[andrei]

cherdano, on 2017-January-30, 08:51, said:

Well, it's a start.

LOL.

You said all Muslims are being targeted, when pointed out that only 12% are, "it's a start".
You must have info from Trump's inner circle. When is the next travel ban coming?

[Zelandakh]

ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 07:56, said:

Given that Quebec just experienced another "terrorist" attack from individuals shouting "Allah Akhbar!", don't you think so too?

I would hope that you are aware that those that died in this incident are all Muslims. I would also hope that you are aware that many more Americans have been killed by right-wing groups than those from all 7 of the banned countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) put together. Indeed the number of American deaths from nationals of these countries in the period I have seen documented (1975-2015) is zero. On the other hand, the 4 countries with the most Jihadi terrorists - Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - are excluded from the ban. Coincidentally, all of these are also allies.

The EO simply does not make sense on any security basis whatsoever. Security-wise, the US would be far better off rounding up those with links to right wing groups. But as has already been pointed out, the EO has nothing to do with security whatsoever. It takes either a very naive or an incredibly stupid person to believe that the two things are linked. Or xenophobia - that would probably work too. The truth is though that none of the groups that support this kind of thing are worth debating with, I applaud Arend and Hrothgar for trying but honestly, you guys are far too clever to be wasting your time with the likes of them. Why bother?

[Zelandakh]

andrei, on 2017-January-30, 09:05, said:

When is the next travel ban coming?

Just as soon as the other Muslim countries stop being important allies of the USA. Give the administration a few months to sour relations enough and they can be added.

It was nice of you to admit that the Trump administration is inept and that the EO was only designed to cause misery to Muslims though. What? That was sarcasm? I don't believe it - you have not yet demonstrated a level of intelligence high enough for such an act.

[cherdano]

andrei, on 2017-January-30, 09:05, said:

LOL.

You said all Muslims are being targeted, when pointed out that only 12% are, "it's a start".
You must have info from Trump's inner circle.

Yes I do. And so does everyone else who has access to the Internet.

(Google for Giulianis comments if you care to find out. You may also have heard about proposals of a Muslim registry.)

Hint: in the US, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. They thought by relying on a list of countries that were previously listed as concerning (in quite different context), they could target as many Muslims as possible without running afoul of anti-discrimination. Of course, they forgot to tell Giuliani to shut up about it.

[Zelandakh]

On the subject of religious discrimination, does anyone want to defend the position stated by Trump of prioritising Christian refugees over everyone else? I am a little surprised this is not getting even more ire than the travel ban.

[andrei]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-30, 09:14, said:

Just as soon as the other Muslim countries stop being important allies of the USA. Give the administration a few months to sour relations enough and they can be added.

cherdano, on 2017-January-30, 09:17, said:

(Google for Giulianis comments if you care to find out. You may also have heard about proposals of a Muslim registry.)

Then save your rants for later.

[Winstonm]

More on the Bannon White House. The Daily Kos reports the basis of the ban:

Quote

Mr. Bannon, who believes in highly restrictive immigration policies and saw barring refugees as vital to shoring up Mr. Trump’s political base, was determined to make it happen. He and a small group made up of the president’s closest advisers began working on the order during the transition so that Mr. Trump could sign it soon after taking office.

Why would Bannon be so adamantly against Muslims?

From his 2014 talk:

Quote

They have a Twitter account up today, ISIS does, about turning the United States into a “river of blood” if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad. And trust me, that is going to come to Europe. That is going to come to Central Europe, it’s going to come to Western Europe, it’s going to come to the United Kingdom. And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we’re now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism

So you see, there is an ideology driving this administration, but it is not Donald Trumps vision - it is the vision of Steve Bannon.

[barmar]

cherdano, on 2017-January-30, 09:17, said:

Hint: in the US, it is illegal to discriminate based on religion. They thought by relying on a list of countries that were previously listed as concerning (in quite different context), they could target as many Muslims as possible without running afoul of anti-discrimination. Of course, they forgot to tell Giuliani to shut up about it.

Not to mention Trump himself. When he signed this EO, didn't he say that it was intended to protect against radical Islamists?

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-30, 08:25, said:

You are demanding that the government indemnify its citizens (in advance) for its own policies.

No, I don't think so. What I am demanding is for those that wish to allow green card holders from the proscribed countries to freely return to the US to indemnify me and the rest of the public against potential terrorist actions from those green card holders. Since you think the risk is negligible there should be no problem in you indemnifying me and the rest of the US public. I do not think the risk is negligible.

