I would've spelled it out, but I'm trying not to curse as much, LOL.
The travel ban is BS because of the countries that ARE on it, and the countries that ARE NOT on it.
The last time that Libya can be conclusively tied to terrorist acts against the United States is 1988, and the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103. If terrorists operating within one's borders are a criteria, then EVERYONE in the United States should be banned from flying. Literally. Because many groups, like the KKK, operate freely in our borders, and they're listed as "domestic terrorist" groups by watchdogs such as the SPLC.
If you're using "they sheltered bin Laden" like in the case of Sudan (no other reason I can see for Sudan's inclusion, because if engaging against terrorist acts against your own people is a criteria, again, all US citizens should be on the no fly list, due to cases like Ziad Yaghi, a young Jordanian man being held for several years now based on trumped-up, false accusations), then WHY IN THE HOTTEST FIRES OF HADES is PAKISTAN not included? Oh right, because both the POTUS and his daughter Ivanka manufacture clothes there and therefore have a vested business interest in the country.
And why Somalia? If piracy is a criteria, then study your history books: the US employed pirates early on. That led to the first conflict between the US and Libya and why one of our ships is STILL at the bottom of Tripoli Harbor.
Why Iran? Is it because it's just politically correct to dislike them and has been since 1979? Here's a news flash: the Iranians don't like their government as much as WE don't like it.
Why Yemen? Are we still pissed about the bombing of the USS Cole? Pretty sure we bombed the bejesus out of them for that already.
And why Syria? Haven't Syrian citizens fleeing both the oppressive regime of Bashar al Assad and the plague of Daesh been punished enough?
I'm pretty certain this travel ban, like the first one, will be swiftly overturned and/or challenged in court. It's just a matter of time. If the first one damaged certain states' interests, this "revised" ban is NOT any different. It's the same thing, just a different day.
Then perhaps, when this SECOND illogical ban is overturned, the work that needs to be done in Libya can be done by citizens like myself without worrying about their government leading to more strife in the world. That those married to US citizens, like my dear friend, won't face undue hardship when trying to spend time with their US family.
The travel ban is BS because of the countries that ARE on it, and the countries that ARE NOT on it.
The last time that Libya can be conclusively tied to terrorist acts against the United States is 1988, and the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am 103. If terrorists operating within one's borders are a criteria, then EVERYONE in the United States should be banned from flying. Literally. Because many groups, like the KKK, operate freely in our borders, and they're listed as "domestic terrorist" groups by watchdogs such as the SPLC.
If you're using "they sheltered bin Laden" like in the case of Sudan (no other reason I can see for Sudan's inclusion, because if engaging against terrorist acts against your own people is a criteria, again, all US citizens should be on the no fly list, due to cases like Ziad Yaghi, a young Jordanian man being held for several years now based on trumped-up, false accusations), then WHY IN THE HOTTEST FIRES OF HADES is PAKISTAN not included? Oh right, because both the POTUS and his daughter Ivanka manufacture clothes there and therefore have a vested business interest in the country.
And why Somalia? If piracy is a criteria, then study your history books: the US employed pirates early on. That led to the first conflict between the US and Libya and why one of our ships is STILL at the bottom of Tripoli Harbor.
Why Iran? Is it because it's just politically correct to dislike them and has been since 1979? Here's a news flash: the Iranians don't like their government as much as WE don't like it.
Why Yemen? Are we still pissed about the bombing of the USS Cole? Pretty sure we bombed the bejesus out of them for that already.
And why Syria? Haven't Syrian citizens fleeing both the oppressive regime of Bashar al Assad and the plague of Daesh been punished enough?
I'm pretty certain this travel ban, like the first one, will be swiftly overturned and/or challenged in court. It's just a matter of time. If the first one damaged certain states' interests, this "revised" ban is NOT any different. It's the same thing, just a different day.
Then perhaps, when this SECOND illogical ban is overturned, the work that needs to be done in Libya can be done by citizens like myself without worrying about their government leading to more strife in the world. That those married to US citizens, like my dear friend, won't face undue hardship when trying to spend time with their US family.
No comments:
Post a Comment