Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ban - ban off - ban on

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ~UNiOnJaCk~ View Post

    Agreed in principle. On the other hand, given the man behind the plan, and his history, i can easily see why questions were raised about the underlying motivations behind this move - especially when the threat level from the countries covered by the proposed ban (certainly at the time of its first reading at least) was questionable.
    What underlying motivations would those be? Are you saying trump is a raaaaaaaacist or an islamophobe? You know another word for islamopobia? Common sense.
    Last edited by Spartan10k; 05-12-2017, 07:13 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Muslims as individuals are pretty good people, heck. I met quite a few in Western Europe and Kanada. The problem is the ideology behind their religion. Speaking of the banned countries on the list, there is no need to have expert knowledge to know they are very dodgy countries. We routinely repeat here that KSA should be on this list, but the ties between them and the US is historical and seemingly unbreakable, not even when 19 of their citizens decide to fly planes into the Pentagon and the WTC.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by JakeScully View Post
        Muslims as individuals are pretty good people, heck. I met quite a few in Western Europe and Kanada. The problem is the ideology behind their religion. Speaking of the banned countries on the list, there is no need to have expert knowledge to know they are very dodgy countries. We routinely repeat here that KSA should be on this list, but the ties between them and the US is historical and seemingly unbreakable, not even when 19 of their citizens decide to fly planes into the Pentagon and the WTC.
        Yes, clearly this is not the complete answer, but I think it is symbolic of someone finally starting to plug some of the holes in our system.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by JakeScully View Post
          Muslims as individuals are pretty good people, heck. I met quite a few in Western Europe and Kanada. The problem is the ideology behind their religion. Speaking of the banned countries on the list, there is no need to have expert knowledge to know they are very dodgy countries. We routinely repeat here that KSA should be on this list, but the ties between them and the US is historical and seemingly unbreakable, not even when 19 of their citizens decide to fly planes into the Pentagon and the WTC.
          JakeScully
          regarding the 19 men of KSA origin who flew the airplanes into US buildings on 11 Sept 2001......IMO.....this was planned exactly to divide the US and KSA by the Saudi Osama bin Laden who was super angry at the KSA already due to his various mental issues with his native country, for allowing US military into Saudi to fight Iraq in the first gulf war, and then KSA kicking him out and more or less disowning him as a citizen. He could have used any nationality of terrorist, but decided to us Saudis. Almost like Charlie Manson trying to start a "race war" in the USA in 1969 by the Tate -LaBianca murders.

          The KSA is a "strategic partner or the US as the US relies on them to supply part of the oil for the oil dependent US (as so much of our population lives miles and miles from their place of work, and the USA is so large, thus requiring long distance traveling....and the US auto industry is slow to change to say the least) Therefore any danger to the KSA is a danger to a strategic partner of the US.

          Comment


          • #20
            When your "strategic partner" keeps cheating on you behind your back and trying to drag you into fights then it's time to reconsider if they're a partner worth keeping. It's not like Saudi wouldn't continue to supply oil if they weren't a "partner" - they deperately need every $0.01 they can get.

            Comment


            • #21
              Canada: Third Largest Oil Reserves in the World

              Libtard government too sad about fact to sell it

              Take us now

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by breki View Post
                Canada: Third Largest Oil Reserves in the World

                Libtard government too sad about fact to sell it

                Take us now
                Need a casus belli. How is your freedom coming along?

                Regarding KSA, I wish our presidents had the balls to let those asshats out to dry. I’d gladly pay more at the pump if that’s what it takes. I think the issue has more to do with the fact we decided to throw ourselves at the Sunni turds instead of the Shi’a turds to maintain influence in the Middle East.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                  When your "strategic partner" keeps cheating on you behind your back and trying to drag you into fights then it's time to reconsider if they're a partner worth keeping. It's not like Saudi wouldn't continue to supply oil if they weren't a "partner" - they deperately need every $0.01 they can get.
                  Well those are my thoughts anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by RobertKLR View Post
                    The ban includes North Koreans. How many Muslims live in Dark Korea? Who weeps for Al-Un?
                    One thing though. The ban for DPRK and Venezuela were explicitly different from the one targeting Muslim-majority nations (which has been stated ad nauseum, don't include the primary exporters of radical clerics; unless they are gonna finally be serious about rooting out Salafism) in that they only targeted officials.
                    This, and precedent set by campaign rhetoric, is why the optics about the whole thing are dodgy.

                    Anyways, it will be interesting how this will translate if the case itself reaches the SC.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by IraGlacialis View Post
                      One thing though. The ban for DPRK and Venezuela were explicitly different from the one targeting Muslim-majority nations (which has been stated ad nauseum, don't include the primary exporters of radical clerics; unless they are gonna finally be serious about rooting out Salafism) in that they only targeted officials.
                      This, and precedent set by campaign rhetoric, is why the optics about the whole thing are dodgy.

                      Anyways, it will be interesting how this will translate if the case itself reaches the SC.
                      It just did. They upheld the ban 7-2.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by riderboy View Post

                        It just did. They upheld the ban 7-2.
                        yeah not sure what IG is talking about. the two old liberal women judges voted against it....bet they are fun at parties. Ruth Ginsberg is "bader" of the two (includint Sotoughmayo-Near)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by riderboy View Post

                          It just did. They upheld the ban 7-2.
                          Sort of. They allowed it to go into effect while the onging legal challenges run their course - it made no judgement on the merits or otherwise of the existing cases. That's not the same thing as a permanent precident.

                          Originally posted by commanding View Post

                          Well those are my thoughts anyway.

                          Which you're entitled to. My thoughts are that Saudi are run by scumbags, senior members of which aided the 9/11 attacks. If they could be declared a pariah state tomorrow, it'd have my backing.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post






                            Which you're entitled to. My thoughts are that Saudi are run by scumbags, senior members of which aided the 9/11 attacks. If they could be declared a pariah state tomorrow, it'd have my backing.
                            thank you. My thoughts are that the biggest, most prolific nest of terrorists (sponsors) in that area is Iran. The thing is Iran is damned good at it (if one can use the term "good" speaking of terrorism). They are artists at using other groups to carry out their long term goals.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              If you're going to have to have an ally in the region, better to have the competent one than the incompetent one - which the US did pre-1979. Jimmy Carter has a lot of answer for in just how badly he dealt with that.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by TheKiwi View Post
                                If you're going to have to have an ally in the region, better to have the competent one than the incompetent one - which the US did pre-1979. Jimmy Carter has a lot of answer for in just how badly he dealt with that.
                                Jimmy Carter was a CLASSIC example of the pendulum effect in American national politics. (you can guess who the others more recent were) The American voters love to say "enough of that shit" and reverse course.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X