4 ms·

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 revie

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.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    Thanks for this comment. But the issue is more complicated w.r.t SA https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-ar... Agree with your Pakistan comments
    - guildwriter 10y ago
      Oh I agree about SA. They are not fully our allies and they aren't fully our enemies. I linked the article mainly to illustrate that things are not so clean cut. I just constantly see "9/11 hijackers" parroted with no other considerations of the ramifications of a SA ban and what it would mean for us. My primary goal right now in these discussions is to expand the minds of the people on HN who seem to be overly myopic. These are complicated topics that have many moving parts.
- bassman9000 10y ago
  Agreed. Given their history, and the involvement of officials of Saudi Gov in 9/11, they should also be included. Obvious reason I can think for not doing it are - business ties : weak reason - given that, as little as we'd like the country, it's a stable one, and this could destabilize it, and the entire region, even more : weak reason too - US currently engaged in a war with Yemen with Saudi allies : strong reason. You need to undo this first > shows how this is nothing but smoke and mirrors False. It's incomplete. But poorly vetted immigration has been a gold mine for terrorism, and general destabilization. Look at Europe.
  - raverbashing 10y ago
    > False. It's incomplete. Such an obvious vulnerability as this is either gross incompetence or due to the original action being nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Pick one
    - bassman9000 10y ago
      Logical fallacy. "I can't cover 100% immigration threats" "Thus, I shall cover 0%, instead of 50%" "Otherwise, it's smoke an mirrors"
    - moomoo2 10y ago
      Bullshit. The goal is claimed to be reduction of the risk of jihadists immigrating to the US to cause harm to Americans. You claim seems to be that by not including Saudi Arabia this will have no such effect. This claim is transparently false, unless you believe a) there is zero risk of jihadists at all in the first place, or b) that literally every jihadist who would have normally come from their country of origin will now instead fly to Saudi Arabia or another country on the non-suspended list to enter. Surely you can see how both of these is false.
      - raverbashing 10y ago
        > from their country of origin will now instead fly to Saudi Arabia The fact that you believe subjects are allowed by flight origin rather than by a proof of nationality document like their passports shows a lot about your lack of understanding of the issue

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.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Thanks for this comment. But the issue is more complicated w.r.t SA https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-islam.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/26/world/middleeast/saudi-ar... Agree with your Pakistan comments
  - guildwriter 10y ago
    Oh I agree about SA. They are not fully our allies and they aren't fully our enemies. I linked the article mainly to illustrate that things are not so clean cut. I just constantly see "9/11 hijackers" parroted with no other considerations of the ramifications of a SA ban and what it would mean for us. My primary goal right now in these discussions is to expand the minds of the people on HN who seem to be overly myopic. These are complicated topics that have many moving parts.
bassman9000 10y ago
Agreed. Given their history, and the involvement of officials of Saudi Gov in 9/11, they should also be included. Obvious reason I can think for not doing it are - business ties : weak reason - given that, as little as we'd like the country, it's a stable one, and this could destabilize it, and the entire region, even more : weak reason too - US currently engaged in a war with Yemen with Saudi allies : strong reason. You need to undo this first > shows how this is nothing but smoke and mirrors False. It's incomplete. But poorly vetted immigration has been a gold mine for terrorism, and general destabilization. Look at Europe.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  > False. It's incomplete. Such an obvious vulnerability as this is either gross incompetence or due to the original action being nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Pick one
  - bassman9000 10y ago
    Logical fallacy. "I can't cover 100% immigration threats" "Thus, I shall cover 0%, instead of 50%" "Otherwise, it's smoke an mirrors"
  - moomoo2 10y ago
    Bullshit. The goal is claimed to be reduction of the risk of jihadists immigrating to the US to cause harm to Americans. You claim seems to be that by not including Saudi Arabia this will have no such effect. This claim is transparently false, unless you believe a) there is zero risk of jihadists at all in the first place, or b) that literally every jihadist who would have normally come from their country of origin will now instead fly to Saudi Arabia or another country on the non-suspended list to enter. Surely you can see how both of these is false.
    - raverbashing 10y ago
      > from their country of origin will now instead fly to Saudi Arabia The fact that you believe subjects are allowed by flight origin rather than by a proof of nationality document like their passports shows a lot about your lack of understanding of the issue