world

Trump signs new travel ban, excluding Iraq

73 Comments
By ALICIA A. CALDWELL and JILL COLVIN

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

73 Comments
Login to comment

Before the whining and crying about "rights" please remember that the US constitution protects American rights, not rights of foreigners.

Foreigners do not have a "right" in our country. They follow our law.

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

Dango bong: And unfortunately that includes any green card or valid visa holder? Expect the same demonstrations than last time.

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Waste of time. Waste of money. Provides no additional security. Harms tourism. Harms US reputation. Incites foreign animosity. Showmanship for the tin hat Trump crowd. Still no Saudi Arabia on the list, huh? So, this is just a pretext at enhancing security, I guess.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

Dango bongMAR. 07, 2017 - 06:55AM JST Before the whining and crying about "rights" please remember that the US constitution protects American rights, not rights of foreigners.

How good of you to out yourself as a propaganda bot by defeating an argument no one made.

Foreigners do not have a "right" in our country. They follow our law.

Yes, and one of our laws is that people may not be denied entry into our country on the basis of their religion or their national origin unless the President can show that these factors demonstrate a risk to the American people. Trump has not done that. In fact, if you'll read the article instead of 4chan talking points:

Sessions said Monday that national security is the driving force behind the ban and pointed to the cases of 300 people he said entered the United States as refugees who are now being investigated by the FBI as part of terrorism-related cases. He provided no details.

Trump's appointees can't even provide evidence that refugees are a threat, let alone that people from these countries in general are threats.

It's all a big sham. A con job to get small-minded bigots focused on that instead of on Trump's cabinet continually lying about their ties to Russia.

17 ( +17 / -0 )

This one will probably pass inspection. The previous one was imprecisely written, so it had to be tossed. Now we will have something that is harder to dismiss, though still unethical and against everything the USA stands for.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

So, this is just a pretext at enhancing security, I guess

It's also a way for TrumpBannon to continue to ramp up the fear level in their true believers and to get them to believe they're taking action to protect them. By increasing the fear they can make it even easier to justify spending trillions to keep the war industries profitable. (Why won't Trump show his tax info?)

And it's also another distraction that takes attention from the administration's dealing with Russians. Distractions also serve to take attention away from issues like healthcare, changes to guns and ammo laws, the costs of maintaining the lavish lifestyles of Trump and his family, among so many others. There might be method to Trump's madness.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

while the government reviews the vetting system for refugees and visa applicants from certain parts of the world.

How is that coming along, by the way? Don't hear much about it.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Some of Trump aide leaned Iraq is not a USA enemy and convinced Trump.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How is Iraq off the list with Syria on? If this is about IS remember that ISIS or ISIL the ISI stands for the islamic state of iraq and (Syria or Levant). IS is more firmly rooted in Iraq than Syria. It stated out as al Qaeda in iraq, became ISI (islamic state of iraq ) and finally moved into Syria after the civil war started. But by and large, IS's infrastructure and chain of command is iraqi.

Now having said that, I don't believe in banning Iraqis either. I'm just showing how backward and stupid Trump and his policies are and how he doesn't have a clue about what he is doing. I have no doubt that the American people will oppose this ban as well. You don't stop terrorism with racism. You stop it with proper vetting procedures that determine who is a threat and who isn't. The good news is Trump's bigotry and racism are starting to galvanize the left in a way that no one else could have done, so this might be a blessing in disguise.

Before the whining and crying about "rights" please remember that the US constitution protects American rights, not rights of foreigners.

Try saying THAT to the native americans.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Since President Trump was elected, International tourism to USA has drop in big numbers. This tell me That the Trump USA as alienated tourist from visiting USA. USA It has never interest me as a place to visit and a Trump USA has increased my disinterest , The only things I own that are USA are my Mac products which were made in China and 2 pairs of Levis which again made overseas Egypt and Vietnam. So I only see this ban as a Job loser. A Loser like President Trump.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

a vital measure for strengthening our national security.

And yet, saudi arabia, that literally funds International terror, is suspiciously but not surprisingly missing. I guess we know who wears the pants in the relationship!!

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Waste of time. Waste of money. Provides no additional security. Harms tourism.

Did you work for the NSA? Do you have expertise in terrorism intelligence and surveillance?

Harms US reputation. Incites foreign animosity. Showmanship for the tin hat Trump crowd. Still no Saudi Arabia on the list, huh? So, this is just a pretext at enhancing security, I guess.

