Timeline for Did Donald Trump exclude Muslim countries in which he does business from the recent entry ban?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
29 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 31, 2017 at 22:03 | comment | added | user11643 | "it's important to mention that the list of 7 countries was originally drafted by the Obama administration". This should be at the top of the post. | |
| Jan 31, 2017 at 17:57 | comment | added | Iwillnotexist Idonotexist | @Schwern The 9/11 event itself was perpetrated by mostly Saudi terrorists in September 2001. Trump's EO entered into force in January 2017, 15 years later. Saying that the EO's list of countries undermines its own justification presupposes that the sources of the threats currently facing the US haven't changed in the past 15 years. A very reasonable argument is that the sources did change, but that the desire to avoid another 3,000 lives lost has not. | |
| S Jan 31, 2017 at 7:50 | history | suggested | CommunityBot | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed last quote and minor edits(why 6?!)
|
| Jan 31, 2017 at 7:41 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 31, 2017 at 7:50 | |||||
| Jan 30, 2017 at 19:57 | comment | added | Hannover Fist | @MichaelJ. - excluding those countries may not have benefited Trump, but INCLUDING them in the ban could be detrimental to any financial interests he does have if the governments and people in those countries refuse to do business with Trump owned businesses. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 19:10 | history | edited | ventsyv | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 366 characters in body
|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 19:02 | history | edited | ventsyv | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 366 characters in body
|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 18:51 | comment | added | Michael J. | How would excluding Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey have benefitted Trump? Let's say he does have financial interest in those countries. How will he gain? I'd think that no inference is possible unless this question is answered | |
| S Jan 30, 2017 at 17:42 | history | suggested | T.E.D. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
There is (currently at least) no "conclusion" put forth in the question (or the embedded picture). But there certinaly is an implication.
|
| Jan 30, 2017 at 16:52 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jan 30, 2017 at 17:42 | |||||
| Jan 30, 2017 at 10:36 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | @KalleMP: I looked at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country . Indonesia has 87.2% muslim but had to be in there because it has the most muslims of any country, Jordan has only 93.8% but is close to the war zone, the rest are 95%+. There are more countries to choose from that are also 95%+. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 10:26 | comment | added | KalleMP | @RemcoGerlich I read Trumps executive order was for 7 Muslim majority countries. Are all these others not included you list also Muslim majority or just Muslim ? | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 9:34 | comment | added | ypercubeᵀᴹ | Turkey is in NATO. It couldn't be in any such list, without serious damage to the USA-Turkey relationships. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 9:02 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | @Schwern: but Iraq's government only controls part of its area, so that counting it as an ally works only in part. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 8:59 | comment | added | RemcoGerlich | It's also worth nothing that not only those three are missing, but also Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Senegal, Niger, and so on, and so on. Most muslim countries aren't in the image either way. | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 8:03 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @TomasZato I frequently see answers overhauled by edits. I think it's okay for Skeptics | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 8:01 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @ventsyv "Conspicious in their absence" is a conclusion, it leads the reader to think there is foul play at hand | |
| Jan 30, 2017 at 2:50 | vote | accept | dsollen | ||
| Jan 30, 2017 at 0:25 | comment | added | Tomáš Zato | @JonathanReez Adding facts into answers is not what edits are for, we have answers and comments for that. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 22:15 | comment | added | Schwern | It's worth noting that while 9/11 is referenced multiple times in the order, all of the countries the hijackers came from are excluded. This isn't an argument for expanding the order, rather cutting a leg out from a stated justification. It's also worth noting that Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia are US allies (though so is Iraq). | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 19:14 | comment | added | ventsyv | Actually there is no conclusion in the original claim, so I don't know why the edit | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 19:09 | comment | added | corsiKa | "The facts are accurate, but the conclusion is in question." isn't that basically politics in a nutshell? | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 13:18 | comment | added | beppe9000 | @Sklivvz does adding webarchive snapshots help prevent it? | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 12:41 | comment | added | JonathanReez | I've edited your post to make it a bit more neutral and include a relevant fact about who selected the original 7 countries. | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 12:40 | history | edited | JonathanReez | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 819 characters in body
|
| Jan 29, 2017 at 10:24 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Can someone kindly add relevant excerpts from the links to give context and to prevent link rot? | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 6:44 | history | edited | SIMEL | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 154 characters in body
|
| Jan 29, 2017 at 5:28 | comment | added | ff524 | Some have noted that a 2015 law (Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015) requires people who have recently traveled to those 7 countries to apply for a visa, rather than being eligible for entry without having obtained a visa in advance. (Of course, "these people have to apply for a visa who previously didn't" is an entirely different policy from "these people are denied entry, even if they have already applied for and received a visa") | |
| Jan 29, 2017 at 5:00 | history | answered | ventsyv | CC BY-SA 3.0 |