Trump Signs Order to Restrict Refugees from 7 Countries But Not Saudi Arabia

Do a premise check, not a logic check.

 

Your second sentence requires some clarification.

But this isn't what I asked, I asked why, if all of the above were true, this ban specifically exempts certain countries that are historically more prone to your elegant syllogosm?

 

Two countries are state-sponsors of terrorism. Five are experiencing armed-Islamist insurgencies. Three are in active civil wars. Two are under the threat of, or have recently been in, famine.

That much can be concluded.

 

LOL...Obama did this in 2011...LOL

#fauxrage

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...uspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations

 

One country, specific act of terrorism, not targeting Muslims, didn't prioritize other religions... not the same.

 

I'm getting increasingly convinced that the true goal of this ban (or moratorium or whatever you want to call it) has nothing to do with security. "Security" is just a cloak, a facade, a smokescreen. I think the true intent is to sow deeper division and further discord within the United States as well as around the world. In other words, stir sh*t up. The chaos, anger, protests and media coverage yesterday at the airports...that's what Trump wants. Or more precisely, that's exactly what Steve Bannon wants.

 

Amazing how dishonest and/or incompetent Trump's people are... here's Priebus saying Green Card holders are not and then are included in this immigration ban in the same interview.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...n-t-include-green-card-holders-anyone-n713731

Apprently, trump's Homeland Security people advised Trump to not include Green Card holders but Bannon convinced Trump to add it in. While its clear Trump should have listened to the experts, its also shows that Bannon (1) has too much influence and (2) it suggests Bannon's desire to cause disruption.

 

Iran is shia they are at war with ISIS. This ban makes no sense to stop ISIS.

 

who to believe, the purveyor of alternative facts/fake news or the conservative leaning Cato Institute?

what an easy choice!

 

Because there are other factors beyond security risk that also go into it, like diplomatic/economic relationships. If those circumstances change, he may broaden the ban. But it sounds like a number of people, including perhaps you, dispute the premise that there is additional security risk in accepting people traveling from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

 

Do the Bucks have any games left @toronto?


Thon Maker should not be allowed back in.

So basically you are saying Trump is being diplomatic because he fears offending the House of Saud, and that his "security risk" policy makes exemptions for "security risks" because of the delicate political balance in Pakistan etc, rather than the rock solid stable one in places like Iraq.

What about his past behavior makes you this think that this is a likely scenario?

How about an alternative scenario - the Trump organization has business interests in these exempted countries that have in the past, also exported a large security risk? What about his past behavior makes you think this is not a likely scenario.

Additional risk compared to whom, people from Saudi Arabia? I'd be happy to see your or their data, I'm sure it exists.

You're a logical guy, after all, with a facility for data.

 

You won't hear from them they knew what Pres Obama was doing was legal while he was doing it so let those trolls stay quiet.

 

Such BS. Green card holders being treated in this manner. Texx says it's fake new stuff hysteria but real people being treated in this way. How sad we have become.

 

Bannon wanted green card holders included in this. Bannon is already on record as being concerned with the percentage of Asians running American tech companies. Gotta achieve his white supremacist vision of the nation.

 

You didn't get that is what I was making fun of (Fail 1) you didn't get what I said is a comedic representation of what IS current policy. (Fail 2) Did you see the new website? Were you able to scrap together 30 bucks to donate yet?

 

What exactly is a "state sponsor of terror"? Does that just mean anti-American?

Are we a "state sponsor of terror"?

 

You may very well be right. It would mean he is prioritizing his own personal business interests ahead of security concerns. That is contemptible, but not illogical.

 

Or, you just didn't understand what you're talking about, had your typical ignorant reaction, and then are trying to backtrack because you can't admit your ignorance.

You weren't making fun of anything - you had no idea that green card holders and visa holders were being discussed as two separate groups of people. There's nothing funny or comedic about this response:

You just didn't understand what was being said, and then responded with your typical stupidity:

There is no "we" here. Everyone else knows what was going on. It was just you.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/many-terrorist-attacks-u-carried-150056041.html

Zero.