I agree, The Saudis should be on the list, but at the same time, the intelligence they provide us with ISIS has been extremely vital and important to this ongoing fight to weaken radical Islam.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

Oh now we are going to take out Iraq and that will solve everything...President dumb dumb...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Oh now we are going to take out Iraq and that will solve everything...President dumb dumb...

Dumb, dumb? Lol! Apparently, the left haven't paid attention to Trump's hatred of the war in Iraq and how the Bush administration messed it up.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Now only if the Native American Indians had this mentality when the first foreigners set foot on their land, we wouldn't have this problem. (and by problem, I mean Trump and his "beliefs/ideas/face")

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Do you have expertise in terrorism intelligence and surveillance?

My cousin BillyBob does, so I'm an expert, too.

the intelligence they provide us with ISIS has been extremely vital and important to this ongoing fight to weaken

Crumbs, dear boy, crumbs.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Slow but Trump aides must be checking each country one at a time. I expect to see more change, Well, better than no change. Unlike some Trumpsupporters who blindly applaud his initial comments Trump revise if he was wrong. GOP must be tired of those brainless Trump supporters.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How long until this one gets struck down by the courts?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

katsu believes anyone has a right to enter the US but anyone can`t enter his dwelling without knocking. More hypocrisy.

The president can completely stop any form of immigration into the US. Yes he has that power.

Youve totally forgotten about NSA spying and drone killings of civilians on Obamas watch haven`t you?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

The Saudi's should be on the list...... If they don't come down solid on one side of the line by the end of this year and if Trump does not call them out, it is going to hurt his credibility with his supporters.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Apparently, the left haven't paid attention to Trump's hatred of the war in Iraq and how the Bush administration messed it up.

Apparently the right hasn't paid attention to the fact that he supported it.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Waste of time. Waste of money. Provides no additional security. Harms tourism.

@ CrazyJoe: How many tourist do you think come to the USA from those countries listed? Is it really going to be so many that tourism is harmed? If so, then why are we going to accept refugees from Syria, Somalia, etc. I mean if people have enough money to travel from those countries to the USA to do tourist activities, then shouldn't they look inward to their own country and take care of those who need it instead of allowing them to get into rafts, and other unsafe means to go travel to other parts of the world to live vice in their own countries.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Another hollow and stupid EO which will likely be ruled invalid by the courts, once again Trump has failed his country.

Meanwhile, he is once again trying to distract from his more disturbing treason, his and his staffs' relations with the Kremlin. The media should not lose focus here and ramp up the pressure exponentially on this. He will be exposed and there will be hell to pay for those involved

3 ( +3 / -0 )

What ? No Saudi Arabia ?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

My cousin BillyBob does, so I'm an expert, too.

Liberals constant attempt at humor is quite pathetic actually.

How many tourist do you think come to the USA from those countries listed? Is it really going to be so many that tourism is harmed? If so, then why are we going to accept refugees from Syria, Somalia, etc. I mean if people have enough money to travel from those countries to the USA to do tourist activities, then shouldn't they look inward to their own country and take care of those who need it instead of allowing them to get into rafts, and other unsafe means to go travel to other parts of the world to live vice in their own countries.

@alphaape Funny thing is liberals don't get the point. For them, terrorism is just the "new norm" and we just need to come to grips that it's here to stay and nothing we can do about, just live with it and accept a bombing to occur here and ther, but for the love of Pete don't agitate the radicals and don't close the borders because it would just agitate them all over again.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

This is NOT a Trump diktat, folks. Lots and lots of Americans want it, and a MAJORITY of Europeans would like to have it, according to a Chatham House poll.

"Now only if the Native American Indians had this mentality when the first foreigners set foot on their land"

Many of them did. Both sides went to war over access and occupation of their territory, or "nation," many, many times, in case you weren't aware. (sigh)

European poll: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/most-europeans-want-muslim-ban-immigration-control-middle-east- countries-syria-iran-iraq-poll-a7567301.html

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

For them, terrorism is just the "new norm" and we just need to come to grips that it's here to stay and nothing we can do about

Once again you use the logical fallacy of appealing to the extreme. Terrorism isn't the 'new norm', it's been a tactic used forever. And it is here to stay, because for small groups fighting a dominant presence, it's their only way to fight. Make no mistake, I'm not saying this as a matter of approval or condemnation, simply as a matter of fact - I hate terrorism as much as anyone.

