The Muslim Ban Has Begun!

[Kittamaru]

Really? So the fact that we have good diplomatic relations with those countries, even going back to Obama's administration, has nothing to do with security concerns? Sure, buddy. Whatever you say.

heh...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38798588
Terrorism-related cases in the US since 9/11
Includes those charged with or died engaging in jihadist terrorism


Significant recent attacks in the US were not committed by citizens from any of the seven countries included in the order. This list includes:

• Fort Lauderdale airport shooting (January 2017): A US citizen
• Orlando nightclub shooting (June 2016): A US citizen with Afghan parents
• San Bernardino shooting (December 2015): A US citizen with Pakistani parents, and a Pakistani citizen
• Chattanooga shootings (July 2015): A Kuwait-born US citizen
• Charleston church shooting (June 2015): A US citizen
• Boston marathon bombing (April 2013): Two men originally from Chechnya, Russia

There have been a few non-fatal attacks by individuals from two of the countries on the banned list.

So... what, then, is the purpose of this travel ban? It is quite obvious it is NOT to prevent terror attacks, as it is aimed at entirely the wrong place to do so...
To me, it seems simple - it is the start of Religious Preference...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...migration-ban-syria-muslims-reaction-lawsuits

Prioritized refugee claims on the basis of religious persecution, so long as the applicant belongs to a religion that is a minority in their country of origin. This provision would allow the White House to prioritize Christians from the Middle East over Muslims. In fiscal year 2016, the US accepted 37,521 Christian and 38,901 Muslim refugees. Since 2001, the US has accepted nearly 400,000 Christian refugees and 279,000 Muslim refugees.

Additionally:

Vice-President Mike Pence has stood by Trump even though, when he was governor of Indiana, he rejected the proposal: “Calls to ban Muslims from entering the US are offensive and unconstitutional,” he said in 2015.
House speaker Paul Ryan has praised the new order, even though he said last July that he would “reject” a religious test for entering the country. “Our No 1 responsibility is to protect the homeland,” Ryan said on Friday. “We are a compassionate nation, and I support the refugee resettlement program, but it’s time to re-evaluate and strengthen the visa-vetting process.”
Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have criticised the order, describing it as a “hasty process that risks harmful results”. McCain told CBS the order “in some areas will give Isis some more propaganda”.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell said in 2015 that his chamber of Congress would not support a Muslim ban. He has so far not rejected Trump’s order.
Former vice-president Dick Cheney spoke out against the ban in 2015, although he supported Trump. “I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims, just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and believe in,” he said in a radio interview.
Congressman Justin Amash has called the order “overreach” and Senator Ben Sasse has criticized the ban.

It is plain to see... this is not actually a move in the best interests of this country.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/28/51199...ion-freeze-square-with-his-business-interests

The executive action, "Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States," targets seven nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. Trump has no business interests in those countries. One other thing they have in common, as NPR's Greg Myre writes: "No Muslim extremist from any of these places has carried out a fatal attack in the U.S. in more than two decades."

and

The 19 terrorists in the Sept. 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates, Myre points out. They are among the Muslim-majority countries not affected by Trump's immigration freeze, but where Trump does business.

He has significant commercial interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, is developing properties in Indonesia and Dubai, and has formed companies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. His daughter Ivanka said in 2015 that the company was looking at "multiple opportunities in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Saudi Arabia — the four areas where we are seeing the most interest."

Critics said it appears that Trump is picking favorites, overlooking terrorist links in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey that have their own history of terrorism.

And there appear to be conflict-of-interest questions, which could raise legal and constitutional concerns for the Trump White House.

So... have you any real defense to this insane measure?

 

[billvon]

Hope your faith in the lack of terrorist attacks from a particular country results in a continued lack of such attacks, no remote recruiting of domestic attacks, no arming of terrorists, and no future designs on war. Or maybe the past doesn't strictly curtail the possibilities for future threats, i.e. the ones we seek to avoid.

