Trump's ban on Muslims

[abaris]

I think ISIS should be more fearful of us than we should be of them.

Here's the thing though. Destroying what they call their state doesn't make them any less dangerous. It doesn't take a state to launch a terrorist attack.

I can't believe people still think in military terms when it comes to terror. A conventional army ain't worth shit when it comes to terror. And by the way, if they really want to smuggle someone into the states, they won't do it on passports or visas from any of the incriminated states.

I think 17 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from the good friend Saudi Arabia. A country that's still totally exempt, but the cradle of the violent interpretation of Islam ISIL adhers to. Speaking of the most dangerous countries. Iran on the other hand is Shia. There hasn't been a single shiite attack on the West. On the contrary, they're fighting ISIL.

[WinterHold]

Trump has business interests in Saudi Arabia.  He has none in the seven proscribed countries. Make of that what you will.

Boru

The decision making is not up to him, it goes through others.
The lobby is the same. The face just changes.

wallym

If so, then it has nothing to do with ISIS or terrorism.

abaris

Pakistan -as far as I know- has no Trump businesses. 

Redoubtable

Counties like Pakistan, Egypt & Saudi Arabia, are what makes the U.S capable of "infiltrating" places like Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan in mere hours.


David Cameron said it; almost literally:





The west is so full of shit

Wyrd of Gawd

That's why I use the word "lobby"; the foreign policy is always the same, only the president changes.
Somebody else is calling the shots.

Or let's say "others are...".

Industrial Lad

They are ISIS in green. They dance with swords and behead prisoners for God's sake. 

Catholic_Lady

I should've guessed that it's a little bit old; Trump just walked into presidency after all.

Tiberius

Still, some -like Sudan- have nothing to do with terrorism.
Actually, the leader of 9/11 was Egyptian. Egypt is not on the list.

robvalue


Such decisions backfire. It's more terrible than 2003.

[henryp]

It seems to me that if Trump has any sort of brain and plan, the plan is to incite more terror attacks against the USA by pissing off as many Muslims as possible. He can then "justify" a war. He's giving ISIS exactly what they need. They don't even need to lie to their recruits about this.

If. He may just be a complete and utter total moron.

If someone can be radicalized by not being able to go to the United States for a few months, then maybe it's best we don't let them into the United States ever.

[Mister Agenda]

It's stochastic. We don't know (yet) who will be radicalized by a particular event. We can only reasonably conclude that some people on the margin of being radicalized will be tipped over the edge. Like economics, all the action is on the margin: our actions most affect those already primed for radicalization, whether to tip them over to radicalizing or to bring them back from the brink.

[henryp]

I think ISIS should be more fearful of us than we should be of them.

Here's the thing though. Destroying what they call their state doesn't make them any less dangerous. It doesn't take a state to launch a terrorist attack.

I can't believe people still think in military terms when it comes to terror. A conventional army ain't worth shit when it comes to terror. And by the way, if they really want to smuggle someone into the states, they won't do it on passports or visas from any of the incriminated states.

I think 17 of the 19 9/11 terrorists came from the good friend Saudi Arabia. A country that's still totally exempt, but the cradle of the violent interpretation of Islam ISIL adhers to. Speaking of the most dangerous countries. Iran on the other hand is Shia. There hasn't been a single shiite attack on the West. On the contrary, they're fighting ISIL.

There's often a lot of planning that goes into some of the major attacks.  Planning, money, documentation, networking, etc...  Al Qaeda was just like any business organization, where some guy gets the idea.  He talks to middle management, who brings it to upper management.  Then they get together in the conference cave at headquarters in Afghanistan, etc...

There will always be the risk of some dope with a gun.  But that's not the real threat, I don't think . The real threat is a large scale attack that kills thousands or millions.  And constantly attacking their 'state' is a good way to try and keep them from getting organized enough to plan something like that.

---

It's stochastic. We don't know (yet) who will be radicalized by a particular event. We can only reasonably conclude that some people on the margin of being radicalized will be tipped over the edge. Like economics, all the action is on the margin: our actions most affect those already primed for radicalization, whether to tip them over to radicalizing or to bring them back from the brink.

If the margin is that thin, barring people from that region probably isn't that awful an idea.

It isn't about 'US is good' to 'US is bad.'  It's 'US is bad' to 'We should catch some journalists and saw their heads off on the internet.'

Maybe I just have more faith in the general muslim than I should.

[Mister Agenda]

It's stochastic. We don't know (yet) who will be radicalized by a particular event. We can only reasonably conclude that some people on the margin of being radicalized will be tipped over the edge. Like economics, all the action is on the margin: our actions most affect those already primed for radicalization, whether to tip them over to radicalizing or to bring them back from the brink.

If the margin is that thin, barring people from that region probably isn't that awful an idea.

It isn't about 'US is good' to 'US is bad.'  It's 'US is bad' to 'We should catch some journalists and saw their heads off on the internet.'

Maybe I just have more faith in the general muslim than I should.

There are people on the margin of everything, Muslims aren't special in that regard. There are plenty of people on the margin of becoming violent in the USA, if they're pushed a bit. Many thousands of them murder their fellow Americans every year.

[Tiberius]

Tiberius

Still, some -like Sudan- have nothing to do with terrorism.
Actually, the leader of 9/11 was Egyptian. Egypt is not on the list.

Agreed, and US sanctions against Sudan were lifted only a few weeks ago.

I never said Trump's reasoning for the choice countries was justified against his claim of terrorism. My point was that the list was compiled by the Obama administration as "countries of concern", and that's what Trump used as justification for the ban. In Sudan's case, it seems like the list was outdated.

[Faith No More]

If someone can be radicalized by not being able to go to the United States for a few months, then maybe it's best we don't let them into the United States ever.

That doesn't even make sense. People aren't going to be radicalized because they can't come in. ISIS will use the ban as recruiting material to demonstrate their claims that the U.S. is attacking Islam.

Trump's so dumb that he may as well just be making propaganda for them.

[robvalue]

Hey I just realized:

It's really cool how here, on an atheist forum, almost every atheist is sticking up for the rights of the affected theists rather than screaming "Fuck yeah, fuck those Muslims". That's the kind of great people we have on this forum so I'm not at all surprised; which is why I only just realized it. I highly value sticking up for what is right, regardless of who is being wronged.

[downbeatplumb]

I think ISIS should be more fearful of us than we should be of them.

Why? You now have a weak easily goaded president who is playing into every terrorists hands.

Why do terrorists commit atrocities to get the very reaction your commander in chief is giving them, they must be sniggering at his political stupidity.
Its like the opinionated know nothing taxi driver is now in charge of the US.