3 ms·

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 ar

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
    - moomoo2 10y ago
      point taken, bad actors could of course get false passports while still traveling from the countries on the list. perhaps now that i've accepted your point, you can try to resist additional ad hom attacks and actually address the structure of my counterargument as to why your overall argument is wrong?

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
  - moomoo2 10y ago
    point taken, bad actors could of course get false passports while still traveling from the countries on the list. perhaps now that i've accepted your point, you can try to resist additional ad hom attacks and actually address the structure of my counterargument as to why your overall argument is wrong?