Prevent Donald Trump from making a state visit to the United Kingdom - petition

[BigGully]

The threat from within Belgium is not unsubstantiated. It is the base from which attacks in France were planned and the terrorists were Belgian nationals. However I do not think we should react by imposing a travel ban on all Belgian nationals. This is what I mean by bad policy because the supposed security benefits (which are unquantifiable) cannot be shown to outweigh the damage that would be done to our relations with the innocent people of Belgium. The travel ban takes no account of these unintended consequences. It would be far better to acknowledge that we have a security problem and tighten border control for everyone so that innocent people who have business or personal reasons to travel are not prevented from doing so. I am advocating inconvenience over exclusion which seems like a more proportionate response.

Interestingly on the one hand you substantiate that Belgium might be considered a haven for some Islamists activity and therefore might hold a real threat to other European countries but you then go on to say that you wouldnt want to impose a travel ban on all Belgiums, but nor does Trump, we have absolute confidence that the EU's and Britains intelligence and surveillance services can protect its own citizens to a point that any threat might be contained and controlled, it is therefore wholly reasonable why we would not wish to impose any travel ban on Belgium citizens, so on this point we agree.

But you cannot then use this as some reasonable comparison of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

It is a ninety day temporary ban, for a newly elected president that wishes to scrutinise the vetting procedure of countries that Obama identified as posing the greatest threat to the US, seems wholly reasonabe to me.

 

[BigGully]

What you're seemingly saying boils down to a choice of whether one is happy with a tar-everyone-with-the-same-brush approach to security... or not. Personally I'm not, for a number of reasons.

It was Obama who indentified these countries, why wouldnt any country continually assess and reassess other countries threat to themselves, they all do that now dont they??

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

claptrap

no it isn't. It is an argument with which you (and I) happen to disagree.

 

[The Clamp]

no it isn't. It is an argument with which you (and I) happen to disagree.

It is an argument that I happen to think is claptrap.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It was Obama who indentified these countries, why wouldnt any country continually assess and reassess other countries threat to themselves, they all do that now dont they??

There is a distinction between assessing the threat of countries and the threat from citizens within those countries.

 

[The Clamp]

It was Obama who indentified these countries, why wouldnt any country continually assess and reassess other countries threat to themselves, they all do that now dont they??

I think that has been proved to be a myth or at best out of context. Either way, what difference does it make who identified them? Trump was the only one dumb enough to TRY and ban the movements of their general populations.

 

[pb21]

It was Obama who indentified these countries, why wouldnt any country continually assess and reassess other countries threat to themselves, they all do that now dont they??

Obama may, or may not, have identified these countries, but Trump tried to ban everyone from these countries. There is a bit of a difference don't you think?

 

[BigGully]

There is a distinction between assessing the threat of countries and the threat from citizens within those countries.

Yes to a point, perhaps that why Trump has imlemented a 90 day temporary travel ban until he can scrutinise the current procedures.

 

[BigGully]

Obama may, or may not, have identified these countries, but Trump tried to ban everyone from these countries. There is a bit of a difference don't you think?

If you have identified countries that state sponsor terror or are a safe haven for terrorists, how can you possibly negate the real risk from those people living within in them, Trump has imposed a temporary travel ban for him to see how that risk might be lessened, whats wrong with that ??

 

[BigGully]

I think that has been proved to be a myth or at best out of context. Either way, what difference does it make who identified them? Trump was the only one dumb enough to TRY and ban the movements of their general populations.

Except Obama did a great job of stopping Iraqi refugees when he found out that some terrorists were using the refugee procedure to enter the US and was pretty damn useless at accepting Syrian refugees and the height of the barrell bombing and chemical war attacks on women and children with 31 being taken in 2012 and 36 in 2013.

 

[The Clamp]

Except Obama did a great job of stopping Iraqi refugees when he found out that some terrorists were using the refugee procedure to enter the US and was pretty damn useless at accepting Syrian refugees and the height of the barrell bombing and chemical war attacks on women and children with 31 being taken in 2012 and 36 in 2013.

How does that make Trump a good President?

 

[The Clamp]

If you have identified countries that state sponsor terror or are a safe haven for terrorists, how can you possibly negate the real risk from those people living within in them, Trump has imposed a temporary travel ban for him to see how that risk might be lessened, whats wrong with that ??

Nope, no he hasn't. The US courts saw to that.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Interestingly on the one hand you substantiate that Belgium might be considered a haven for some Islamists activity and therefore might hold a real threat to other European countries but you then go on to say that you wouldnt want to impose a travel ban on all Belgiums, but nor does Trump, we have absolute confidence that the EU's and Britains intelligence and surveillance services can protect its own citizens to a point that any threat might be contained and controlled, it is therefore wholly reasonable why we would not wish to impose any travel ban on Belgium citizens, so on this point we agree.

