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: 7
115
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

Campaign rhetoric and controlled opposition the keep the enemies triggered.

The existing laws will get enforced now anyways.





posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
I have to say, the moderators on this site have been getting really partisan lately. How many threads is this in the past few days?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

Do I need to?

I mean, its irrelevant who made it.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

Hi.

Whats partisan about my OP? I don't mention a political party.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
I have to say, the moderators on this site have been getting really partisan lately. How many threads is this in the past few days?


They enjoy freedom of opinions too !!




posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

First off, I'm a guy. Second off, that list was a travel advisory recommendation not to travel to those countries or be aware of extreme conditions if you do. Not a ban on people coming from them or a note on exporters of terrorism.

So explain to me why it is ok to site 9/11 in your EO but not include Saudi Arabia.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


The NSC estimated 38,300 automobile crash related fatalities in the US in 2015. Perhaps we should stop all driving for a few months until we can get a handle on this!


Same old stupid argument. Yes, cars are devising plots to murder innocents, and preventable accidents are akin to mass murder.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Deny Arrogance

More proof that the people throwing a tantrum over this are an extremely vocal minority serving a partisan agenda, which is why they were dead silent when Obama banned immigration from Iraq in 2011.


Don't forget the ban because of 'fear based paranoia' when it came to African countries, and ebola.

And put boots on the ground to 'fight' disease.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

So, what did Trump say on this subject while on campaign?

www.theguardian.com...

Ban all Muslims from entering the US.

Now, what point of the words that came out of his mouth are you saying didn't push this Executive Order, or is anything he promised to his voters now considered irrelevant?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




So explain to me why it is ok to site 9/11 in your EO but not include Saudi Arabia.


That's on the table.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't worry.

You may get your wish of Saudi Arabia being added to the list. I fully agree with that.

The Trump administration is open to adding more countries once they have the proper assessments done. Give them some time. This was their first week!

Obama already assessed these 7 countries on the list as a threat.
edit on 30-1-2017 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-1-2017 by Deny Arrogance because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

First off, I'm a guy. Second off, that list was a travel advisory recommendation not to travel to those countries or be aware of extreme conditions if you do. Not a ban on people coming from them or a note on exporters of terrorism.

So explain to me why it is ok to site 9/11 in your EO but not include Saudi Arabia.


I know you're a man.

The law states clearly what a country of concern is if it meets this criteria.

(D) Countries or areas of concern
(i) In general
Not later than 60 days after December 18, 2015, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall determine whether the requirement under subparagraph (A) shall apply to any other country or area.
(ii) Criteria In making a determination under clause (i), the Secretary shall consider—
(I) whether the presence of an alien in the country or area increases the likelihood that the alien is a credible threat to the national security of the United States;
(II) whether a foreign terrorist organization has a significant presence in the country or area; and
(III) whether the country or area is a safe haven for terrorists.
(iii) Annual review
The Secretary shall conduct a review, on an annual basis, of any determination made under clause (i).

www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t




So explain to me why it is ok to site 9/11 in your EO but not include Saudi Arabia.


That's on the table.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

On the table doesn't equal in effect. It could very well "be on the table" as a result of people pointing out the very hypocrisy I just pointed out.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

Why are you so offended by strict vetting of people who have NO RIGHT to be here int he first place? You know it would be a lot cheaper to put these people in ME countries, there by allowing you to save more. Maybe if you weren't so worried about patting yourself on the back you might actually be interested in actually helping people.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: neformore

Obama banned all refugees from Iraq for about 6 months. What did you think of that?


He thought nothing because the MSM didn't indoctrinate him with outrage.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The only hypocrisy that's been pointed out is those 7 countries were screwed up by the last administration, and two by the president before him.

Who thought travel from them was a 'bad' idea, until the current guy got elected, and doubled down on it.

With the possibility of more being added.

ETA:

Cut and paste from another thread.

Before Trump came to power would any of you as American citizens travel to any of these countries for sightseeing?

Wouldn't go to Libya after the last guy bombed the hell out of it, and an ambassador and threes others were slaughtered.

Wouldn't go to Sudan because if the terrorists didn't get me. Ebola would.

Wouldn't go to Somalia because I watched Black Hawk Down, and remember when a food mission by a US president became a police action that got ALOT of people killed.

Wouldn't go to Yemen because Iran and Saudi are waging another proxy war so if the Wahabbists didn't get me the 12ers would.

Wouldn't go to Iraq because Gw brought shock and awe, then a later president cut and ran and left the JV in charge.

Wouldn't go to Syria because I still have nightmares about terrorists killing poor little rabbits with chembio warfare.

I don't have a problem with a travel ban from terrorist hot spots.

To wit.

Your either with us or against us, and it's clear who is aiding and abetting people that would rather kill us than look at us.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Those countries is what people are flipping out over.

Good hell.

edit on 30-1-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBulk

Oh hi.

Where in this thread have I said I'm offended?



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In other words. It's a judgement call and your guess is as good as mine.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Hi, yes he did say that, but as I've said in my OP, this is not a muslim ban. Think about it.



posted on Jan, 30 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: neformore

Yes , and while we are on the Subject , let Us think back to All the Terrorist Attacks , and the Innocent People Slaughtered that have Happened in the United States and Around the World in the Last 2 Years , along with the Identities of the Perpatrators of those Acts . Confirmed Radical Islamic Terrorists who some have Claimed Publicaly to be Responsable for those Deadly Attacks . If it Quacks Like a Duck , and Looks Like a Duck , It's Definately a Duck .

Let's talk about heart disease instead? It's the number 1 killer in the US and if you were REALLY serious about Americans being killed you'd put your money where your mouth is instead of conflating a few anecdotes as indicative of a larger trend that doesn't exist.


I have a few questions for you and anyone else reading this that disagrees with the ban.

Question 1.
Should there be a vetting process?

If yes: Why not take the time to create a really good vetting process in order to save as many American lives as possible?

If no : This conversation is terminated.

Question 2.
How does letting in refugees benefit average Joe that got laid off at the factory?

Question 1: Yes. It already exists and is pretty damn thorough since it takes something like 3 - 6 months to be properly vetted as a refugee.
Question 2: False correlation. You let in refugees because it is the humane and reasonable thing to do, not for some sort of quid pro quo.


So you can not answer the second question?

How does letting in refugees benefit average Joe that got laid off at the factory?

It's a very simple question, does it benefit him?

I don't think you can or will answer that question.



new topics

top topics



 
115
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join