First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place.
Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US.
Other than Iran (which imo shouldn't be on the list) we're bombing and droning all of those countries at the moment. It's insane to accept military age males from there for entry into the country, particularly if information about them is very sparse (which in war torn countries it typically is).
But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to this country, "it's time to take a stand". The time to take a stand was back when Obama and Clinton armed extremists in Iraq and Syria -- years before Trump.
I'd respect some of these people (like SamA, and Zuckerberg, and others) much more if they were consistent in their views.
These millionaires/billionaires who supported Sec. of State Clinton during her election, fully knowing the loss of Muslim life her actions caused abroad, now virtue signaling about Trump -- I just don't know how to take them seriously.
Another way to look at it is the problem that many people rely on the news to tell them when something bad is happening. If you don't analyze your sources constantly due to a variety of reasons, then you are suspect to being rendered blind simply by omission. If you don't realize how badly the media sphere has gotten polarized since the 2000s, it is easy to dismiss valid critiques as bad faith partisan smears. Consumption of the news in a single source method is a great way now to turn yourself into a partisan.
In the age of a non stop stream of content with an unprecedented amount of choice, it can be difficult people to exert the discipline needed to consume in a method that creates a nuanced world view. People have jobs, kids, and things they'd rather do than confronting and synthesizing opposing viewpoints. It's just easier to wrap yourself in a bubble rather than change your worldview. The destruction of the era of responsible, sober journalism due to the economic realities and consumption habits of people is wreaking havoc in our political system. It doesn't help that there are inherent biases in many journalists themselves.
We've placed an increased burden on the American population to sort through a cacophony of bias to create the truth. Is it a small wonder than considering people never had to before, we're falling so short now?
Another way to look at it is the problem that many people rely on the news to tell them when something bad is happening.
That is really true. The media doesn't report news, it interprets news for you as well.
Whenever I see an outrageous headline I always think "That sounds like BS. There is probably a pretty good reason for this happening."
A great example was the man who found a line on his hospital bill for "holding his baby". The outrage!! Those greedy hospitals!
Turns out that the hospital needed to have nurse in the room and that's just how they bill for that time. Completely innocuous and reasonable. But did the media dig that up? Of course not. No one would click on an article that said "Hospital bills man for nursing services."
Why the nurse? Were these people out on parole/probation/bail for child abuse? No, they were not. They are adults. They can hold their own baby without supervision, and obviously do as soon as they go home.
For eight years, Obama's detractors have been ranting how he's a spineless Muslim sympathizer because he's "afraid" of bombing his way through Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't think those internet warriors would have voted for Hillary Clinton.
So where are they now, and who are all these peace-loving people who suddenly came out of the woods in the last year to denounce Clinton for "loss of Muslim lives"?
If I had to rationalize their stand it's to signal to potential foreign startups that YC is taking a stand on their behalf --YC relies on a lot of foreign talent to drive their portfolio, so it stands to measure that they would have concern about any potential impact on their business model.
If they were concerned about poor immigrants, the ones without anything beyond basic elementary education, they'd be taking a stand against Japanese policies, Singaporean policies, Korean policies, Brazilian policies, etc. (given they project internationally). Of course they'll say they are an American company so they can only affect American policies -well, but obviously they care more than just for Americans given their display of concern, so it should not be a reason not to express concern abroad as well but they don't because it does not impact how potential foreign talent view them (i.e. the poor Indonesian trying to get a visa to work in Japan, Taiwan or China, is little concern of theirs.)
People in the US have been outraged since Bush's response to 9/11. To torture, to Guantanamo, to black sites, to the invasion of Iraq, to drones, to all manner of things. If you're going to cherry-pick items, be honest about doing so, or come up with a supported thesis as to why your chosen points are different from all these others.
There are a couple of things at work, here. One, you're restricting your view to only those on the internet. There are plenty of other places people express their outrage. Two, use and reach of the internet has only increased over time, amplifying the response you're seeing.
As for what you expect or would like Altman to express in his post, do you agree with his post and your issue is that it doesn't also address other points you'd like it to, or do you disagree with it entirely?
