Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First they came for the Iranians

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 460 posts

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#81

Post by pknerd »

amasad wrote: post #18

The ban on Iranians has nothing to do with terrorism. I might be wrong but I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. And yes I don't think it's fitting to call Hazbollah as a terrorist group -- the same label that you'd give Al Qaeda or ISIS. I honestly can't think of a time where a Shiite group was responsible for indiscriminate killing.

>I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group.

Hezbollah is a banned Shia outfit that is involved in killing in many countries including Syria.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#82

Post by thowfaraway »

amasad wrote: post #18

The ban on Iranians has nothing to do with terrorism. I might be wrong but I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. And yes I don't think it's fitting to call Hazbollah as a terrorist group -- the same label that you'd give Al Qaeda or ISIS. I honestly can't think of a time where a Shiite group was responsible for indiscriminate killing.

Hmm, Iran actively supports ~100 Shiite terror groups in Syria and Iraq. If you speak Arabic, here is an article in Al-Hayat.

http://www.alhayat.com/Articles/9542195/

And of course Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#83

Post by Luc »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #34
danso wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which countries don't have Muslims?

Come to think of it, I don't think e.g. Estonia has too many of them. You can probably fit them all in one train.

> You can probably fit them all in one train.

Oh, very subtle, I almost gave you the benefit of the doubt.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#84

Post by mars4rp »

pknerd wrote: post #81
amasad wrote: post #18

The ban on Iranians has nothing to do with terrorism. I might be wrong but I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. And yes I don't think it's fitting to call Hazbollah as a terrorist group -- the same label that you'd give Al Qaeda or ISIS. I honestly can't think of a time where a Shiite group was responsible for indiscriminate killing.

>I don't think there are any real Shiite terror group. Hezbollah is a banned Shia outfit that is involved in killing in many countries including Syria.

Killing is different than terrorism, US military is involved in killing in many countries as well!

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#85

Post by corndoge »

"Today, we learned that Trump is suspending the issuance of US visas to people from seven majority-Islamic countries, including Iran (but strangely not Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Wahhabist terrorism)."

And yet, from the very source linked in the article--

"Details about the forthcoming executive orders are still unconfirmed. But here’s what we can say with high confidence."

If you trust AP, then sure, it's likely that it will happen. But it's still important to draw a distinction between "has done" or "is doing" and "is expected to do". Articles like this, posted before any official announcement, are merely adding to the Trump hysteria.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#86

Post by grey-area »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #13

Does the President have the power to unilaterally impose exit-visa requirements?

This is a good question. Obama claimed the president has the power to assassinate american citizens without trial and Trump is claiming further powers over immigration, science and the media. None of these things should be the sole purview of the president, this is why rule via executive orders is so dangerous. It would lead to the end of the republic.

The American republic now resembles the late roman one, complete with populist consuls and rioting factions.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#87

Post by icebraining »

guard-of-terra wrote: post #28
threeseed wrote: post #14

Such a cynical yet poorly thought out policy. Firstly, many people involved in terrorist incidents are natural born citizens of allied countries. So are we going to ban all French or Belgium citizens given they have been shown to harbor terrorists ? It's clear that Trump/Bannon desperately want a Muslim ban as opposed to a Iran/Iraq/etc ban. Secondly, this is going to alienate moderate Muslims who Western intelligenc…

If you has Muslims in your country, then yes you might need to work with moderate Muslims in order to be suppressing problem of radicalization. Not sure how well it works tho. But if you do not have Muslims in your country, you don't have to care about this at all, just cross this issue off your whiteboard in a broad stroke. No Muslims - no Muslim radicalism. I don't think this is the solution for USA, but otherwise…

>No Muslims - no Muslim radicalism.

Are you sure?

About 40 percent of those arrested on terrorism-related charges last year were converts to Islam according to “ISIS in America,” a new report by George Washington University.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#88

Post by wyager »

It always surprises me how countries don't offer automatic citizenship for people either working towards or who have already received advanced degrees in scientific/engineering fields. Surely there are few better ways to achieve technological superiority, either for economic or military reasons. It also tends to filter out religious extremists, if that's your justification for immigration restrictions in the first place.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#89

Post by tempestn »

throwaway2131 wrote: post #27

I am an Iranian CS student. I had a fully funded PhD admission at one of the US universities. I was admitted for the Fall 2016 semester. I am currently in Iran due to my visa not being issued despite the 7 months I have waited for it. I was able to defer my admission to Spring 2017 semester, but then _this_ happened. I am quite sure that I will never be able to attend this program. I had very high hopes for my future…

I can personally recommend the University of Waterloo, here in Canada. I did my Master's degree there in electrical engineering. The school has an excellent, and well recognized, CS program, and a significant percentage of both the graduate student body and the faculty (at least when I was there 8 years ago or so) were from Iran.

Waterloo itself isn't a particularly large city, but with two universities it has a significant student population, and it's not far from Toronto for anytime you're interested in more of a big city cultural experience.

Of course there are a number of excellent universities here in Canada; if Waterloo isn't to your liking, maybe check out UBC here on the west coast.

I really hope, as Scott suggests in the post, that a silver lining to this situation is that we have an opportunity to welcome more people like you into Canada.

Edit: I could even put you in touch with my old supervising professor (who's also from Iran) if you like; he's in the Engineering faculty as opposed to CS, but I'm sure he would know who to refer you to.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#90

Post by barsonme »

palidanx wrote: post #30
jekdoce wrote: post #11

Advice from a high-level staffer for a Senator: There are two things that everyone concerned should be doing all the time right now, and they're by far the most important things. You should NOT be bothering with online petitions or emailing. 1. The best thing you can do to be heard and get your congressperson to pay attention is to have face-to-face time - if they have town halls, go to them. Go to their local office…

Is it worth calling a senator who doesn't represent you? For example, there are some proposals being pushed by senators in NC I don't agree with, but I don't live in NC.

Not really.

Typically the first thing interns will do is at minimum gather your zip, if not address. Congressional offices receive a fair amount of out-of-district phone calls and non-constituent phone calls will get you a "Thanks for your concerns, have a nice day!"

And, tbh, I sort of disagree with GP's comment about calling every day. Offices might have a high turnover rate, they might not. The offices most definitely do keep track of who calls and they know who the repeat callers are. A lot of time the repeat callers tend to have mental issues (unsure how else to phrase that)—congressional offices get lots of weird phone calls.

I mean yeah, call about issues. It's the best way, other than a face-to-face conversation. (Assuming, too, that the legislator has their CM or an aide with them to take your contact info.) But calling every day will put you on the "ugh, not this guy" list.

Post reply on HN