, and I'd say it's a very conservative number. He also funded and armed "moderate opposition" in Syria, al quaeda associted groups (Jabhat al-Nusra and others) there, and helped topple several governments. This displaced millions and killed hundreds of thousands. Here's Hillary laughing about it: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

anarazel 10y ago

> Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US. I think that's an overly positive reading of what's happening. If this were an order from a president without a history for explicitly calling for muslim bans, you might be able to read it that way. I think it'd be very debatable even then, but in this situation it's imo a pretty clear step. Not mentioning "muslim majority" in the text itself is just an attempt to make it harder to legally challenge the order (establishment clause and that).

DanBC 10y ago

> was back when Obama and Clinton armed extremists Why did you leave out Bush and Bush?