I suspect you'll find that it's a minority of people who hold all of the same values and prioritize them the same as you. Don't feel bad, I'm sure I'm in the same boat. That's why it's important to figure out how to work together on our common goals. Expressions like "I can't fathom how" lend themselves to a very close-minded view. On some level, you have an expectation that Altman is reasonable, otherwise I don't think you'd be expressing yourself the way you are. Even if you disagree with him, strive to understand him so you might better be able to engage with him and others who hold similar views, especially if you hope that they, in turn, will take you seriously. Dismissing those who don't toe the line on each and every issue is a great way to get nothing done.
Edit to respond to the above edit: I understand how the points are related in the larger picture, though they are separate points. Altman likely has reasons why he hasn't coupled them in a single blog post. It's not unreasonable for him to address them separately, even though you may wish for him to do so.
Obama or any of his predecessors campaign on drone strikes because Muslims? Anyone think Obama carried out drone strikes in order to attack Muslims? Or carried out drone strikes in order to exploit xenophobia for self-interested political reasons?
> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place.
He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now.
> But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to this country, "it's time to take a stand".
Taking who started it out of the equation, I find it morally repugnant for the USA to destabilise a region then find it acceptable to callously turn away those who were victims of that away.
> He's got his foot in the door. That's all he needs right now.
That's a nice slippery slope you got in there. There's zero mention to muslims in the text of the order, and it's clearly stated that it's temporary, with several revision dates for assesment, the goal being to strengthen the vetting procedures.
I bet most people commenting here haven't read it. Do it. Now.
> Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality.
The vast majority of Middle East refugees are Muslims in the majority in their countries, so here the Secretary of State is directed to prioritize non-Muslims.
> The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law.
What does this mean? Trump is in charge, and he has made it clear that this is how he sees Muslims.
Finally, there's nothing wrong with a slippery slope argument when Trump has explicitly stated that he wants to get to the bottom of the slope.
> Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.
> The vast majority of Middle East refugees are Muslims in the majority in their countries, so here the Secretary of State is directed to prioritize non-Muslims.
Right, that's because those are the ones being persecuted and killed under dhimmitude by the Muslim majorities.
If you accept the premise (that the visa system has holes) then of course you would want to suspend immigration from high risk areas while those holes are addressed. Of course, I'm sure you don't agree with the premise. But you should at least acknowledge that if you did, that a suspension would be needed while revising the rules. To do otherwise would be transparently stupid, since it would basically advertise the vulnerability while leaving it open, giving people a timeline to exploit it.
> (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
> Revision doesn't mean suspension of the ban
Doesn't mean not suspending it either.
> Temporary can mean indefinitely.
It can also mean temporary.
> The overwhelming number of terrorists that commit acts of terrorism on American soil come from people born in the United States of America.
I can also say, without sources, that, if you account immigrants and children of first generation immigrants, there's a disproportion of immigrant attackers vs the total US population, meaning, there's a far higher chance of a terrorist attack resulting of a poor immigration vetting process.
You may not have followed his link, but this isn't a standard case of "you didn't even read the article". By "the text", he means the actual executive order, which strangely isn't linked from Sam's piece. His frustration is that people are reading the blog post, but seem oddly disinterested in the primary source, which he feels contradicts (or at least complexifies) many of the points that Sam makes.
Wait. Did you just tell him to "read the rules" because he keeps telling other people to "read the article"? Why not try obeying the rules yourself, for once.
He did, because (1) he's a moderator on the site, and (2) the rules, which you clearly haven't read recently either, specifically say not to insinuate that other commenters haven't read the article.
Can I be the first person here to point out that armed toddlers killed more people last year than extremists of any variety, and that the armed toddler threat becomes even more terrifying when you factor out right-wing extremists (who represent a significant fraction of terrorist murders in the US) and attacks from US citizens? 21 people are killed every year by armed toddlers, compared to 2 from foreign-born Islamic militants.
A threat that is not overstated is the risk to Muslim minorities in Syria and Iraq. Armed toddlers, lightning strikes, and even lawnmowers (a threat that dwarfs all previously stated causes of violent death in the US) are a trifling concern to a Yazidi in the path of Syrian civil war conflict, either from ISIS or from mortar shelling from the Syrian regime.