Now as for the rest of your post, contrary to your extremist supposition, there is something we can do about it. There are two steps to it, being proactive, which means having agencies like homeland security and the NSA trying to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, and there is also being reflective, which means trying to figure out what drives people to terrorism, and adjust our own behaviors in ways that will keep the number of people turning to terrorism as low as we can get it.

just live with it and accept a bombing to occur here and ther

Well, we have to accept that it will happen here and there no matter what we do to prevent it. Terrorism is an idea, it's not a physical thing. It is literally impossible to eradicate it. Even if somehow everyone who knew of the existence of terrorism suddenly disappeared from the planet, terrorism would still happen again, because for tiny groups fighting large groups, it's the logical means by which they can cause disruption for the larger group.

Now that doesn't mean we have to accept it and do nothing about it. What it means is that we need to not react in hysteria, trying to eliminate something that cannot be eliminated, and we need to not react with means that will end up being self-defeating in that the actions we take end up creating more terrorists, rather than reducing the number of them.

for the love of Pete don't agitate the radicals

No, the stance is to do our bet to not antagonize the non-radicals to the point that they become radicals. That's self-defeating.

and don't close the borders because it would just agitate them all over again.

No, don't take the stance that an entire group is terrorists thereby causing disaffection among members of that group that aren't terrorists and pushing some of them towards terrorism.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

No, don't take the stance that an entire group is terrorists thereby causing disaffection among members of that group that aren't terrorists and pushing some of them towards terrorism.

The problem is, the "group" will not take responsibility or condemn the radicals within it's ranks. The silence is in itself approval of the extremist terrorism actions.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The problem is, the "group" will not take responsibility or condemn the radicals within it's ranks

I'm assuming you mean Muslims in this case. If I'm incorrect in that assumption, let me know which group you are speaking of.

First, Muslim groups regularly condemn terrorist attacks. Second, why should the entire group take responsibility for the detested actions of a few? A white guy killed two Indians in the US the other day. Should all Americans take responsibility? Should all white people take responsibility?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It's like using a Band-Aid for a major head trauma.

As it's been said, no Saudi Arabia on that list? Huh. Imagine that.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Funny, you'd think North Korea would be on that list. But there's budding ISIS in the Phillippines, Malaysia, India, North Africa... anywhere where's there's an open wound. By the way, the terms liberal and conservative are starting to sound outdated. Mostly for me because of the generalities being mixed in with them. You know...those people. I think there are informed people and misinformed people. People who came for the waters, and people who came for the gold. But we all have different fences we sit on. Mine is fairly provincial. If you're an illegal immigrant, and I have to do jury duty and you don't....well, there's some fence mending to do....

2 ( +2 / -0 )

My cousin BillyBob does, so I'm an expert, too.

Liberals constant attempt at humor is quite pathetic actually.

Perhaps not BillyBob, but didn't Base4Fundies make such a claim in the past?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@bass4funk Lol! Apparently, the left haven't paid attention to Trump's hatred of the war in Iraq and how the Bush administration messed it up.Oh really LOL just a memory refresher seems Trump supporters do have selective memory disorder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77P6fxa2KOs..cant really say he hated it now can we..Now he hasn't banned the Iraq which as its the birthplace of ISIS and its ranking on the Global terrorism index well, it is still at the top..Saudi Arabia should be on that list but business interests would be affected so better leave that Country alone..Remeber 911 wonder where those guys were from did the Sauds give intel then..This ban is a joke more pulling the wool over the sheepies eyes once again and from reading Trump supporters posts it actually works..Well done President dumb dumb you are doing an awesome job..

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"If they don't come down solid on one side of the line by the end of this year and if Trump does not call them out, it is going to hurt his credibility with his supporters."

I doubt that. You'll get the usual nonsense about yes, they are a huge sponsor of religiously inspired terrorism but they also provide intelligence about religiously inspired terrorism.

There is a post above to that effect. The Trump supporters will not tire of this.

I'm just wondering if there is any disappointment among them after Iraq was dropped from the less than magnificent seven.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Good! Its about time, first Iraq then get moving with most other countries from that area. Other peace-loving nations need to follow suit, including Japan

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

No Saudi Arabia, probably because of business interests. If you follow the Republican line about the dangers of terrorism then it means we're willing to accept terrorists from Saudi Arabia if there is a net financial gain. Or, maybe there isn't much of a threat at all and Trump/the GOP just like to play it up to keep out those nasty Muslims.