Perhaps you have faith in things. I prefer to make decisions based on data, not faith. And the data shows that banning refugees from those countries will have as much effect on stopping terrorist attacks as locking a glass door with no glass in it.

The greatest threat is the guy who yells he's going to "deal with you" and has the money to arm the gang in a proxy war. As long as the money's there, he can always find a new gang.

So per your standards the greatest threats out there are Russia and China. Think Trump will ban immigrants from either one of those countries?

 

[Syne]

It's interesting that you say that.

Because the countries you claim you have good diplomatic relations with are actually the countries that produced terrorists that attacked the US directly. And yet, they are not on the list. Instead, the list includes countries that have not produced terrorists that have attacked the US.

How, exactly, does this make sense?

So an attack sixteen years ago, with no evidence of being sponsored by the stable and functioning governments of these countries, should somehow permanently mar our diplomatic relations with them? Are you promoting a permanent and more complete Muslim ban then?

I would certainly call US and other Western citizens (Syria) and Christians (Libya) being decapitated, as well as the US embassy attack (Libya) terrorism, even if those particular terrorist haven't succeeded in making it to or pulling off an attack in the US. Not to mention that "the Obama administration and Congress had previously designated them as places people couldn’t visit if they planned to participate in the U.S. visa-waiver program" and "Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or executing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil..." The Boston bombers admitted they were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and learned to build bombs online, through an al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen.

Starting to make sense to ya?

Not all Muslim countries have been included because Trump has business interests in many of those Muslim countries.

The very Muslim countries that produced terrorists that attacked the US are not included on the list, but those who have not attacked the US are included on the list. Perhaps you should address that fact a bit more carefully.

And? Anyone doing business in Muslim-majority countries is only going to do so in stable countries, where they can actually make money. Unless you're selling arms, conflicts, civil wars, unstable governments, etc. are not good investments. OMG! Trump's a business man. How dare he do business with any Muslims at all, right? It's sounding more and more like you think the "Muslim Ban" is only flawed in that it is a half-measure.

And even those excluded from the outright moratorium (Pakistan, Afghanistan, & Saudi Arabia) will receive "extreme vetting."

Terrorism is provably the strawman and the travel ban is the outcome.

There is no evidence to support the strawman therefore the ban... except paranoid speculations and fear based predictions with out any real founding.

See the above US/Western terrorist victims, both abroad, from these countries, and domestically, inspired and materially aided by these countries.
Or keep your head in the sand.

Hence the term "functioning" and the term "normal".

Immigrants from Iran meet none of the criteria you posted as supporting the ban. Immigrants from Saudi Arabia meet almost all of them. Refugees from war zones, including refugees we created and have moral obligations toward, cannot avoid meeting them.

So the ban makes no sense, on your criteria.

We do not have a good faith relationship with Iran, so any intel they provide to aid our vetting is suspect. Like I told Bells, why should our relations with a country hinge solely on the actions of a very few, who we have no evidence were sponsored by those states?

Nobody ever denied you could find a name for your irrelevant delusions.

LOL! The delusion is denying the existence of an actual thing. Granted, intersectional feminism is itself rather deluded.

 

[Quantum Quack]

We do not have a good faith relationship with Iran, so any intel they provide to aid our vetting is suspect.

Do you seriously think that any "good faith" you may have had with any country is not seriously compromised by Trumps incompetent order?
His order has destroyed just about any good faith he may have had with any of the countries listed...not to mention all the other countries offended by the obvious discrimination.

You had a certain degree of Good faith with IRAQ for example .... now we can not be so sure...

Perhaps Syne you need to stop thinking like an incompetent Trump and start thinking like a competent Syne....A Syne thinker that I know you can be...

Why are you dumbing down to a Trump level of emotional fear based intelligence I do not know....

You are only looking at arguments from a one sided perspective. You need to look at all sides before making the same mistake over and over again.

