Why didn't trump ban countries that actually committed terrorist attacks that resulted in US deaths?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

It doesn’t matter where we got the list of countries. We have a long history of accepting refugees from countries we are actively at war with. How the fuck do you justify keeping out refugees from countries where we brought the goddam war?

How the fuck do you justify keeping out Iraqi interpreters who (in part) risked their lives and their families for the promise of a chance at the American dream? That’s more American than 90% of the Americans I know.

How the fuck do you justify detaining small children?

We were somehow able to process hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people and other refugees in the late 70’s. Were the Vietcong (who incidentally killed over 30K Americans and wounded hundreds of thousands of others) less dangerous and sneaky?

This is not making America great.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Crap–the lede is buried there. My fault–will respond more later.

So, yeah. The first part of the press release makes it sound as though all their crimes were committed in Iraq, but it turns out that they committed more crimes while they were in the US, trying to help anti-US forces in Iraq.

It’s conceivable that an order like this would have stopped them. But it’s highly dubious, for a couple of reasons:

1. They were active in Iraq already; there’s no indication that their activities here resulted in more US soldier deaths than their activities there. Indeed, the opposite appears supported by evidence. They did not succeed at committing attacks here, but they did succeed at committing attacks there.
2. They were caught due to their behavior in the US, not due to their behavior in Iraq. This looks like a case of “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”: because they were here, they were closer to our law enforcement, which made them easier to catch. Had they remained in Iraq, it is likely they never would have been caught.

Again, if this case is the best evidence that an order like Trump’s is needed, it’s weak sauce bordering on homeopathic levels.

[Atamasama]

@Damuri_Ajashi

We were somehow able to process hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people and other refugees in the late 70’s. Were the Vietcong (who incidentally killed over 30K Americans and wounded hundreds of thousands of others) less dangerous and sneaky?

Not to defend the order (I called it “reprehensible” earlier) but I’m not aware of any Vietcong infiltrating onto US soil and causing mass-murder. Maybe I’m just ignorant of that part of history.

[Snarky_Kong]

@Atamasama

Not to defend the order (I called it “reprehensible” earlier) but I’m not aware of any Vietcong infiltrating onto US soil and causing mass-murder. Maybe I’m just ignorant of that part of history.

Nobody from any of the banned countries has committed mass murder, or any murder, in the US since at least 1975. So what’s your point?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Atamasama

Not to defend the order (I called it “reprehensible” earlier) but I’m not aware of any Vietcong infiltrating onto US soil and causing mass-murder. Maybe I’m just ignorant of that part of history.

Not Vietcong, but how about an immigrant-initiated campaign of terror that murdered American journalists who supported the communist Vietnamese government? (edit–or even who opposed this particular anti-communist group?)

[iiandyiiii]

HurricaneDitka, I made this post:

@iiandyiiii

There are upwards of a billion (or more) peaceful Muslims around the world who want nothing more than to live their lives, support their families, and be comfortable and peaceful. They already hate ISIS and other violent Muslim extremists. In order to defeat such extremism, we will need their cooperation – it will be essentially impossible to defeat extremism (to the point where it ceases to be a significant force in world events) in the Muslim world without the cooperation of the great mass of peaceful and decent and reasonable Muslims.

This kind of policy won’t push most of them towards ISIS, but it might push many away from us. They will be less likely to see us as allies, and may even start to be afraid of us. Many might retreat into the shadows, refusing to assist in the fight with or against ISIS, when with tolerant and compassionate policies they might aid us against the extremists. It definitely feeds the rhetoric (and the desires) of ISIS and other extremists, who want Muslims to see the West in general as their enemies. Those small but significant number on the edge – who already strongly dislike and fear America, but still don’t want to be involved in violence – might be more likely to decide to embrace violence.

I don’t see the two sides as the West and Islam, or the West and the terrorists, but rather the pro-religious-world-war and anti-religious-world-war side. This kind of policy helps ISIS – they want America to do all they can to make Muslims everywhere angry (and state this publicly) – and, in my view, aids the pro-religious-war faction (represented in the administration and its supporters by folks like Michael Flynn, Frank Gaffney, John Bolton, and Pamela Gellar).

It’s similar to racist extremists in the US – both the Charleston black-church shooter and black extremists like the one who killed cops in Dallas are on the pro-race-war side, even if on the surface they seem to be in direct opposition. They both want the same thing – a giant conflict between white people and black people. Similarly, both ISIS and American anti-Muslim extremists want the same thing – a giant world war between the West and Islam.

and you graciously answered with this post:

@HurricaneDitka

I thought it was insightful. Possibly the best post authored by you that I’ve ever read. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

And then I asked if my post had caused you to reevaluate your position on this or any other issue in any way. Could you respond to that?