5 ms·

Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt left off the list? That's where most of the 9/11 hijackers and planners hailed from. I think you're hearing echoes in your "so

Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt left off the list? That's where most of the 9/11 hijackers and planners hailed from. I think you're hearing echoes in your "sound mind."

ihsw 10y ago
Because Saudi Arabia and Egypt have kept a lid on their populace by maintaining adequate internal security within their borders and providing valuable counter-terrorism intelligence to to the US, meanwhile the seven "countries of concern" have not. Six of the seven countries are failed states and the other openly calls for the US' destruction.
- CydeWeys 10y ago
  Yes, adequate internal security like with Metrojet Flight 9268, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268
  - lebanon_tn 10y ago
    Should the US block immigration from France? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
    - CydeWeys 10y ago
      To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of any of these blanket bans. But yes, that is a question that someone who is in favor of them would have to answer.
- freehunter 10y ago
  You mean the Saudi Arabia that was so complicit in 9/11 that Republicans in Congress passed a law saying private citizens could sue the government of Saudi Arabia for damages caused by 9/11? That's your definition of "keeping a lid" and "maintaining internal security"?
  - lol214365 10y ago
    9/11 was 16 years ago. Threats change. US domestic security has changed, and so has Saudi Arabia's. There is no reason to believe they are a current threat.
    - mschuster91 10y ago
      > There is no reason to believe they are a current threat. Saudi-Arabian nationals provide the ideological standing that IS leaders use, and Saudi-Arabian money financed the rise of IS. And I believe that there's a large number of SA-origin IS fighters, but can't remember where I read that, so take it with a grain of salt.
    - freehunter 10y ago
      Has the leadership in Saudi Arabia changed? Because it's not just "some Saudi guys" who did it. It was the government of Saudi Arabia. That's why Republicans said Americans are allowed to sue them.
mst 10y ago
I don't know, but the list of countries was inherited from the previous administration. Maybe somebody should ask Obama's DHS head?
- astrange 10y ago
  Maybe the list doesn't have any reasoning but was picked to distract you into posting this comment.
  - mst 10y ago
    You mean "to distract the person I was replying to", I presume - my entire point here is that the list is nothing to do with the new administration, and we should be focusing on the stuff that they're actually responsible for, since frankly that's rather more horrifying than the particular list of countries they're doing it to.
    - astrange 10y ago
      They implemented the list, and the fact that you've found an argument why it could be reasonable is enough reason for them to use it - to slow you down. It doesn't matter to them if it's effective or sensible or not.
amluto 10y ago
One theory: the curiously missing countries have Trump properties. It's entirely possible for a leader to be simultaneously corrupt and motivated by hate.
- ihsw 10y ago
  The seven countries have been either failed states or antagonistic to the US for the past 30 years, it is quite plain to say that it makes sense for Trump's companies -- and various other companies across a wide swath of industries -- to refrain from conducting business.
pitt1980 10y ago
the rational is that the ban is for places where its hard to do background checks so its places where there are currently insurgent wars going on or places that are considered state sponsors of terrorism ------ both situations complicate the ability to do background checks, neither situation applies to most of the countries brought up when wondering why those places were left off the list
tdkl 10y ago
You might want to ask Obama why he left them out in 2011. But considering the existing bullshit rollercoaster, you ask why MORE countries weren't banned ? This video presents all points of hypocrisy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM
- lowmagnet 10y ago
  Why should anyone ask President Obama why he left them out in 2011? The list was a list of countries that wouldn't or couldn't provide the enhanced background data we requested. People on those listed countries were scrutinized more, absent extra information from their home countries.
- GeneralMayhem 10y ago
  I'd rather ask Congress, since they were the ones who wrote the list. http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/ http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/
  - shawn-butler 10y ago
    Sec-State under the previous administration was tasked by Congress and they came up with the list. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 See section (12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern It is unbelievable how bad the media is now at doing their job of informing the public.
Shivetya 10y ago
the countries chosen were done so by the Obama Administration and already had travel restrictions in place since 2015. Trump's EO merely put a 90 day ban on such travel.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  so the truth is down voted? what is HN, a political hackivist site now?
ErikVandeWater 10y ago
Most of the countries banned by the president were determined by the Department of Homeland Security. Read the order itself: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/execu... Your ad hominem attacks are not welcome here.
- m3rc 10y ago
  Where are you seeing ad hominem attacks? And if that's true, either the DHS is doing a spectacularly awful job, or we're not hearing the full story of what they did and did not recommend.
  - ErikVandeWater 10y ago
    Questioning whether someone else has a "sound mind" is obviously ad hominem.
spaginal 10y ago
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are allies in that region with functioning governments that we don't have emigration issues with and can vet anyone coming over from. Of the 7 nations on the list, Iran has the only functioning government, but is a huge state sponsor of terrorism against our allies in the region and we are not allied with them. To claim this is a bigoted move by Trump because of Islam is a simple and narrow minded view and shows a clear lack of factual information and first rate thinking.
- wheelerwj 10y ago
  ooooooooookay.
- adrr 10y ago
  Its known and documented in intelligence reports Saudi government supports terrorists. Here's a quote from one of intelligence reports, "it was well-known in intelligence circles that the Islamic affairs office functioned as the Saudis’ ‘fifth column’ in support of Muslim extremists." 9/11 commission report documented the terrorists meeting with Saudi intelligence officers on US soil and they were partly funded by Saudi royalty. Also lets look at Pakistan. They were harboring Osama Bin Laden.
  - spaginal 10y ago
    I don't disagree, but the chaos from Trump declaring Saudi Arabia, a current strategic ally in the region both for material resources and military cooperation, would be on a scale that no one here would like to pick up the pieces from. We deal with a lot of countries around the world that do things we don't like, we don't have to like it, but diplomacy and politics are messy and require compromise in situations where it's a better choice versus the alternative.
    - santoshalper 10y ago
      Round and round you go with circular logic and rationalizations. This is at best security theater and a dumb executive order designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason. That's putting aside any ethical considerations. You can keep trying to sell it, but nobody with a brain is buying it.
edblarney 10y ago
"Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt left off the list? " The nations on the list have vast regions of lawlessness and they've lost control of their populations. Egypt, Tunisia, Kuwait etc. have functioning governments that are very actively engaged against terrorism. Remember that ISIS/AlQueda wants to take out the House of Saud before they go after the USA :) The 'Islamic countries not on the list' are much more afraid of terrorism than the US is. Just today a Saudi ship was hit by a missile from Iranian backed terrorists in Yemen, off the coast. The only country that is on the list that has a 'sound government' is Iran - but they are state-sponsors of terror, and are actively trying to destabilize the region - and pushing hard to topple Saudi, as well as supporting Assad. I suggest that one is a little more political because Iran does not itself produce terrorists of the kind we are afraid are going to come and 'bomb America'. I don't agree with Trumps policy - but 'the list' is quite rational.

Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt left off the list? That's where most of the 9/11 hijackers and planners hailed from. I think you're hearing echoes in your "sound mind."

ihsw 10y ago

Because Saudi Arabia and Egypt have kept a lid on their populace by maintaining adequate internal security within their borders and providing valuable counter-terrorism intelligence to to the US, meanwhile the seven "countries of concern" have not. Six of the seven countries are failed states and the other openly calls for the US' destruction.

CydeWeys 10y ago
Yes, adequate internal security like with Metrojet Flight 9268, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrojet_Flight_9268
- lebanon_tn 10y ago
  Should the US block immigration from France? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks
  - CydeWeys 10y ago
    To be clear, I'm not arguing in favor of any of these blanket bans. But yes, that is a question that someone who is in favor of them would have to answer.
freehunter 10y ago
You mean the Saudi Arabia that was so complicit in 9/11 that Republicans in Congress passed a law saying private citizens could sue the government of Saudi Arabia for damages caused by 9/11? That's your definition of "keeping a lid" and "maintaining internal security"?
- lol214365 10y ago
  9/11 was 16 years ago. Threats change. US domestic security has changed, and so has Saudi Arabia's. There is no reason to believe they are a current threat.
  - mschuster91 10y ago
    > There is no reason to believe they are a current threat. Saudi-Arabian nationals provide the ideological standing that IS leaders use, and Saudi-Arabian money financed the rise of IS. And I believe that there's a large number of SA-origin IS fighters, but can't remember where I read that, so take it with a grain of salt.
  - freehunter 10y ago
    Has the leadership in Saudi Arabia changed? Because it's not just "some Saudi guys" who did it. It was the government of Saudi Arabia. That's why Republicans said Americans are allowed to sue them.

mst 10y ago

I don't know, but the list of countries was inherited from the previous administration. Maybe somebody should ask Obama's DHS head?

astrange 10y ago
Maybe the list doesn't have any reasoning but was picked to distract you into posting this comment.
- mst 10y ago
  You mean "to distract the person I was replying to", I presume - my entire point here is that the list is nothing to do with the new administration, and we should be focusing on the stuff that they're actually responsible for, since frankly that's rather more horrifying than the particular list of countries they're doing it to.
  - astrange 10y ago
    They implemented the list, and the fact that you've found an argument why it could be reasonable is enough reason for them to use it - to slow you down. It doesn't matter to them if it's effective or sensible or not.