 

[Syne]

heh...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38798588
Terrorism-related cases in the US since 9/11
Includes those charged with or died engaging in jihadist terrorism

View attachment 1352
Significant recent attacks in the US were not committed by citizens from any of the seven countries included in the order. This list includes:

• Fort Lauderdale airport shooting (January 2017): A US citizen
• Orlando nightclub shooting (June 2016): A US citizen with Afghan parents
• San Bernardino shooting (December 2015): A US citizen with Pakistani parents, and a Pakistani citizen
• Chattanooga shootings (July 2015): A Kuwait-born US citizen
• Charleston church shooting (June 2015): A US citizen
• Boston marathon bombing (April 2013): Two men originally from Chechnya, Russia

There have been a few non-fatal attacks by individuals from two of the countries on the banned list.

So... what, then, is the purpose of this travel ban? It is quite obvious it is NOT to prevent terror attacks, as it is aimed at entirely the wrong place to do so...

Seems to me that you're just naive enough to assume the precedent of the past wholly determines the future. Terrorists from the banned countries have killed US and Western citizens abroad, and have materially aided domestic terrorism. But apparently you only think a threat exists from a source that has succeeded. Remember, we had no clue terrorists from Saudi Arabia could do so much damage...until it had already been done. Do you want to be as blindsided by the next, new source?

Perhaps you have faith in things. I prefer to make decisions based on data, not faith. And the data shows that banning refugees from those countries will have as much effect on stopping terrorist attacks as locking a glass door with no glass in it.

What data? Data from a past precedent that was completely unexpected? Do you think the next, new source will be wholly predictable? Sounds like you have plenty of faith to me.

So per your standards the greatest threats out there are Russia and China. Think Trump will ban immigrants from either one of those countries?

Are Russia or China waging a proxy war against us?

 

[billvon]

What data? Data from a past precedent that was completely unexpected?

Wise men learn from unexpected events in the past so that the future is not so unexpected. Foolish men are always surprised.

"Gee, we never knew that dumping mercury in our rivers could be so dangerous! Well, you can't predict such things; let's just keep doing it. Better yet, let's ban Windex; that stuff makes my eyes water."

Are Russia or China waging a proxy war against us?

No, they are more direct about it. Russia's attack on US computer systems to try to manipulate our election was the most recent example; China has been attacking us regularly.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Syne,
Do you think the global intelligence sharing that existed prior to Trumps Inauguration via the EU nations and other is not more guarded than it was before?
Do you think, for example, MI6 would continue high level sharing with a loose cannon as POTUS?

Maybe tell us all again how you think the POTUS is benefiting his own cause let alone the USA's?

 

[iceaura]

So an attack sixteen years ago, with no evidence of being sponsored by the stable and functioning governments of these countries,

There is plenty of evidence of high level Saudi support for 9/11 - starting with the financial, family, and political connections of its alleged mastermind, Osama bin Laden, most of which still exist. And plenty of evidence it is still supporting Wahabi and other Sunni terrorism, world wide - in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan and central Asia, in north Africa, in Europe generally, and targeting the US as occasion warrants.

LOL! The delusion is denying the existence of an actual thing. Granted, intersectional feminism is itself rather deluded.

Your delusions are not an actual thing, and if they were they would not be relevant here.

And? Anyone doing business in Muslim-majority countries is only going to do so in stable countries, where they can actually make money.

Iran is a stable country, regarding which Rex Tillerson - for example - has made money and could make a lot more if it were a bit less stable, in the right way. (Dick Cheney has, including conflicts of interest while VP. Condoleeza Rice almost certainly has, and had, including while Secretary of State). But that's for the future, when the Islamic Obstacle has been re-subjugated.

We do not have a good faith relationship with Iran, so any intel they provide to aid our vetting is suspect.

They provide the ordinary documents as good as we get from any number of countries whose functioning governments are - at best - a bit hostile. China, for example. Indonesia. India.