But you cannot then use this as some reasonable comparison of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

It is a ninety day temporary ban, for a newly elected president that wishes to scrutinise the vetting procedure of countries that Obama identified as posing the greatest threat to the US, seems wholly reasonabe to me.

You make a valid point about our intelligence agencies having a greater confidence in containing the threat from Belgium as opposed to those countries on the travel ban list. I only used Belgium as an example to illustrate a narrow point about the effects of
punishing the many for the actions of the few. There are unintended consequences. Banning an entire country does not tackle the problem as terrorists can simply travel from a country not on the list. There are plenty of departure points where security is at least as lax as that in the places covered by the travel ban. By imposing this ban America is effectively saying that as countries these nations are not viable partners. This is also the line taken by radical Islam which would like them replaced with a caliphate.....unintended consequences. It would be far better to enforce domestic border and immigration control if we actually wish to make ourselves safer and create a more stable society. I suspect that the problem we have is that as soon as this is proposed many people froth at the mouth with cries of 'racism' and Trump and his policies are the reaction.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It was Obama who indentified these countries, why wouldnt any country continually assess and reassess other countries threat to themselves, they all do that now dont they??

I wasn't disputing either of these points. What I said was

What you're seemingly saying boils down to a choice of whether one is happy with a tar-everyone-with-the-same-brush approach to security... or not. Personally I'm not, for a number of reasons.

 

[BigGully]

How does that make Trump a good President?

It shows that this isn't some new extreme US position on refugees and immigrants and shows you didnt have a clue this was Obamas previous stance, it doesnt necessarily show that Trump is a good President but it shows that you are a bit of a hypocrite and ignoramous for not knowing or caring.

 

[The Clamp]

It shows that this isn't some new extreme US position on refugees and immigrants and shows you didnt have a clue this was Obamas previous stance, it doesnt necessarily show that Trump is a good President but it shows that you are a bit of a hypocrite and ignoramous for not knowing or caring.

I clearly knew that was a policy some people have attributed to Obama, just as I knew Obama didn't enforce a travel ban on the countries listed.

Trump claimed that this list was declared by Obama as the seven MOST dangerous territories for terrorists. This is a half truth.

They were identified by the Obama administration as having the potential to harbour terrorists and procedures were put in place to check the travel history of people trying to enter the US after passing through these territories.

Very different from what Trump would have you believe and very different from what Trump has tried to do about it. There is a significant difference.

So it seems I do seem to know more about it than say, you for instance.

I know. I care. I just sigh a little when Trump advocates nearly always point the finger at Obama in a bid to make Trump look better.

But whatever. Believe what you will.

 

[BigGully]

I clearly knew that was a policy some people have attributed to Obama, just as I knew Obama didn't enforce a travel ban on the countries listed. I know. I care. I just sigh a little when Trump advocates nearly always point the finger at Obama in a bid to make Trump look better.

But whatever. Believe what you will.

But you didnt sigh when Obama all but banned Iraqis and Syrians, or when it was him that officially declared that the seven countries posed the greatest threat to the US, thats the real point you either didnt know which makes you a bit ignorant or you did know but didnt object which makes you a hypocrite, more likely you now know and however it looks you will continue to whine on and on about Trump no matter what.

 

[The Clamp]

But you didnt sigh when Obama all but banned Iraqis and Syrians, or when it was him that officially declared that the seven countries posed the greatest threat to the US, thats the real point you either didnt know which makes you a bit ignorant or you did know but didnt object which makes you a hypocrite, more likely you now know and however it looks you will continue to whine on and on about Trump no matter what.

The problem is you are incorrect. Here, I've copied the edit from the above post to shed some light on it for you. It is timely that you posted the bit I have highlighted in your post. Trump's claims and you're understanding/belief of the situation are, I'm afraid incorrect.

Trump claimed that this list was declared by Obama as the seven MOST dangerous territories for terrorists. This is a half truth.

They were identified by the Obama administration as having the potential to harbour terrorists and procedures were put in place to check the travel history of people trying to enter the US after passing through these territories.

Very different from what Trump would have you believe and very different from what Trump has tried to do about it. There is a significant difference.

So it seems I do seem to know more about it than say, you for instance.

I didn't object to Obama's stance on this matter because it was perfectly reasonable, unlike Trump's which is reactionary and inflamatory and shows a deep lack of understanding. As does your above post.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

you [The Clamp] will continue to whine on and on about Trump no matter what.

I think a lot of people have good reason to "whine". And actions from previous presidents doesn't give him a get-out-of-jail card......which seems to be the basis of your argument.

 

[Two Professors]

Won't it be fun when Wilders and le Pen get all presidential as well!