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.

 

OK. Its not a muslim ban

page: 14
115
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
What possible need would you have to hesitate over SA and Egypt? Egypt barely has a government and it's corrupt as #. Saudi Arabia is the main root of wahhabism and corruption is endemic, not to mention them terrorising Yemen.

Let's be honest - everyone knows we all court the Saudis becsuse of oil and money. The UK and US sells them insane amounts of weapons and military equipment. Money talks. Nobody with even the slightest awareness of global politics could question that logic. The Saudis are bad news but they're our meal ticket.


originally posted by: f4rwest
a reply to: fencesitter85

Who's to say he won't add these countries in the future? He's been in office for 11 days, the information was already gathered on those 7 countries, maybe he's in the process of reevaluating the others?

I




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
What possible need would you have to hesitate over SA and Egypt? Egypt barely has a government and it's corrupt as #. Saudi Arabia is the main root of wahhabism and corruption is endemic, not to mention them terrorising Yemen.

Let's be honest - everyone knows we all court the Saudis becsuse of oil and money. The UK and US sells them insane amounts of weapons and military equipment. Money talks. Nobody with even the slightest awareness of global politics could question that logic. The Saudis are bad news but they're our meal ticket.


originally posted by: f4rwest
a reply to: fencesitter85

Who's to say he won't add these countries in the future? He's been in office for 11 days, the information was already gathered on those 7 countries, maybe he's in the process of reevaluating the others?

I



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
I don't see what the issue is. The new administration wants to take a look at the current vetting procedures in place for accepting refugees from a handful of destabilized countries that are hotbeds of international terrorism. Until they can review the existing procedures and determine their adequacy, they've ordered a temporary ban on travel from those countries to ensure the safety and security of our own citizenry. That sounds like a reasonable, common sense approach to me.



That's not quite what was going on in some areas with those detained though. There are reports that early in the ban immigration officials were trying to persuade some of those detained to sign away their lawful residents rights, a form, I-407 i believe.

Lawyer Stacy Tolchin said, one Iranian was coerced into signing a form withdrawing his admission to the U.S. and was sent back to his native Iran. He had been coming to the U.S. on an immigrant visa, she said, and he was to receive his green card here.
So if there was any coercion, I can now understand Yates' position if she had heard about that in any way.

In any case, there is no need to slap a ban out of the blue if vetting procedures are not up to scratch, you do that on the run with supervisors and think tanks in attendance to see how things are being done.
What Trump did is a classic Jeremy Ckarkson with his hammer scenario.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
I get it - its not a muslim ban.

So lets call it what it is.

Its a fear-based pandering to the lowest common denominator of religious stereo-typing born out of massive ignorance with very little substance in terms of actual proof of evident cause and effect piece of political showmanship that has been rushed in to place to cater for Trumps "core" audience

Admittedly, thats not as good a soundbyte, but it captures the essence of it.

And while we're on the subject of things that aren't something - no, its not the same as what Obama did - as you can read here;
foreignpolicy.com...

The problem with politics right now is that it needs some straighter talking and less soundbytes.

So lets do less soundbytes.


Hello Nef Long time ... I just want to point out this is a natural political reaction to the blatant attack on Syria by the House of Saud, the Americans military complex and other actors that have political and territorial gains to be made if Syria is balkanized. The warring factions and the Countries involved should go through a special screening process. ... I wonder how many people understand the entire Syrian War is a CIA operation similar to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. There just as in Syria the US President did not authorize the action but pushed a propaganda front to compel the President to take military action supporting the phony war as if it is a popular uprising.

Remember Operation Gladio drove European society and government to the right.

Should we be taking bets on this, "When will the British government have to invade Londonistan to take it back from Muslims who have instituted Islamic law and broke away from the UK?"

checkout my hell raising political shock and awe, the "Revolution in the Morning" on Revolution Radio 8-10 am US ... UK 5 hours difference is 1-3 in the afternoon, I think ....,,



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth
If you want to call it as it is, it's a common sense plan.

Don't let people come in without more extreme vetting, period.

What is so hard to understand about that?


I think what you're pushing is complete ignorant propaganda that a middle schooler can debunk.


Very well stated.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: DrStevenBrule


This is what a majority of Americans wanted.

This is what a majority of Americans voted for.



Erm....no. It's not.

This is NOT what the "majority" of Americans wanted.

It is what the stupid electoral college does. She won the popular vote. Suck it up, cowboy.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I dont let other people in my yard without my permission.
I dont have to give a reason why.
Its my yard.
The President has wide power to shut down people coming from any country into our yard.
He does this under the powers of enforcing the immigration and naturalization laws passed by congress, but also under the authority to protect and defend the US from enemies foreign and domestic.
If Congress wants to limit the power the President has to restrict immigration then they need to vote on that, until then its law and its Constitutional.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Who's President again....?