 

[Kittamaru]

Seems to me that you're just naive enough to assume the precedent of the past wholly determines the future. Terrorists from the banned countries have killed US and Western citizens abroad, and have materially aided domestic terrorism. But apparently you only think a threat exists from a source that has succeeded. Remember, we had no clue terrorists from Saudi Arabia could do so much damage...until it had already been done. Do you want to be as blindsided by the next, new source?

Seems to me you are naive enough to disregard pertinent data entirely and instead prefer to push The Donalds insane agenda. You haven't a single fact to back your claims, which is, in all honesty, becoming a rather pathetic trend with you.

Go ahead and live in fear of everyone who is even slightly different than you... those of us with a spine prefer to join the real world.

PS - I notice you utterly ignored the fact that we have had far more terror attacks perpetrated by US citizens than we have by foreign actors... not surprised, just letting you know it didn't go unnoticed.

 

[Syne]

Wise men learn from unexpected events in the past so that the future is not so unexpected. Foolish men are always surprised.

So "extreme vetting" for those from countries with stable, good faith diplomatic relations and reliable intel and a moratorium while reevaluated vetting processes for unreliable intel sources are established isn't learning from past events nor anticipating future ones? Surprise only happens were unknowns are not managed. Unreliable intel is an unmanaged unknown.

No, they are more direct about it. Russia's attack on US computer systems to try to manipulate our election was the most recent example; China has been attacking us regularly.

And not too long ago we were spying on our own allies and Obama sent money to help manipulate the Israeli election. Were we waging "more direct" war on our allies?

There is plenty of evidence of high level Saudi support for 9/11 - starting with the financial, family, and political connections of its alleged mastermind, Osama bin Laden, most of which still exist. And plenty of evidence it is still supporting Wahabi and other Sunni terrorism, world wide - in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan and central Asia, in north Africa, in Europe generally, and targeting the US as occasion warrants.

Saudi has often backed extremists, and even with the US support, like in 1980s Afghanistan. They supported them in their proxy war with Iran, again with the tacit approval of the US. But they now seem to see Islamic extremism, often funded or equipped by Iran, as a threat.
So cite your "plenty of evidence" that isn't 16 years old.

Your delusions are not an actual thing, and if they were they would not be relevant here.

Hey, I'm all for dismissing leftist crap, but to deny it exists altogether is delusional. And the bare assertion it's irrelevant isn't an argument.

Iran is a stable country, regarding which Rex Tillerson - for example - has made money and could make a lot more if it were a bit less stable, in the right way. (Dick Cheney has, including conflicts of interest while VP. Condoleeza Rice almost certainly has, and had, including while Secretary of State). But that's for the future, when the Islamic Obstacle has been re-subjugated.

OMG! An private oil exec had business with the fourth largest oil reserve in the world? How could that be? Halliburton selling centrifuges to Iran is wrong, but Obama ensuring they can have more is fine. You'd have to cite a source on Rice.

They provide the ordinary documents as good as we get from any number of countries whose functioning governments are - at best - a bit hostile. China, for example. Indonesia. India.

There's a significant difference between "a bit hostile" and regular chants of "death to America" led by the countries leaders.

Seems to me you are naive enough to disregard pertinent data entirely and instead prefer to push The Donalds insane agenda. You haven't a single fact to back your claims, which is, in all honesty, becoming a rather pathetic trend with you.

Go ahead and live in fear of everyone who is even slightly different than you... those of us with a spine prefer to join the real world.

PS - I notice you utterly ignored the fact that we have had far more terror attacks perpetrated by US citizens than we have by foreign actors... not surprised, just letting you know it didn't go unnoticed.

Yes, ignore all the links I post to support my points and make copious appeals to emotion...as usual for you.

I actually mentioned the Boston bombers, but your confirmation bias is hard at work. Appears it did go unnoticed.

