It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Not Saudi Arabia

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:15 AM
link   
It has been widely reported that the ban on certain countries for the next 120 days is happening via executive order. The same question arises in each thread spanning the internet. Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not Pakistan or Afghanistan?

From Trumps mouth:

To this, Trump answered, "We're going to have extreme vetting in all cases. And I mean extreme. And we're not letting people in if we think there's even a little chance of some problem."

www.firstpost.com...

In no certain terms he leaves out the answer we all would like to know.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Wondering this myself. They should of been first on the list. Pakistan, Afghanistan aren't on the list either.

edit on 29-1-2017 by Tarzan the apeman. because: Missed a T that time



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
It has been widely reported that the ban on certain countries for the next 120 days is happening via executive order. The same question arises in each thread spanning the internet. Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not Pakistan or Afghanistan?

From Trumps mouth:

To this, Trump answered, "We're going to have extreme vetting in all cases. And I mean extreme. And we're not letting people in if we think there's even a little chance of some problem."

www.firstpost.com...

In no certain terms he leaves out the answer we all would like to know.


The only problem with that theory is that the EO that was signed is not a new directive but a reinforcement of an existing one. he has been office a week give it a little time. If after that things remain the same then I am all for getting riled up about it.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
They must be the good terrorist's.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Because those countries are where terrorists come from , terrorist attacks gives one so much more power when they happen so cracking down on countries from where an attack is likely to come from cuts off a level of support you may gain.

Perhaps.


+11 more 
posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:22 AM
link   





posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Although I didn't include it in my reply, I was thinking that also. The Saudis may actually be holding back on terrorist attacks and if we piss them off, they let the dogs off the leash.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Oil of course. As long as we are dependent on them for oil we lack leverage against them.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: brutus61

originally posted by: JinMI
It has been widely reported that the ban on certain countries for the next 120 days is happening via executive order. The same question arises in each thread spanning the internet. Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not Pakistan or Afghanistan?

From Trumps mouth:

To this, Trump answered, "We're going to have extreme vetting in all cases. And I mean extreme. And we're not letting people in if we think there's even a little chance of some problem."

www.firstpost.com...

In no certain terms he leaves out the answer we all would like to know.


The only problem with that theory is that the EO that was signed is not a new directive but a reinforcement of an existing one. he has been office a week give it a little time. If after that things remain the same then I am all for getting riled up about it.


I've seen this and it leads to more questions. First one being, why wasn't it modified?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
I understand the old Koch brothers and Bush connections in regard to Saudi oil but what is the connection with Trump and Saudi oil?

Pardon my ignorance.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Maybe this puts things into context:




Yemeni security and tribal officials told AP that the fighting had lasted around 45 minutes, with the US troops killing three alleged Al-Qaeda members. They also killed or wounded some two dozen men, including some Saudis at the site.

It was the first American ground operation in Yemen since the country descended into civil war two years ago, and the third overall. The US is already involved in Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen, providing targeting intelligence and air refueling for the Saudi-led coalition, which is backing one side in the conflict.




Looks like, not only will we continue to support the Saud's reign of terror in Yemen, now we be sending in commando's.

www.rt.com...
edit on 29-1-2017 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Allot of the obsessive rhetoric about some of this has been existing laws on the books for ages but disregarded by the pick and choose prior administrations.

The proposed vetting process is yet to be seen in action or explained.. Since much of this has 120 day time frame I can only assume over the next 4 months things will get ironed out and clarified.

So far Trump's stuff has been out in the open and not signed into law on a Friday or holiday weekend..

Good news is no matter what he does it will be under a microscope and no doubt we will hear about it one way or the other..



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Agreed but for the sanctity of America and our values, I would urge them to be expedient about it. Halting legal immigration is much more problematic.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

19 hijackers from Saudi Arabia, according to the US government official report, carried out the worst terrorist attack in US history, killing 3000 people. They evaded US border security however they were all from Saudi Arabia according to official sources.

LOL - of course, this is a total crock of sh!t because if it were even remotely true, Saudi Arabia would now be a smouldering mess.

Instead, Hillary and the Neocons moneybags gets a free pass because money talks so BS Wahhabism walks (free).

If Trump continues to ignore Saudi Arabia, it will be to his detriment because a good portion of his support base is vehemently anti-everything Saudi Arabia.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

More likely trump has financial ties to Saudi . Pakistan has nukes and Afghanistan well that belongs to Russia.
Easy peasy.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rosinitiate

Looks like, not only will we continue to support the Saud's reign of terror in Yemen, now we be sending in commando's.

www.rt.com...


Question: Is this something left over from the previous administration or concocted by the current administration?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

9/11 aside, we have the Wikileaks from last year confirming knowledge of Saudis backing extremists rebels. I won't pretend to be well versed in this subject but what is transpiring is not on the up-and-up.

Does Trump lack the leverage to be tough on SA?



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Rosinitiate

More likely trump has financial ties to Saudi . Pakistan has nukes and Afghanistan well that belongs to Russia.
Easy peasy.


Citation required.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Does Trump lack the leverage to be tough on SA?


The conspiracy theorist in me says to look at his tax returns to answer that question, he's a business man.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:48 AM
link   
they also have been getting compensated in u.s. treasuries since the early 80's. and also own one of if not the biggest refinery in the country in Texas. so, let the daily beheading continue



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join