Obama kills Muslims with drones, even an American kid, without due process. Nobody bats an eye. Trump refuses entry to countries where we already ban encryption exports and block trade. Everybody loses their minds.
If you get this enraged over temporary travel bans from nations that sponsor terrorism against the US, what are you going to do if Trump starts droning American kids with the precedent Obama set? It's a bit like the boy who cries wolf. Blowing something small out of proportion is stupid, because nobody is going to listen when the big stuff starts happening.
It's not a Muslim ban. People who say that are only burning their own credibility. Indonesia isn't banned. Bangladesh isn't banned.
Libya, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, and Syria. Somalia is infamous for its pirates, Libya for Benghazi, Iran for its nuclear program, do I even need to continue?
After you explain how incorrectly characterizing it as a Muslim ban isn't going to be used as terrorist propaganda. Who's actually hurting nation security here?
Characterizing it as a Muslim ban isn't wrong. It's a travel ban that will mainly effect Muslims.
It would be much easier to defend this ban as not targeting Muslims from countries that don't have the political capital to defend themselves if blanket bans like this one actually improved national security. Can you honestly make the claim that it does?
There are more people in majority Muslim Indonesia than there are in all seven of the other countries combined. Add in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and you easily have double the number of Muslims. If Trump wanted to ban Muslims, he'd ban Indonesia. Instead, he banned those seven countries because they are known to have connections with terrorists.
If a pipe bursts, temporarily turning off the water main while you figure out how to fix the problem isn't a bad strategy.
You're making a No True Scotsman argument by saying that it's not a Muslim ban because Trump didn't ban enough muslims. You're also completely ignoring the fact that Bannon very likely spent some time determining what sort of ban would and wouldn't be defensible. The use of 8 U.S. Code § 1187 wasn't by accident.
Also, your excuse about connections to terrorists needs citations because, from what I've read, these connections don't actually exist.
People flag when they think a story falls outside the guidelines.
According to the guidelines, this story wouldn't normally be "on-topic", as it doesn't fit the "gratifies one's intellectual curiosity" test; it's just grist for political controversy, which HN specifically seeks to avoid.
Sure, there's currently a lot more politics on HN than normal due to current events in the US, but even still, this story doesn't add enough substance to the debate to warrant being accepted.
Thank you, Peter, for clearing that up. We were all waiting for your rational and level-headed insight to know what to think about these sorts of matters. The language of the EO mentioned religion, but obviously if you think that's not what was meant, that's not what was meant. Now we can all sigh a breath of relief and go about our lives. What would we do without people like Peter?
It's not a religion ban. Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims on earth, at 200+ million. Not one of them is banned from America. Only immigrants from countries with direct ties to terrorism are banned, temporarily.
Once gain, it has nothing to do with religion. It's geographical. You can be a Christian in Iraq, and you would be ban too.