Oh, and I guess Iraq suddenly went from dangerous to not dangerous in a couple of weeks. Because danger is the key indicator here. hehe

5 ( +5 / -0 )

If at first you don't succeed, fail again.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Foreigners do not have a "right" in our country.

That's cute. So I guess human rights aren't a 'thing' in America? Nor has the US government signed any international conventions or treaties to recognize the rights of 'foreigners'?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Meanwhile on CNN....Congressman Scott Taylor was bringing up the 300 refugees who are being investigated for potential terrorism links by the FBI and the signal mysteriously gets cut off. AGAIN. CNN sure seems to have a lot of technical difficulties as soon as someone tries to speak the truth.

So what do people think here think about the news of infiltration of the refugee program just as ISIS promised? Fake news? you just dont care because it doesnt support the 'dont be mean to people' narrative? or do you just feel like to scream but Russia! some more?

At the same time, the department of homeland security told congressmen that the FBI was investigating 300 people admitted as refugees for links to the so-called Islamic State. The 300 refugees were part of 1,000 counterterrorism investigations involving Islamic State or individuals inspired by the militant group, congressional sources said.>

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

CNN is trash.

@Bububu3,

You are being emotional. The US has taken in millions and millions and has done loads to help others. Doesn`t have to continue forever.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The US has taken in millions and millions and has done loads to help others. Doesn`t have to continue forever.

If the US doesn't want to take in refugees, it should probably stop breaking countries.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

No Saudi Arabia, probably because of business interests. If you follow the Republican line about the dangers of terrorism then it means we're willing to accept terrorists from Saudi Arabia if there is a net financial gain.

What do all 6 of these countries have in common? Hint: it isn't a religion. The one thing in common is that none of them have a US Embassy. So you expect the USA to just let anyone from those countries in on a US visa, then who issued the visa and how do we know if they are out to do harm to the USA. As for Saudi Arabia, yeah many terrorist come from there, but they have a US embassy there, and there is an effort to try to vet them. And, Saudi has more of a record of beheading those who are against the house of Saud a lot quicker than any USA due process.

If the US doesn't want to take in refugees, it should probably stop breaking countries.

The USA didn't "break" Somalia, Sudan, or Syria. Not even Libya even though they gave up their WMDs and came clean and Momar was starting to see the light, but someone who ran for President in 2016 was famously quoted for saying "We Came, we saw, he died."

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Entering the country of another is not a human right, even as a refugee. Countries have the right to decide who does and does not come in to their sovereign territory. Countries can also simply refuse to accept any refugees at all (Japan for example).

Did any of you enter Japan under human rights? You just decided you wanted to come and walked in? No, I think you asked for entry either with a visa application or at the airport under visa waiver. So any human rights you get from a country only apply once you are allowed entry. The USA has decided to stop allowing entry for a while from certain countries that (a) support terrorism or (b) have no mechanisms to do proper background checks of their people. They are well within their rights to do that, the same as any other country can.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Trump fans will support any derogatory measure against minorities. It's in their DNA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

US citizens are already protected against "entry of foreign terrorists" into the United States by a very strict process of vetting for visa applicants and refugees. This seems to have worked pretty well - the risk is, of course, from domestic bred, radicalised individuals, who have access to lethal weapons thanks to the ridiculously lax gun laws in the US, which most other countries would never allow.

This totally shortsighted, populist, frankly stupid executive order goes to prove what you get when you elect a moron backed by extremist right wing provocateurs - something completely contrary to the spirit of the US constitution, which plays perfectly into the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda, giving them "proof" that the US is in a war against Islam in general, not just jihadi terrorists.

I almost cry at the stupidity of the thinking behind this measure.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Do you remember when Trump lied about seeing tens of thousands of Muslims cheering on 9/11?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

With every passing day, more and more evidence that our Idiot-in-Chief has no business sitting in the White House.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

If you follow the Republican line about the dangers of terrorism then it means we're willing to accept terrorists from Saudi Arabia if there is a net financial gain

But Halliburton didn't make a red cent from 9/11.

Blaming Iraq for it, on the other hand...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

pointofviewMAR. 07, 2017 - 09:32AM JST katsu believes anyone has a right to enter the US but anyone can`t enter his dwelling without knocking. More hypocrisy.

Spasibo Comrade, for outing yourself as the second propagandabot by again attacking an argument no one made. I never said "anyone" has the right to enter the US, I said the right to seek entery to the US cannot be denied based on religion or nation of origin without evidence that those factors represent a threat to American safety.