amluto 10y ago

One theory: the curiously missing countries have Trump properties. It's entirely possible for a leader to be simultaneously corrupt and motivated by hate.

ihsw 10y ago
The seven countries have been either failed states or antagonistic to the US for the past 30 years, it is quite plain to say that it makes sense for Trump's companies -- and various other companies across a wide swath of industries -- to refrain from conducting business.

pitt1980 10y ago

the rational is that the ban is for places where its hard to do background checks so its places where there are currently insurgent wars going on or places that are considered state sponsors of terrorism ------ both situations complicate the ability to do background checks, neither situation applies to most of the countries brought up when wondering why those places were left off the list

tdkl 10y ago

You might want to ask Obama why he left them out in 2011. But considering the existing bullshit rollercoaster, you ask why MORE countries weren't banned ? This video presents all points of hypocrisy : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNu4xU9qOEM

lowmagnet 10y ago
Why should anyone ask President Obama why he left them out in 2011? The list was a list of countries that wouldn't or couldn't provide the enhanced background data we requested. People on those listed countries were scrutinized more, absent extra information from their home countries.
GeneralMayhem 10y ago
I'd rather ask Congress, since they were the ones who wrote the list. http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/ http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/
- shawn-butler 10y ago
  Sec-State under the previous administration was tasked by Congress and they came up with the list. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1187 See section (12) Not present in Iraq, Syria, or any other country or area of concern It is unbelievable how bad the media is now at doing their job of informing the public.

Shivetya 10y ago

the countries chosen were done so by the Obama Administration and already had travel restrictions in place since 2015. Trump's EO merely put a 90 day ban on such travel.

Shivetya 10y ago
so the truth is down voted? what is HN, a political hackivist site now?

ErikVandeWater 10y ago

Most of the countries banned by the president were determined by the Department of Homeland Security. Read the order itself: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/execu... Your ad hominem attacks are not welcome here.

m3rc 10y ago
Where are you seeing ad hominem attacks? And if that's true, either the DHS is doing a spectacularly awful job, or we're not hearing the full story of what they did and did not recommend.
- ErikVandeWater 10y ago
  Questioning whether someone else has a "sound mind" is obviously ad hominem.

spaginal 10y ago

Saudi Arabia and Egypt are allies in that region with functioning governments that we don't have emigration issues with and can vet anyone coming over from. Of the 7 nations on the list, Iran has the only functioning government, but is a huge state sponsor of terrorism against our allies in the region and we are not allied with them. To claim this is a bigoted move by Trump because of Islam is a simple and narrow minded view and shows a clear lack of factual information and first rate thinking.

wheelerwj 10y ago
ooooooooookay.
adrr 10y ago
Its known and documented in intelligence reports Saudi government supports terrorists. Here's a quote from one of intelligence reports, "it was well-known in intelligence circles that the Islamic affairs office functioned as the Saudis’ ‘fifth column’ in support of Muslim extremists." 9/11 commission report documented the terrorists meeting with Saudi intelligence officers on US soil and they were partly funded by Saudi royalty. Also lets look at Pakistan. They were harboring Osama Bin Laden.
- spaginal 10y ago
  I don't disagree, but the chaos from Trump declaring Saudi Arabia, a current strategic ally in the region both for material resources and military cooperation, would be on a scale that no one here would like to pick up the pieces from. We deal with a lot of countries around the world that do things we don't like, we don't have to like it, but diplomacy and politics are messy and require compromise in situations where it's a better choice versus the alternative.
  - santoshalper 10y ago
    Round and round you go with circular logic and rationalizations. This is at best security theater and a dumb executive order designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason. That's putting aside any ethical considerations. You can keep trying to sell it, but nobody with a brain is buying it.

edblarney 10y ago

"Why were Saudi Arabia and Egypt left off the list? " The nations on the list have vast regions of lawlessness and they've lost control of their populations. Egypt, Tunisia, Kuwait etc. have functioning governments that are very actively engaged against terrorism. Remember that ISIS/AlQueda wants to take out the House of Saud before they go after the USA :) The 'Islamic countries not on the list' are much more afraid of terrorism than the US is. Just today a Saudi ship was hit by a missile from Iranian backed terrorists in Yemen, off the coast. The only country that is on the list that has a 'sound government' is Iran - but they are state-sponsors of terror, and are actively trying to destabilize the region - and pushing hard to topple Saudi, as well as supporting Assad. I suggest that one is a little more political because Iran does not itself produce terrorists of the kind we are afraid are going to come and 'bomb America'. I don't agree with Trumps policy - but 'the list' is quite rational.