- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump pushes back, issues statement regarding refugee EO
Posted on 1/29/17 at 5:08 pm to bamarep
Posted on 1/29/17 at 5:08 pm to bamarep
quote:
Are you seriously this stupid?
If you guys can twist 7 hot beds of terror into a war against an entire religion then this is going to be fun to watch.
And yet, Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have collectively had citizens in their countries kill over 3000 Americans, while the people from the banned countries have 0 citizens that came from those countries and carried out a terrorist attack and killed Americans since 1975:
quote:
The order would ban all people entering the United States from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, and yet no terrorist from these places has carried out a lethal attack in the United States. Indeed, no Libyans or Syrians have even been convicted for planning such an attack.
LINK
So the question is what is the purpose of this ban? What is the strategic goal and what is the identified problem(and the evidence to support it) to justify this particular policy?
If it is to stop Americans being killed, the evidence says Egypt, The UAE and Saudi Arabia should be on that list. Yet they are curiously left off in favor of places where we have not had an issue that the current system hasn't been able to thwart or prevent. And when you look at all recent attacks linked to ISIS or Al Qaeda since 9/11, the problem has been radicalized converts, often citizens in this country. So the threat itself seems to be internally. If it is to pre-empt future attacks then once again it makes sense to include those other countries.
This post was edited on 1/29/17 at 5:10 pm
1
Posted on 1/29/17 at 5:08 pm to Eightballjacket
I agree.
Posted on 1/29/17 at 5:11 pm to bonhoeffer45
Did you see where SA was going to help set up safe zones for the refugees? I'm sure that's why they were left off.
Don't get me wrong, I hate their arse but I'm sure that's what the reasoning was.
Don't get me wrong, I hate their arse but I'm sure that's what the reasoning was.
Posted on 1/29/17 at 5:13 pm to bamarep
That's a great statement.
Posted on 1/29/17 at 5:19 pm to LSUminati
quote:
but this response to the statement in the OP is basically, "I have nothing to counter this logical explanation of the policy."
Nope, I've heard the arguments from both sides including the ACLU attorney prosecuting the case. Both sides could prevail IMO. I'm not going to debate it out here because I'm not wasting my time.
Posted on 1/29/17 at 5:22 pm to bamarep
quote:
Did you see where SA was going to help set up safe zones for the refugees? I'm sure that's why they were left off.
Don't get me wrong, I hate their arse but I'm sure that's what the reasoning was.
That proposal isnt magic, a well functioning set of safe zones may not be viable for some time, if ever acceptable depending on how it develops and if proper cooperation can be solidified. Russia is already signaling they may not sit by quietly and don't want it. Which will be interesting to see how Al Assad then positions himself. Plus, you are essentially talking about possibly going to war to defend these safe zones. Putting troops on the ground and perhaps having to meet possible Russian aggression either directly or through Assad that could trigger a war. Is Trump willing to actually go to war for these safe zones? Remember those red-lines from Obama? Setting up a no fly zone in Syria requires lots of resources, including likely boots on the ground. And a willingness to make good on the promise you will protect them.
Still, it doesnt explain or justify why Trump is targeting those countries and not the ones that actually have had citizens carry out terrorist attacks on our soil. Logically you would put a temporary ban on those countries until that network could be established and consider whether it makes strategic sense for America to accept Saudi citizens given the history. Because if the argument is they will help the safe zones so we will treat Saudi Arabia as business as usual, that is a bizarre sell. Because the safe zones are for Syria refugees and ISIS displacement. As that doesnt address Saudi Arabia's own internal problems, including citizens in those countries funding radical groups.
This post was edited on 1/29/17 at 5:28 pm
Posted on 1/29/17 at 5:55 pm to bamarep
your insight into anything is unreal. just run your mouth, act like you know everything and all is well in your little trump mind
Posted on 1/29/17 at 6:17 pm to 56lsu
quote:
your insight into anything is unreal. just run your mouth, act like you know everything and all is well in your little trump mind
Now 56, if I didn't know better I'd say you had some mancession going on. You never post anything about my topics, only me personally.
You into middle age white dudes baw?
Posted on 1/29/17 at 6:21 pm to 56lsu
WaPo already saying Trump's claim about Obama are false and there's nothing similar to Trump.
Obama responded to an actual threat, didn't announce the ban and it wasn't against Muslims with green cards.
They won't stop.
Obama responded to an actual threat, didn't announce the ban and it wasn't against Muslims with green cards.
They won't stop.
Posted on 1/29/17 at 6:22 pm to Volmanac
quote:
Sieg heil
Fear. You can smell it.
Posted on 1/29/17 at 6:24 pm to bamarep
quote:
Did you see where SA was going to help set up safe zones for the refugees? I'm sure that's why they were left off.
Don't get me wrong, I hate their arse but I'm sure that's what the reasoning was
SA doing this/compiled with President Trumps' statement-- should end all of the Soros paid protesting rent a mobs and faux outrage.
I wonder what is next? Impeachment talk is next, mark my words; and it will fail as well.
Posted on 1/29/17 at 6:25 pm to bamarep
Posted on 1/30/17 at 7:16 am to bamarep
your topics are on everything that comes to your mind, mostly not worth talking about. you personally arefun to mess with. once again using baw, can't you come up with something original or do follow everyone else like the little sheep you all are.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 7:19 am to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
who campaigned on a partial Muslim ban.
FIFY
It was ALWAYS a select ban and NEVER reported correctly.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 7:20 am to Hugo Stiglitz
quote:
I'm not going to debate it out here because I'm not wasting my time.
hahahahahahaha
When did you implement this new standard?
Posted on 1/30/17 at 7:21 am to bamarep
He might be wise to frame his future positions in a similar manner...barn door tends to close easier
Posted on 1/30/17 at 7:22 am to BayouBlitz
Didn't he campaign on a Muslim ban?
NO
NO
Posted on 1/30/17 at 7:23 am to 56lsu
Are you trying to act like you're the poster child for originality?
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 7:32 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I can't argue with the statement itself, so I'll make an argument about the length of it instead.
Anyone with half a brain knew this is what Trump campaigned on. Not some all inclusive ban on one religion. I admit, he's not a great "politician" and said things in a politically incorrect way that allowed the media to spin a very anti-muslim tone (he is at fault there imho). But, I also think he didn't cared that much because what's the point of fighting it.
It's getting backlash due to the fact that he's on the right. But this could very easily have been enforced under the Obama administration and not gotten a second look.
Posted on 1/30/17 at 7:32 am to gthog61
quote:About the time Shitlipz took a self imposed twenty minute timeout form the board.
When did you implement this new standard?
Page 2 of 3
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News