Which since you're so oddly curious, is actually the same policy I use with my dwelling. I vet entry by the merits of individuals, not by their religion or nationality.

I mean, it's shocking you haven't thought this through. If you're genuinely afraid of being hit by a terrorist attack in the US, then your fears are statistically speaking unwarranted but let's suppose they aren't: Instead of saying, "We're going to deny visas based on a history of violence or connections to terrorist groups or a lack of useful job skills", you want to say, "We're just going to decide everyone from certain countries that it's totally coincidence are mostly Muslim nudge nudge wink wink is dangerous". So, first you're telling every terrorist out there exactly how to get around your screening, second you're denying the chance for anyone who might be a moderate Muslim from these countries to see first hand that the US isn't as bas as groups like ISIS are saying. In order to get a few idiot bigots to feel good about themselves, you want to actively undermine American counter-terrorism operations.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Make no mistake, I'm not saying this as a matter of approval or condemnation, simply as a matter of fact - I hate terrorism as much as anyone.

I believe it and never thought you supported terrorism, my problem with the left is overall is in the pacifist approach as to how effectively deal with Terrorism and I'm more for a well thought out strategic aggressive and neutralization plan of the enemy, that doesn't mean, I like war or am an advocate of it, but running and hiding isn't going to bring radical Islam to its knees knowing and understanding what they want.

Now as for the rest of your post, contrary to your extremist supposition, there is something we can do about it. There are two steps to it, being proactive, which means having agencies like homeland security and the NSA trying to stop terrorist attacks before they happen, and there is also being reflective, which means trying to figure out what drives people to terrorism, and adjust our own behaviors in ways that will keep the number of people turning to terrorism as low as we can get it.

I fully understand for every action there is a possible reaction, but I vehemently reject the argument that because we engage in retaliatory attacks that it would make us less safe is pure garbage. The roots and hatred of everything that the west represents has been a thorn in the eyes of the Islamists for a very long time and these people would stop at nothing to kill ANY western if given the chance. There is no way you can stop all terrorist attacks from happening. Yes, you want to use agancies like Homeland and the NSA to gather as much intel as possible, that's a very important and vital tool, I agree, but at the same time you also need to take a more proactive as well as sometimes a preemptive strike.

Well, we have to accept that it will happen here and there no matter what we do to prevent it.

So that means, we have to shrug our shoulders and say "oh, well?" I think for one reason why we don't have the problem Europe has with many Muslims is that, we make sure as with all immigrants, they have to fit in and adhere to our laws and customs. If we just leave them aside and not allow them to integrate then you are setting yourself up for a potential backlash. Europe as a whole has not done well when it comes to integrating minorities from other countries particularly Muslims.

Terrorism is an idea, it's not a physical thing. It is literally impossible to eradicate it. Even if somehow everyone who knew of the existence of terrorism suddenly disappeared from the planet, terrorism would still happen again, because for tiny groups fighting large groups, it's the logical means by which they can cause disruption for the larger group.

That goes without saying, you cannot eradicate an idea, but you can show resolve by not giving in to the enemy and to show them you can equally be as brutal and that you will never submit to their ideology of strict Interpretation of Islam and the belief that Sharia should be law of the land. Imagine if Israel would submit and allow the radicals to push them out? That would never happen and even though the radicals will always try and every time unsuccessfully fail, the Israelis as well will never submit, it's a never ending vicious cycle and at the same time, Islamists are scared and know if they attack the Jewish state what's going to happen.

Now that doesn't mean we have to accept it and do nothing about it. What it means is that we need to not react in hysteria, trying to eliminate something that cannot be eliminated, and we need to not react with means that will end up being self-defeating in that the actions we take end up creating more terrorists, rather than reducing the number of them.

Again, I'm not entirely disagreeing we are on basic points not far off with you, but as I have stressed before, I believe you don't need to be hysterical or allow your emotions to dictate in going forward in dealing with this issue, but I do think that an extreme from of vetting both domestically and internationally is the best way to go.

No, the stance is to do our bet to not antagonize the non-radicals to the point that they become radicals. That's self-defeating.

Sorry, that's where I have to depart in my view on dealing with radical Islam. IMHO to cowardly pull back and be extremely cautionary when dealing with radical Islamists I think is the wrong approach and again, I use the Israel analogy. You show fear to the enemy, it makes them stronger, it emboldens them, gives them confidence that the enemy can't stomach a long and drawn out fight, even OBL said that and New the west will easily fold once the body bags start piling on.