 

[Kittamaru]

You mentioned the Boston bombers eh? If you did, I missed that and do apologize for such... Was it a few pages ago I'm guessing? I don't see it in your reply to my post.

In the end, there are two choices, and only two - live in perpetual fear (terrorists win), or don't. There was and is already a system in place - if it needs improvements, then make them. Barring people who are already approved for entry and have sold nearly every material possession they own is deplorable.

As is making exceptions for his own personal gain.

You have yet to post any compelling support for this ban beyond statements that can be boiled down to "bad things could happen and I'm scared of the brown people"

 

[iceaura]

But they now seem to see Islamic extremism, often funded or equipped by Iran, as a threat.
So cite your "plenty of evidence" that isn't 16 years old.

Please. That high level Saudis and Kuwaitis and Qataris and Yemenis and so forth - all the fundie Sunni oil aristocrats - have been funding Islamic jihad world wide, is simply common knowledge. Saudi Arabia is itself what Sunni jihadists claim to be fighting for - it represents the first Islamic State.
http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2016/07/12/474785/Saudi-ruling-families-Daesh-funding http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-te...ton-foundation-donors-fund-isis-daesh/5553722
Iran is Shiite, Saudi Arabia is Sunni (Wahabi, the most extreme and terroristic form). Saudi attitudes toward Shiite "extremism" (which has not been much of a threat to the US for a long time now) have no bearing on Saudi support for Al Qaida and similarly Sunni operations. The Saudi funding for Syrian and Iraqi Sunni terrorism, Daesh and the rest, is a separate matter from Saudi objections to Iranian operations.

Hey, I'm all for dismissing leftist crap, but to deny it exists altogether is delusional.

It has no such nature, role, or influence as your deluded reference claimed. There is a reality, your delusions are not part of it.

OMG! An private oil exec had business with the fourth largest oil reserve in the world? How could that be? Halliburton selling centrifuges to Iran is wrong, but Obama ensuring they can have more is fine.

So we are agreed - Iran's is a stable and functioning government that US officials routinely do business with, and Trump's cabinet features some familiar Republican conflicts of interest with Iran - which go much farther toward explaining the ban than any threat of Iranian terrorism toward the US, an all but nonexistent feature of the current political landscape.

There's a significant difference between "a bit hostile" and regular chants of "death to America" led by the countries leaders

In this case, one of the differences is that people from the "bit hostile" countries are confirmed threats and frequently active agents of harm - unlike the other country's people.

Which brings us back to the ban.

 

[billvon]

So "extreme vetting" for those from countries with stable, good faith diplomatic relations and reliable intel and a moratorium while reevaluated vetting processes for unreliable intel sources are established isn't learning from past events nor anticipating future ones?

We already have extreme vetting.

Banning refugees and visitors from countries that have not attacked us, and allowing in people from countries that have, is refusing to learn from past events.

And not too long ago we were spying on our own allies

We always spy on our own allies. Heck, we spy on our own people.

and Obama sent money to help manipulate the Israeli election. Were we waging "more direct" war on our allies?

No. Sending money to support an election is not waging war.

I actually mentioned the Boston bombers, but your confirmation bias is hard at work. Appears it did go unnoticed.

Great that you mention that. Why does the ban not mention the country that those terrorists came from? (Rhetorical question - Putin would be displeased, and he pulls the strings in the US right now.)

 

[Dr_Toad]

No. Sending money to support an election is not waging war.

I disagree. War is much cheaper that way.

 

[Bells]

So an attack sixteen years ago, with no evidence of being sponsored by the stable and functioning governments of these countries, should somehow permanently mar our diplomatic relations with them? Are you promoting a permanent and more complete Muslim ban then?

You don't think there is any evidence of the Saudi's sponsoring terrorism in the US, even that big one 16 years ago that you seem to be attempting to dismiss?

As for the functioning and stable Government of Saudi Arabia..