And, of course, as we consider who's being harmed by this ban, it helps to remember that the ban also applies to lawful permanent residents of the United States. The spouses of many --- actually, 3 in 4 --- American citizens are LPR non-citizens; they've lived here for in many cases decades but can't return back (or, at this point, ever leave to visit family). No American can look at that situation and call it right or just or tolerable.
> there's a disproportion of immigrant attackers vs the total US population
There is a willful ignorance of this among some political groups here. Attack after attack, they refuse to acknowledge the problem and thus refuse to entertain basic preventative measures. We restricted Nazi immigration, we restricted communist immigration, and we should certainly restrict Muslim extremist immigration. There is difficulty in separating extremists from moderates (who are a welcome addition to our country), but in order to create a proper vetting process, we first need to recognize the problem and the need for a solution.
I know you mean well. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy.
I in fact did read the text. Specifically because you pointed it out, not in spite of. If your knee jerk reaction is to assume I'm that dumb (the insinuation I am getting), it's really difficult for me to be constructive. And makes me wonder just who you think reads these forums.
All that being said, forgive me for not engaging in this any further.
What's wrong with using the slippery slope argument here? Regarding slippery slope logical fallacy:
> This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim.
In this instance, plenty of reason and argument to believe this event will lead to another. It's what he campaigned on.
> There's zero mention to muslims in the text of the order
Trump stated his intention to stabilize the region. So far he has demonstrated very clearly that he intends to keep his promises. All that needs to happen there is we need to stop arming ISIS, and join forces with Russia and Assad's government to destroy ISIS. It'll be over in a year or two.
And if you find the US interventionism repugnant, congratulations, we now have a president who is against it, too.
Simple right? Just destroy them. I'm sure Trump will be able to stablise the Middle East no problem. He's well versed in Middle Eastern politics and warfare and crucially he's got a level head and able to think decisions through properly which he's proven since becoming president.
Destroy the most radicalized, enforce Syrian law for the rest. There's nobody that can do the job better than the Syrian government (which is more "well versed" in local politics than any White House hack will ever be). That's the only way to minimize the body count.
Do you think US' persistent attempts to depose him that have utterly wrecked his country maybe have anything to do with that? Moreover, do you think if the US helped him undo the damage that sentiment would change? IIRC, he did say that he would welcome our help.
Syria was on the state sponsors list when it was created in 1979. So, unless the al-Assads are prescient, probably not. More likely factors are the US support for Israel, Syrian support for Palestinians, particularly Hezbollah, and possibly leftovers of the cold war.
As for US attempts to depose him, as far as I know, those only started after his 2011 crackdown on Arab Spring protesters, which set of the civil war. Syrian behavior after hypothetical help from the US to crush the rebellion, that would probably depend on how long a leash the Russians have.
You mean the guy who, exactly a week ago, said that maybe the USA will have another chance to "keep the oil" from Iraq?
Here's the quote from his speech at CIA:
"We don’t win anymore. The old expression, “to the victor belong the spoils” -- you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said, in addition to that, keep the oil. Now, I said it for economic reasons. But if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place. So we should have kept the oil. But okay. (Laughter.) Maybe you’ll have another chance. But the fact is, should have kept the oil. " [1]
Claiming that Trump is against interventionism is just you projecting your own wishes and hopes onto the blank canvas of his mind.
Who would you rather get to "keep the oil"? The country that sunk hundreds of billions into first destroying and then rebuilding Iraq, or some other country?
I'm not really sure what you're asking? The oil is in Iraq and by international law belongs to Iraq, not the USA or some other country.
But even assuming that the USA should "keep the oil" -- how would that work in practice? You can't just pump it all out and make a quick exit. Estimates say that there is 140 billion barrels of the stuff. (That's over 22 cubic kilometres!)
The United States would have to maintain an occupation force to protect the wells and pipelines for years while they're enjoying the "victor's spoils", as Trump puts it.
It's unlikely that any other country would purchase oil produced under such circumstances, so the oil would also have to be shipped to America... And the only shipping route out of Iraq goes right under Iran's nose. You can see how this might escalate quickly.
Trump's idea of keeping Iraq's oil would make for an interesting plot point in an alternate history fiction about World War III.
I don't mean just take it for free, that's not going to work. But I don't see why US companies should not receive a modicum of preferential treatment. As things are right now, US spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives to remove Saddam, and then other countries (China, Russia, Turkey, etc) moved in and took advantage of the oil. That's idiotic.