Since I and many others do not wish to take the risk we prefer to enforce the executive order against green card holders. If you and others wish to have us cooperate with you to allow green card holders from the proscribed countries to return without further vetting, then indemnify us and we will be happy to cooperate. What could be simpler?

[ldrews]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-30, 09:09, said:

I would hope that you are aware that those that died in this incident are all Muslims. I would also hope that you are aware that many more Americans have been killed by right-wing groups than those from all 7 of the banned countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) put together. Indeed the number of American deaths from nationals of these countries in the period I have seen documented (1975-2015) is zero. On the other hand, the 4 countries with the most Jihadi terrorists - Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - are excluded from the ban. Coincidentally, all of these are also allies.

The EO simply does not make sense on any security basis whatsoever. Security-wise, the US would be far better off rounding up those with links to right wing groups. But as has already been pointed out, the EO has nothing to do with security whatsoever. It takes either a very naive or an incredibly stupid person to believe that the two things are linked. Or xenophobia - that would probably work too. The truth is though that none of the groups that support this kind of thing are worth debating with, I applaud Arend and Hrothgar for trying but honestly, you guys are far too clever to be wasting your time with the likes of them. Why bother?

Well, apparently the Trump administration does not agree with your viewpoint. And the list of proscribed countries was compiled during the Obama administration by the intelligence community as representing danger to the US. Trump is just implementing.

Of course I get that your understanding of security concerns and effective responses is clearly superior to the US intelligence services.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 11:03, said:

No, I don't think so. What I am demanding is for those that wish to allow green card holders from the proscribed countries to freely return to the US to indemnify me and the rest of the public against potential terrorist actions from those green card holders. Since you think the risk is negligible there should be no problem in you indemnifying me and the rest of the US public.

You are not a member of the US public.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 11:24, said:

Well, apparently the Trump administration does not agree with your viewpoint. And the list of proscribed countries was compiled during the Obama administration by the intelligence community as representing danger to the US. Trump is just implementing.

The following provides a pretty decent history of where the list of countries came from.

http://www.motherjon...rder-muslim-ban

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-30, 12:04, said:

You are not a member of the US public.

Well, you are right, I am currently resident in Mexico. So, you are saying that as a US citizen, currently residing outside of the US, that I have no standing in this debate. And that that would be true for the several million other citizens of the US living outside the US? Tell me, does that include vacationers and other US citizens in transit?

[y66]

From Trump Flirts With Theocracy (Jan 30, 2017) by David Leonhardt:

Quote

Let’s not mince words. President Trump’s recent actions are an attempt to move the United States away from being the religiously free country that the founders created — and toward becoming an aggressively Christian country hostile to other religions.

On Friday, his White House deliberately excluded mention of Jews from its statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day. A Trump aide, Hope Hicks, explained that mentioning Jews would have been unfair to the Holocaust’s other victims — a line that happens to be a longtime trope of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers in Europe.

“The Holocaust was about the Jews,” former Reagan speechwriter John Podhoretz wrote in Commentary this weekend, “There is no ‘proud’ way to offer a remembrance of the Holocaust that does not reflect that simple, awful, world-historical fact.”

On Friday afternoon, of course, Trump signed an executive order barring refugees and citizens of seven majority Muslim countries from entering the United States. It was his way of making good on a campaign promise to ban Muslims from the country.

The order also said it would eventually give priority to religious minorities from these countries. And if anyone doubted who that meant, Trump gave an interview Friday to the Christian Broadcasting Network, explaining that its goal was indeed to help Christians. Fortunately, many Christian leaders are opposing the policy.

I expect that Trump’s attempts to undermine the First Amendment will ultimately fail. But they’re not guaranteed to fail. He is the president, and he has tremendous power.

The attempts will fail only if Americans work to defeat the White House’s flirtations with theocracy — as so many people began to do this weekend. This passionate, creative opposition may help explain Trump’s weakening of the ban on Sunday. Yet the struggle to defend American values is clearly going to be a long and difficult one.

As for reading suggestions, I recommend that you study up on recent history. On Friday, Vice President Mike Pence and Defense Secretary James Mattis stood beside Trump, clapping and nodding as he signed the executive order (while Paul Ryan and other top Republicans were largely quiescent).

A year ago, however, Pence thought that calls to ban Muslims were “offensive and unconstitutional.” Last summer, Mattis said, “This kind of thing is causing us great damage.” In June, Ryan said, “I do not think it is reflective of our principles, not just as a party but as a country.”