The Saudi religion was slowly forgotten by the international community as a correlative issue with Al-Qaeda due to the political focus toward ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it has since subtly entered back into the international spotlight since the Syrian civil war outbreak in 2011. With the uprising against Bashar Al-Assad, many Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia in particular, have used the conflict as a proxy war for Sunni vs Shia supremacy by funneling millions of dollars to Wahhabi militant factions to assist in the overthrow. In 2012, Saudi Arabia’s own intelligence chief Bandar Bin Sultan was formally sent to Syria to round up and organize Sunni militants for the opposition movement. Initially, financial support and arms were transferred to Al-Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), before it formally partitioned itself as ISIS.​

Their brand and support of the ideology espoused by ISIS is well known. For example:

In June 2014, a poll taken in Saudi Arabia showed that 92% believed, “ISIS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic Law,” and families of sons who have died fighting with ISIS have expressed “joy,” regarding the martyrdom of their child.​

Am I promoting a permanent ban on Saudi Arabia? No. Such bans only make the situation and willingness to radicalise even worse. What I was doing was pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of Trump's White House in implementing the ban in the first place. Because he is not banning people who actively participate and fund terrorist attacks against the US. He is banning people from countries he has no business ties to.

I would certainly call US and other Western citizens (Syria) and Christians (Libya) being decapitated, as well as the US embassy attack (Libya) terrorism, even if those particular terrorist haven't succeeded in making it to or pulling off an attack in the US. Not to mention that "the Obama administration and Congress had previously designated them as places people couldn’t visit if they planned to participate in the U.S. visa-waiver program" and "Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or executing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil..." The Boston bombers admitted they were motivated by extremist Islamist beliefs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and learned to build bombs online, through an al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen.

Starting to make sense to ya?

You just made my point for me in regards to encouraging the radicalisation of Muslims in the US itself by promoting such bans.

Did you even read the article you linked?

From your link and taking what you just misrepresented in its proper context:

But after sifting through databases, media reports, court documents, and other sources, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, has arrived at a striking finding: Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015.

Zero.

Six Iranians, six Sudanese, two Somalis, two Iraqis, and one Yemeni have been convicted of attempting or executing terrorist attacks on U.S. soil during that time period, according to Nowrasteh’s research. (Nowrasteh focused on plots against the U.S. homeland, which presumably Trump cares most about, rather than other terrorism-related offenses, like supporting a foreign terrorist group or trying to join a jihadist organization overseas.) Zero Libyans and zero Syrians have been convicted of doing the same. “Foreign-born terrorism is a hazard,” Nowrasteh argues, “but it is manageable given the huge economic benefits of immigration and the small costs of terrorism.”

As for refugees, Nowrasteh writes, Trump’s action “is a response to a phantom menace.” Over the last four decades, 20 out of 3.25 million refugees welcomed to the United States have been convicted of attempting or committing terrorism on U.S. soil, and only three Americans have been killed in attacks committed by refugees—all by Cuban refugees in the 1970s.

Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack in the United States.
​

But I'll take a chance..

Why did you misrepresent it, Syne?

Why the dishonesty?

The article goes on to provide even a better understanding of the stupidity of Trump's ban..

The 9/11 attacks were carried out by 19 men—from Saudi Arabia (15), the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt (1), and Lebanon (1). The incident remains influential in how Americans think about the nature of terrorism; Trump’s executive order cites 9/11 as a prime example of the U.S. visa process catastrophically breaking down. But it’s misleading as a guide to where today’s terrorists come from.

Nowrasteh found that foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were involved in 3,024 of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through 2015. But 2,983 of those murders came on 9/11 alone.

The stereotype of the foreign terrorist infiltrator is outdated, according to the New America think tank. The organization has compiled its own data on patterns of terrorism in the United States, which unlike Cato’s focuses on jihadist terrorism in the country following 9/11. The dataset includes people charged with terrorism-related crimes, not just those convicted, as well as U.S. citizens and residents rather than solely foreigners.