> What this is really about for executives like Sam is Trump's meddling in the free movement of labor.
Bingo. It would substantially increase the cost of labor in the short-term.
Notice how there's no outrage over a dozen other outrageous things done by Trump over the last week ... just this specific one.
> Where the action goes wrong is in its banning of our Kurdish and Iraqi brothers and sisters who have fought alongside US & NATO troops for years now.
But it's true, men have borne the brunt of war in antiquity and in modernity. There is no sexism and frankly it's disheartening to hear people reach that far when the facts stare you right in the face.
If we're going to take things to their logical conclusion then we'll have to accept re-inviting WWI into our collective consciousness -- an entire generation of young men were be wiped out then.
The language is important because it exemplifies a state of total war[1] where the citizenry is divided into combatant and non-combatant, and all things considered that usually means men -- all young and old -- and everybody else are separated. Once separated we have a go at each-other and the last man standing wins.
The term "military-aged male" offers insight into what we will have to face and hopefully whenever you see that it will be sobering for you.
> First, it's not a "ban". It's a temporary suspension until new vetting procedures are put in place.
A 90-day suspension and a ban are the same thing. ban is defined as "officially or legally prohibit." -- duration is irrelevant.
> Second, it's not "Muslim"
The executive order specifically exempts people of minority religions in those countries "prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality".
All of the countries in question have Islam as the primary religion. If it was targeting nationality only, they would not provide an exclusion for minority religions.
The ban is targeting Muslims (and only Muslims) of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
You completely failed to address the OP's comment about the largest Muslim countries in the world (Indonesian and Pakistan) not being a part of the ban.
If Trump was targeting Muslims, wouldn't he have started there?
It is a partial fulfillment of the goal Trump explicitly stated repeatedly during the campaign: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the country".
He has taken a very large concrete step toward this outcome, explicitly and obviously in service of it. To claim otherwise requires both being obtuse about the wording and the belief that Trump won't do what he said he was going to do. After the events of the past week, the latter claim seems indefensible.
We who oppose this ban are not opposing it because we think it will be permanent. We are not OK with a temporary ban either. (Few think that this xenophobic era of far right blood-and-soil nationalism will last forever, after all.)
However, stopping all immigration from countries that have been deemed "high risk" until the security of the US can be improved does not seem like an outrageous move to me.
There are a lot of people who will happily accept a temporary suspension of immigration from countries full of ISIS fighters who are trying to exploit our immigration system based on the president's word that the various security services need 90 days to tighten things up. There are a lot of people in this group who also will go out and protest if literally anything more aggressive is done from here (and who also vehemently opposed the original proposal during the campaign.)
> There are a lot of people in this group who also will go out and protest
Trump, of all people, has given no indication at all that his policy decisions will be swayed by protest.
> The slippery slope fallacy falls short.
It's not a slippery slope when Trump said that a Muslim ban was what he was going to do! It's not "oh, he might bring up banning all Muslims from entering at this rate". He already said he wanted to do that. Explicitly.
Perhaps because he has business interests there? Pakistan is particularly interesting because the San Bernadino shooters were from there. Saudi Arabia is also not on the list, despite being the home of Wahabist terrorism. I'm totally against the ban, but these inconsistencies are revealing.
The inconsistent treatment of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is bipartisan and predates Trump's presidency by a long time. Remember how a number of the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and their role was basically ignored? How the Saudis donated large sums to the Clinton Foundation? How we've provided large sums of military aid to Pakistan since 2001?
Flipping the question, if it's against extremism then where is Saudi Arabia on the list? How can you invoke 9/11 as your justification and not have Saudi on the list?
I'm not taking a stance here, I'm using facts to prove that this ban is targeting Muslims (and only Muslims) of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.
"The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001"
So the EO cites September 11 and other terrorist attacks. Yet most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia. Why is it not on this list?
> Yet most of the 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia. Why is it not on this list?
Regarding those attacks, Al Qaeda deliberately sourced the majority of the attackers from Saudi Arabia because the strategy at the time was to drive a wedge between that country and the USA.