No, don't take the stance that an entire group is terrorists thereby causing disaffection among members of that group that aren't terrorists and pushing some of them towards terrorism.

We are not talking about an entire group, but a group of people that come from countries that have a history of known terrorist activities or dealing and sponsoring terrorism and I think as I have said before, there are other countries I would also add to the ban such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, but be that as it may, the Trump administration at least is trying to cut the source and lifeline of some of these terrorists and do as the Israelis do, even the Japanese to minimize any potential threat that could arise. You show strength and will and determination to meet the enemy head on, not run like a coward with your head in the sand and pray the storm will blow over soon.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

So that means, we have to shrug our shoulders and say "oh, well?"

No, not at all, and I addressed that in my post. My point was that terrorism is going to happen whether we like it or not, and it's impossible to eradicate. So we should instead come to terms with (aka accept) the fact that it will happen, and work to keep it down to as low levels as possible. An unrealistic expectation that we can somehow eradicate it, causes people to react in counter-productive ways, such as bombing countries, or banning innocent people due to sharing a group with terrorists, even when they do not share the same values as the terrorists, or have any history, intention, or even inclination to do any terrorist acts.

you can show resolve by not giving in to the enemy and to show them you can equally be as brutal and that you will never submit to their ideology of strict Interpretation of Islam and the belief that Sharia should be law of the land.

The idea of what you are saying is valid. It's the implementation of the actions born of this idea that are the problem. If you go in and bomb a country to tell to prevent terrorism, which is what happened in Iraq, you just create more terrorists by alienating those who wouldn't have turned to terrorism otherwise. Every time you kill an innocent grandmother, parent, child or friend, you create hatred among those that knew the person, and said person is more likely to want to become a terrorist. This is why such actions are counter-productive, as rather than reducing the likelihood of terrorism, they actually increase it.

the stance is to do our bet to not antagonize the non-radicals to the point that they become radicals. That's self-defeating.

Sorry, that's where I have to depart in my view on dealing with radical Islam. IMHO to cowardly pull back and be extremely cautionary when dealing with radical Islamists I think is the wrong approach

But that's not what I said. I said we need to to our best (well I actually said 'bet', but I meant 'best') to not antagonize the non-radicals into becoming radical. You are saying we should not pull back when dealing with radicals. They are not the same group.

I agree with being heavy handed with the radicals, the problem is when that heavy-handedness is indiscriminate and gets the non-radicals as well. That's what creates new radicals.

You show fear to the enemy, it makes them stronger

So does punishing non-radicals for the behavior of radicals, as it pushes the non-radicals in the direction of radicalism.

We are not talking about an entire group, but a group of people that come from countries that have a history of known terrorist activities or dealing and sponsoring terrorism

The newest order has stopped all refugees for the next 90 days. Refugees are by definition victims of terrorism, not perpetrators of it. This is the kind of heavy handed approach I'm talking about that causes disaffection among the non-radicals.

On top of this, the countries that have been blocked are not producing terrorists who have attacked the US.

To sum it all up, the spirit behind Trump's bans is valid - protecting the US from terrorism. It's the implementation that is lacking. The actions he's taking aren't an effective way to prevent attacks, and the alienation it causes is harmful to US interests in the long run.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Dango Bongo says: *Before the whining and crying about "rights" please remember that the US constitution protects American rights, not rights of foreigners.

Foreigners do not have a "right" in our country. They follow our law.*

The President is also supposed to follow the law and obey it. The legislative branch makes laws and the judicial branch interprets and enforces such laws. The President belongs to the executive branch.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Bothered. don't want to go to states anyway. Every time I have been in the last 6 years the welcome is frosty at best and all of the palaver both coming and going is just ridiculous. I know to prevent "terror" but still no fun.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"That goes without saying, you cannot eradicate an idea, but you can show resolve by not giving in to the enemy and to show them you can equally be as brutal"

Bin Laden and the likes were/are pointing out the brutality of the western powers non-stop. The bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant and the invasion of Iraq were two particular favorites of these people.

I don't thing out-brutalising one another is the right way forward. I fully agree that the idea of sharia is a monstrosity. One example the US could show would to be tell its own religious crackpots out of politics and show that secularism is the way forward.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Entering the country of another is not a human right, even as a refugee

The argument being made was that foreigners don't have any rights in while they are in America, only citizens do. That is an preposterous thing to say. It's ridiculous actually.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

the intelligence they provide us with ISIS has been extremely vital and important to this ongoing fight to weaken radical Islam

LOL, weaken the very radicals they prop up? Now that's morbidly ridiculous!!