Its called a Republic not a Democracy.
Suck it up Cowboy.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: LightAssassin

Actually, I take that back, it's not a muslim ban, it's a protective measure against blowback. The countries this applies to happen to also be countries the USA are operating in militarily. This is to stop those wronged by the US (of which there are many) from coming to the US to retaliate.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Dragoon01

Cowgirl, thanks very much.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Genuine question to those who support this: are you not troubled by the lack of a ban on Saudi Arabia/Egypt? We know there's plenty of terrorism associated with those countries, and we also know SA was heavily involved in 9/11. So surely, using Trump's current logic, SA at least should be at the top of the list?

Wouldn't be related to his business interests now would it?


Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, let me explain. The countries that were stopped for now were identified by the Obama administration. They are the basis for the current EO. Meanwhile, it also directed an investigation to determine if any other countries should be added to the list. They could've waited until that was done to stop these 7 countries, but since they were already identified by Obama's people as a problem, it was more prudent to just start with them while we determine who else we need to put a halt on.

So no, your fantasies about Trump's businesses don't hold water.


You seem upset. It was a perfectly fair question. And no, I haven't trawled through the entire thread to see if it already came up.

I just find it a little ironic that a man who has done nothing but criticise obama's policies and actions, would happily just take this EO decision precisely on the basis of the countries identified by the Obama admin, without adding such obvious choices as Egypt and SA. You know, countries where we know terrorism abounds without a shadow of a doubt. Wouldn't be at all hard to add them.

I think you're giving him too much credit and letting your heart rule your head.


Pretending you upset me is a cute defense mechanism. I grew out of make believe years ago. I explained how you were wrong. If anybody is upset here it's you. I mean, you're having to make stuff up to make yourself feel better. I'm not.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Actually, this ACTION is supported by most Americans.
Rasmussen

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of Likely U.S. Voters favor a temporary ban on refugees from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen until the federal government approves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here. Thirty-three percent (33%) are opposed, while 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Similarly, 56% favor a temporary block on visas prohibiting residents of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the United States until the government approves its ability to screen for likely terrorists. Thirty-two percent (32%) oppose this temporary ban, and 11% are undecided.


Yeah, yeah, I know... using a poll. It's about the only logical tool available presently to determine whether the majority of Americans support or dislike a policy, however.
edit on 31-1-2017 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Again, Rasmussin is a conservative leaning group.

You need comparison polls.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
This is what real religion based banning and discrimination looks like.




posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It doesn't get much more liberal than this poll, in which most of Trump's positions are disagreed with by the majority of respondants...
poll.qu.edu...

Yet still...

By a narrow 48 - 42 percent, American voters support "suspending immigration from terror prone regions, even if it means turning away refugees."

By a broader 53 - 41 percent, voters support requiring immigrants from Muslim countries to register with the federal government.


If you remove the no opinion responders, the majority of American voters support the "ban."



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: fencesitter85
Genuine question to those who support this: are you not troubled by the lack of a ban on Saudi Arabia/Egypt? We know there's plenty of terrorism associated with those countries, and we also know SA was heavily involved in 9/11. So surely, using Trump's current logic, SA at least should be at the top of the list?

Wouldn't be related to his business interests now would it?


Since you obviously haven't been paying attention, let me explain. The countries that were stopped for now were identified by the Obama administration. They are the basis for the current EO. Meanwhile, it also directed an investigation to determine if any other countries should be added to the list. They could've waited until that was done to stop these 7 countries, but since they were already identified by Obama's people as a problem, it was more prudent to just start with them while we determine who else we need to put a halt on.

So no, your fantasies about Trump's businesses don't hold water.


You seem upset. It was a perfectly fair question. And no, I haven't trawled through the entire thread to see if it already came up.

I just find it a little ironic that a man who has done nothing but criticise obama's policies and actions, would happily just take this EO decision precisely on the basis of the countries identified by the Obama admin, without adding such obvious choices as Egypt and SA. You know, countries where we know terrorism abounds without a shadow of a doubt. Wouldn't be at all hard to add them.

I think you're giving him too much credit and letting your heart rule your head.


Pretending you upset me is a cute defense mechanism. I grew out of make believe years ago. I explained how you were wrong. If anybody is upset here it's you. I mean, you're having to make stuff up to make yourself feel better. I'm not.


Bit defensive mate. How about you reply to my post? What stuff have I made up? I'm intrigued.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: swedy13
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).


Of course it's a Muslim ban.

No matter how they try to twist it.


If that were true, wouldn't all Muslim countries be on the list?

Your argument is weak.



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: swedy13
It's a Muslim ban. It's just being implemented in a legal way, so not a Muslim ban (wink wink).


Of course it's a Muslim ban.

No matter how they try to twist it.


If that were true, wouldn't all Muslim countries be on the list?

Your argument is weak.


...and that's the root of the whining over Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and UAE not being on the list. The whine has zip-all to do with keeping America safe and everything to do with their absence being inconvenient to the argument that Trump enacted a "Muslim ban."



posted on Jan, 31 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: xstealth
If you want to call it as it is, it's a common sense plan.

Don't let people come in without more extreme vetting, period.

What is so hard to understand about that?


I think what you're pushing is complete ignorant propaganda that a middle schooler can debunk.


You nailed that pretty quickly. No need to read further. Thank you.

Denny




top topics



 
115
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join