The response to that tactic was quite clever, between April and August 2003 the USA moved its based military forces from Saudia Arabia to Bahrain. On the face of it this seemed to meet one of Al Qaeda's primary demands and seemed to validate their choice of attackers' nationality, but it actually served the Saudi Royals very well in that it pulled the rug from under those in their country who were leaning towards Al Qaeda's message of 'occupation'.
The USA and KSA still have very cordial relations so there's no realy surprise as to why it's not on the list.
Is ISIS trying to export fighters through Saudi Arabia? Perhaps there are other constraints we have in our relationship with Saudi Arabia that would prevent such a ban? Perhaps this would be a bad move diplomatically? I'm sure if you think hard you can probably come up with more reasons, but I don't think you're interested in it, you just want to try to point out hypocracy. Or, maybe you are suggesting that the suspension did not go far enough?
> Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US.
I think that's an overly positive reading of what's happening. If this were an order from a president without a history for explicitly calling for muslim bans, you might be able to read it that way. I think it'd be very debatable even then, but in this situation it's imo a pretty clear step. Not mentioning "muslim majority" in the text itself is just an attempt to make it harder to legally challenge the order (establishment clause and that).
And if you had read the text, which you clearly haven't, you'll see that there have been issues with the visa process, and the new administration wants to review it.
Agreed. Given their history, and the involvement of officials of Saudi Gov in 9/11, they should also be included. Obvious reason I can think for not doing it are
- business ties : weak reason
- given that, as little as we'd like the country, it's a stable one, and this could destabilize it, and the entire region, even more : weak reason too
- US currently engaged in a war with Yemen with Saudi allies : strong reason. You need to undo this first
> shows how this is nothing but smoke and mirrors
False. It's incomplete. But poorly vetted immigration has been a gold mine for terrorism, and general destabilization. Look at Europe.
Bullshit. The goal is claimed to be reduction of the risk of jihadists immigrating to the US to cause harm to Americans. You claim seems to be that by not including Saudi Arabia this will have no such effect. This claim is transparently false, unless you believe a) there is zero risk of jihadists at all in the first place, or b) that literally every jihadist who would have normally come from their country of origin will now instead fly to Saudi Arabia or another country on the non-suspended list to enter. Surely you can see how both of these is false.
> from their country of origin will now instead fly to Saudi Arabia
The fact that you believe subjects are allowed by flight origin rather than by a proof of nationality document like their passports shows a lot about your lack of understanding of the issue
point taken, bad actors could of course get false passports while still traveling from the countries on the list. perhaps now that i've accepted your point, you can try to resist additional ad hom attacks and actually address the structure of my counterargument as to why your overall argument is wrong?
"Saudi Arabia has long been at war with al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates. In August 1996, bin Laden called for jihad against both the United States and Saudi Arabia with the publication of his first fatwa. The 30-page “Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Sanctuaries” prompted the kingdom to revoke the al Qaeda leader’s Saudi citizenship and to divest him of his family fortune.
The kingdom’s conflict has continued in more recent years. In December, the Saudi defense minister established a coalition of 39 Muslim-majority countries with a specific mandate to combat al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Shiite terror group Hezbollah. Saudi counterterrorism security forces are on the front lines every day taking the fight to al Qaeda; hundreds of Saudi security officers have been killed in the line of duty at home, fighting Islamist militants. As recently as April 5, militants attacked and killed a senior Saudi security officer outside Riyadh.
U.S. intelligence and security officials have been particularly effusive in describing the important role Saudi Arabia has played in cutting off the sophisticated global network of illicit finance used by terrorists. According to the State Department, “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s lack of success in Saudi Arabia can be attributed to the Saudi government’s continued domestic and bilateral efforts to … counter terrorism and violent extremist ideologies.”
The truth is plain: Americans are safer today because the kingdom has foiled numerous al Qaeda terrorist plots targeting the U.S. homeland. Adam J. Szubin, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, recently praised the kingdom’s aggressive stance against terrorism as reflecting “the strength of U.S. and Saudi cooperation on countering the financing of terrorism.”"
Our relationship and the dynamics of Middle Eastern politics are extraordinarily complicated. To simply boil down our relationship to the Saudis as "majority of 9/11 hijackers came from there, therefore terrorist state" is reductionist. The House of Saud is not a monolithic structure and there are a lot of differing opinions on how to take the country forward. Deeper reading into the nature of Middle Eastern politics and our relationships to people in the region should quickly reveal that nothing is simple.