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-30, 09:09, said:

I would hope that you are aware that those that died in this incident are all Muslims. I would also hope that you are aware that many more Americans have been killed by right-wing groups than those from all 7 of the banned countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) put together. Indeed the number of American deaths from nationals of these countries in the period I have seen documented (1975-2015) is zero. On the other hand, the 4 countries with the most Jihadi terrorists - Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE - are excluded from the ban. Coincidentally, all of these are also allies.

The EO simply does not make sense on any security basis whatsoever. Security-wise, the US would be far better off rounding up those with links to right wing groups. But as has already been pointed out, the EO has nothing to do with security whatsoever. It takes either a very naive or an incredibly stupid person to believe that the two things are linked. Or xenophobia - that would probably work too. The truth is though that none of the groups that support this kind of thing are worth debating with, I applaud Arend and Hrothgar for trying but honestly, you guys are far too clever to be wasting your time with the likes of them. Why bother?

zel I appreciate your thoughtful posts but your logic is off on this one. I am responding since these forums have many posts on this same idea. The idea that few americans are killed by radical muslims compared to other groups. what is left out is that we spend billions, hundreds of billions and huge amounts of time and energy (airports) in trying to stop this one group. we spend the money to keep the numbers low. we send our young men and women off to fight this group. you and many others suggest we should spend this money on other groups because as you say right wing groups kill more.....btw I thought radical muslims are a right wing group but that Is perhaps another topic for another time.

As for this ban stuff it seems to have been controlled by some 31 year old white house staffer, per nbc news, who thought he was smarter than everyone else...what a mess at this point.


I do enjoy your posts and thanks for taking the time, you have important things to say.

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 12:08, said:

Well, you are right, I am currently resident in Mexico. So, you are saying that as a US citizen, currently residing outside of the US, that I have no standing in this debate. And that that would be true for the several million other citizens of the US living outside the US? Tell me, does that include vacationers and other US citizens in transit?

Yes, I am saying that you have no standing.

The other several million Americas who live outside the US didn't go and tell me that they moved out of the US in order to minimize their taxes because they didn't feel obligated to contribute towards the society in which they were born and made their $$$...

From my perspective, when you decide to do this, you lose all rights to place a claim on how that society operates in your absence.

[mike777]

y66, on 2017-January-30, 12:39, said:

From Trump Flirts With Theocracy (Jan 30, 2017) by David Leonhardt:

Leonhardt and Y66, please take a deep breathe and relax. America has flirted with theocracy before in the past and will again in the future. this too shall pass... should America become a muslim or pope, Irish or whoever theocracy we can always move off planet...

[barmar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 11:03, said:

No, I don't think so. What I am demanding is for those that wish to allow green card holders from the proscribed countries to freely return to the US to indemnify me and the rest of the public against potential terrorist actions from those green card holders. Since you think the risk is negligible there should be no problem in you indemnifying me and the rest of the US public. I do not think the risk is negligible.

The risk isn't negligible, but it's certainly far lower than the administration is making it out to be, and far lower than other dangers that they don't indemnify against.

As was mentioned numerous times when Trump brought this issue up during the campaign, we already have very thorough vetting of refugees from the Middle East. There's no credible threat of terrorism from the people targetted by this action.

On the other hand, establishing anti-Muslim policies like this foments hatred of the US, and is likely to spur home-grown terrorists (not subject to any vetting).

[hrothgar]

ldrews, on 2017-January-30, 07:56, said:

For the countries on the list prepared by the Obama administration, yes I think it is a good idea to re-vet those green card holders. They are not being "banned", just being asked to come in for a re-qualifying interview. Given that Quebec just experienced another "terrorist" attack from individuals shouting "Allah Akhbar!", don't you think so too?

So, looks as if the attack in Quebec was committed by a far right troll facebook troll by the name of Alexandre Bissonnette.
(The early reports on the attack indicated that the shooting was committed by someone with a Canadian name which is code for "Not an immigrant". However, I decided to wait until the newspapers were running with the story)

Thanks god we here in the US are vetting green card holders or the same thing could have happened here.

[ldrews]

hrothgar, on 2017-January-30, 14:13, said:

Yes, I am saying that you have no standing.

The other several million Americas who live outside the US didn't go and tell me that they moved out of the US in order to minimize their taxes because they didn't feel obligated to contribute towards the society in which they were born and made their $$$...

From my perspective, when you decide to do this, you lose all rights to place a claim on how that society operates in your absence.

Interesting. You must have me confused with someone else. I never told you that I moved to Mexico in order to minimize my taxes. Would you mind correcting your mistake?