“[E]very jihadist who conducted a lethal attack inside the United States since 9/11 was a citizen or legal resident,” New America reports. During that time period, more than 80 percent of individuals who were charged with or died engaging in jihadist terrorism or related activities inside the United States have been U.S. citizens or permanent residents (the tally also includes Americans accused of engaging in such activity abroad). Many have been second-generation immigrants: The Orlando nightclub attacker, for instance, was a U.S. citizen and son of Afghan immigrants. One of the San Bernardino shooters was a U.S. citizen and son of Pakistani immigrants; the other, Tashfeen Malik, was a Pakistani national and conditional U.S. permanent resident who came to the United States on a fiancee visa.​

And here is the kicker about the sheer hypocrisy and lunacy of his ban...

Trump is understandably focused on the threat from ISIS. But here, too, the statistics don’t align with Trump policy. Since 2014, the majority of individuals charged in the United States with ISIS-related offenses have been U.S. citizens (58 percent) or permanent residents (6 percent), according to George Washington University’s Program on Extremism. Additionally, more ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria appear to come from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Russia, Egypt, and China than any countries included in Trump’s ban.​

"Starting to make sense to ya?"...

 

[Bells]

And? Anyone doing business in Muslim-majority countries is only going to do so in stable countries, where they can actually make money. Unless you're selling arms, conflicts, civil wars, unstable governments, etc. are not good investments. OMG! Trump's a business man. How dare he do business with any Muslims at all, right? It's sounding more and more like you think the "Muslim Ban" is only flawed in that it is a half-measure.

And even those excluded from the outright moratorium (Pakistan, Afghanistan, & Saudi Arabia) will receive "extreme vetting."

And yet:

Since 2014, the majority of individuals charged in the United States with ISIS-related offenses have been U.S. citizens (58 percent) or permanent residents (6 percent), according to George Washington University’s Program on Extremism. Additionally, more ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria appear to come from Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Russia, Egypt, and China than any countries included in Trump’s ban.​

Notice the other countries on the list of people who go on to become ISIS fighters? Is he going to start "extreme vetting" of the Russians, Chinese and those from Turkey and Egypt?

Of course he won't.

I don't think the Muslim ban is flawed, Syne. I think it is a piece of absolute hogwash and hypocrisy designed to stoke fear and distrust, and most importantly, to protect Trump's business interests..

So again, why have you deliberately misrepresented that article?

 

[Kittamaru]

So again, why have you deliberately misrepresented that article?

If I had to fathom a guess... it makes him feel good, to be more like Trump (eg, pathological liar).

 

[billvon]

I disagree. War is much cheaper that way.

It is certainly cheaper, but it's still not war. (Unless you think I have been waging war on Ballast Point Brewing for years now.)

 

[Dr_Toad]

Fight the good fight!

Ever read The Prince and the Discourses, or von Clausewitz, or even Mark Twain?

"War is merely the continuation of policy by other means."

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[iceaura]

In response to Syne's questioning of the ongoing affiliation of Saudi Arabia and Islamic terrorist threats, a passing comment in Bell's link above is worth highlighting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar_bin_Sultan_Al_Saud

In 2012, Saudi Arabia’s own intelligence chief Bandar Bin Sultan was formally sent to Syria to round up and organize Sunni militants for the opposition movement. Initially, financial support and arms were transferred to Al-Nusra Front, an Al-Qaeda affiliate, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), before it formally partitioned itself as ISIS.

Recall the repeated attempts of US Republican-backing media to claim Obama was bringing Islamic terrorist influence into high level US government, associating himself with Islamic enemies of US soldiers, and so forth?

Basic principle: if you see Republicans and their pet media making accusations that make no sense, it's reasonably safe to assume it's what they are doing themselves. And that's as true of Trump as of any other Republican.