As for Saudi Arabia, yeah many terrorist come from there, but they have a US embassy there,

Flawless logic (deep sarcasm)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Oh joy, Mr. Idiot-in-Chief has signed another Executive Order. Why, oh why, did the Electoral College have to over-rule the will of the people, who so clearly chose Hillary, and not The Chump?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Bin Laden and the likes were/are pointing out the brutality of the western powers non-stop. The bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant and the invasion of Iraq were two particular favorites of these people.

And still OBL ended up on the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

I don't thing out-brutalising one another is the right way forward.

May not be, but giving in the Jihadists and showing them that we don't want to agitate will not make them ether go away or decide to embrace us infidels, so I think there should be a middle ground on this.

I fully agree that the idea of sharia is a monstrosity. One example the US could show would to be tell its own religious crackpots out of politics and show that secularism is the way forward.

Ok, show me how many Christian or Jewish people have brutally murdered in the name of their religions within the last 20 years and combined wouldn't come close to the carnage the Jihadists have waged. Also, any politician that holds on to religious views whether they be Christian, Jewish or Muslim should be allowed to believe and worship as they choose, so long as they don't govern through their religion, doesn't bother me at all, religious acceptance and tolerance and acceptance is the way forward, radicalism is not.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

No even visa holders and green card holders can have their permission revoked!! ONLY US citizens have constitutional rights!!!

Only they can vote

President Trump can ban if he wants!! It's Not about re lion alone. It's about countries just giving passports to anyone without proper vetting!!

All the left wingers and Libs wine and cry .., to bad!!!

Go Trump!!!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"Ok, show me how many Christian or Jewish people have brutally murdered in the name of their religions within the last 20 years and combined wouldn't come close to the carnage the Jihadists have waged. Also, any politician that holds on to religious views whether they be Christian, Jewish or Muslim should be allowed to believe and worship as they choose, so long as they don't govern through their religion, doesn't bother me at all, religious acceptance and tolerance and acceptance is the way forward, radicalism is not."

A typical regurgitation of what the trash right MSM pumps out which misses my point. Islam is clearly the most dangerous of all religions in terms of producing murderous fanatics - I'm not disputing that. Your choice for president was advocating a biblically inspired flat tax while members of the GOP deny the potential problems of climate change with reference to biblical prophecy. Bush confirmed to the radicals that they were in a cosmic struggle when he stupidly said god told him to invade Iraq. Do you call this keeping religion out of politics?

I've heard apologists for sharia cite examples like this when they hear people arguing that secular government is the way forward. If the US can't separate politics from religion, it seems unfair to attack sharia.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

At the same time, the department of homeland security told congressmen that the FBI was investigating 300 people admitted as refugees for links to the so-called Islamic State. The 300 refugees were part of 1,000 counterterrorism investigations involving Islamic State or individuals inspired by the militant group, congressional sources said

Of those 300, approximately 180 are from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two countries not on the list, and over 40% of them were brought here under the age of 18 and became radicalized after living in the US. About half of those remaining are being investigated for sending money overseas, not for planning attacks on Americans.

I just made that up. It's pretty easy since Trump just put out some numbers without context.

It's also strange that when directly asked by the courts about evidence that refugees from those 7 countries pose a threat, they had no answer. Now all of a sudden they have vague statistics the are releasing to the public. How....credible.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Eventually we're going to secure our borders even without the help of liberals.

Oh my...

Refugee advocate: Trump's new order no better than old one ( he's wrong )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6vad0Mt5hE

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

"the intelligence they provide us with ISIS has been extremely vital and important to this ongoing fight to weaken radical Islam"

"LOL, weaken the very radicals they prop up? Now that's morbidly ridiculous!!"

Credit where it's due. At least he had a crack at it. Others quickly dash off a "yes, I'd like to see Saudi Arabia on the list" and then start gibbering about the biased MSM and keeping the borders safe.

Sorry, to repeat my earlier question, but aren't any Trump supporters disappointed that the list is now shorter?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This writer is on CSPAN right now. She comes across level headed on the show, but her piece above is not. Could be considered fake news. The ban is TEMPORARY, and should be in the headline like the one below. Both are AP publications.