Pakistan is another good example. Supporting them is necessary for a variety of defense/political needs. Logistics with Afghanistan, pressure to be placed against the mujaheddin that use Pakistani tribes as a base of support, counter balance against China, etc. Yes Pakistan has a murky relationship with terrorism due to their use against India in proxy warfare. That doesn't change the reality that opting to alienate the Pakistanis just makes life worse for us.
These are not one subject issues. Like anything else involving millions of people, our reasons for taking action are multi level and multi issue. It is an immense disservice to career diplomats and policymakers to reduce concerns down to a single thing. There are no clean answers.
Oh I agree about SA. They are not fully our allies and they aren't fully our enemies. I linked the article mainly to illustrate that things are not so clean cut. I just constantly see "9/11 hijackers" parroted with no other considerations of the ramifications of a SA ban and what it would mean for us.
My primary goal right now in these discussions is to expand the minds of the people on HN who seem to be overly myopic. These are complicated topics that have many moving parts.
"In the realm of extremist Islam, the Saudis are “both the arsonists and the firefighters,” said William McCants, a Brookings Institution scholar. “They promote a very toxic form of Islam that draws sharp lines between a small number of true believers and everyone else, Muslim and non-Muslim,” he said, providing ideological fodder for violent jihadists.
Yet at the same time, “they’re our partners in counterterrorism,” said Mr. McCants, one of three dozen academics, government officials and experts on Islam from multiple countries interviewed for this article.
Saudi leaders seek good relations with the West and see jihadist violence as a menace that could endanger their rule, especially now that the Islamic State is staging attacks in the kingdom — 25 in the last eight months, by the government’s count. But they are also driven by their rivalry with Iran, and they depend for legitimacy on a clerical establishment dedicated to a reactionary set of beliefs. Those conflicting goals can play out in a bafflingly inconsistent manner."
Both parties have had a _significant_ hand in it, dating back to GHWB and Clinton. Don't you forgot that either, lest we remember Obama as anything other than a President who liked droning brown people.
You're shifting the goalposts, from the ridiculous assertion that Democrats destabilized the Middle East to "both parties have had bad policies in the Middle East." But let's run with it.
Let's say that Obama killed 5k people with drones. This is a large overestimation, but let's compare.
GWB killed over half a million Iraqis for no reason, and counting. He's indirectly responsible for the rise of ISIS in a way that no other President or SoS is.
That's just with drones, and I'd say it's a very conservative number. He also funded and armed "moderate opposition" in Syria, al quaeda associted groups (Jabhat al-Nusra and others) there, and helped topple several governments. This displaced millions and killed hundreds of thousands.
Obama is the only President who has been in war for everyday of his 8 year presidency. Bombing several countries at the same time. Obama's actions also created the vacuum for ISIS. At least he has his Nobel Peace Prize.
No outcry or marches against Obamas actions, but goodness me when Trump has to clear the mess 'well take a stand against him'.
One of these things happens abroad - out of sight, out of mind - another happens at home.
One of these things happens as part of a (relatively) few "outrages", one of those things happens as part of a consistent torrent of outrages.
One of these things is a fact and an action, the other is an interpretation. In case that isn't clear: The interpretation is "clearing the mess"; I sure as shit don't agree with you that that's what's going on, and I doubt Sam does, either - which is part of why he's posting this.
Second, it's not "Muslim". Muslims from all other countries (some of them pretty large, e.g. Indonesia and Pakistan), will experience no change in their ability to enter the US.
Other than Iran (which imo shouldn't be on the list) we're bombing and droning all of those countries at the moment. It's insane to accept military age males from there for entry into the country, particularly if information about them is very sparse (which in war torn countries it typically is).
But there's another aspect of this that baffles me. Somehow Sam has no issues with democrats totally destabilizing the Middle East, and funding/arming ISIS to depose Assad. Yet the moment Trump attempts to mitigate the negative side effects of that to this country, "it's time to take a stand". The time to take a stand was back when Obama and Clinton armed extremists in Iraq and Syria -- years before Trump.