Trump signs new temporary travel ban executive order

http://nj1015.com/trump-signs-new-temporary-travel-ban-executive-order/

What a coincidence that Alicia's piece makes the world circuit and she's on CSPAN this morning.

The power of the MSM compels you.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@Fizzbit

Yes, yes, I think we all know about the insidious MSM and the dark forces afoot. I think most of us have seen loose change.

Do you have an opinion on Trump's new order and Iraq being dropped from the s###list? Isn't there anything roaring around the conspiracy theory circuit about why Iraq was dropped?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

President Trump is just doing what he promised, playing to the middle states who don't run into strange foreign people very often. Ignorance is a terrible thing.

I don't think President Trump is really this stupid; both a travel restriction and the Mexican wall are stupid. He is just reflecting unsophisticated voters on issues with difficult problems to actually solve. Those loud voters don't have any direct international business interests, to these restrictions won't directly harm them.

Is doing the dumb thing better than doing nothing? I cannot say. It is certainly a waste of money.

I miss the days when I believed that America stood for doing what was right and our leaders truly attempted to do what was right. Ah, but I do like TV and FM radio.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is just another diversion from the fact that Sessions lied under oath, and that Pence was using an unofficial email server.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A typical regurgitation of what the trash right MSM pumps out which misses my point. Islam is clearly the most dangerous of all religions in terms of producing murderous fanatics - I'm not disputing that.

That's my overall point.

Your choice for president was advocating a biblically inspired flat tax while members of the GOP deny the potential problems of climate change with reference to biblical prophecy.

Really? Who said so?

Bush confirmed to the radicals that they were in a cosmic struggle when he stupidly said god told him to invade Iraq. Do you call this keeping religion out of politics?

That was never factual confirmed he said that. The left distorted that story for years.

I've heard apologists for sharia cite examples like this when they hear people arguing that secular government is the way forward. If the US can't separate politics from religion, it seems unfair to attack sharia.

As I said before, Non one in the US in the government is running around chopping people's heads off and forcing them to eat a strict Christian diet and pray a few time a day. If it gets to the level where religion will dictate in the US how a person must show devotion to God When that happens you will be the first to get an apology from me.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Trump with one hand signs a new order banning entry from those stated countries and with the other hand wants to sign off with massive budget 14% cuts to the Coast Guard and the Dept of Homeland Security thus increasing the possibility of illegals and drugs entering into the USA. Planned cuts are needed to provide for his defense budget increases. Something about robbing Peter to pay Paul?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@katsu,

You made absolutely no sense. The president can deny anyone entry. You have been going about the inhumane wall, that equate to the door on your house. When the wall goes up people can then knock. People knock at your door right first, right?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

But that's not what I said. I said we need to to our best (well I actually said 'bet', but I meant 'best') to not antagonize the non-radicals into becoming radical. You are saying we should not pull back when dealing with radicals. They are not the same group.

To be fair, you made some valid points, I would say, half of them. I tend to agree with a few, on the other hand we have a percentage of the Muslim population that believes westerns need to be eradicated from the face of the Earth and to those embracing that part of the religion and would want nothing more than to kill us, it really doesn't matter what we do, we are and will be infidels in their eyes, so there really is No need to try and appease these radicals.

I agree with being heavy handed with the radicals, the problem is when that heavy-handedness is indiscriminate and gets the non-radicals as well. That's what creates new radicals.

I'm not entirely convinced of that viewpoint as the "sole" reason, but I can't peer into another persons mind or heart analysis what are the fundamental points that drive them to take on the call of Jihad. I don't always agree with you politically on most issues, but this one maybe half. Props

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"Trump with one hand signs a new order banning entry from those stated countries and with the other hand wants to sign off with massive budget 14% cuts to the Coast Guard and the Dept of Homeland Security thus increasing the possibility of illegals and drugs entering into the USA."

zichi... You don't really believe that if Hillary Clinton was president and the Democrats controlled the Congress, that our borders would become more secure, do you? Give me a break.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

zichi... You don't really believe that if Hillary Clinton was president and the Democrats controlled the Congress, that our borders would become more secure, do you? Give me a break.

Of course not! Those are potential Democrat voters to fill the welfare rolls. For Democrats a leaky border is a feature - not a bug.

zichi: Planned cuts are needed to provide for his defense budget increases. Something about robbing Peter to pay Paul?

That didn't seem to bother you when Obama was doing it? Why is that an argument against increased spending now? Oh that's right! Deficits are good under Democrats and bad under Republicans.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites