Trump Excludes Muslim Countries With Trump Org. Financial Ties From Ban

Typical Donald Trump. He didn't include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, the UAE or Jordan in his Executive Order banning Muslims.

Why not? Maybe because Trump Org. has licensed its name to properties in those countries. Wealthy Muslims in those countries helped Donald make money.

In Dubai, Trump International has a golf course and a spa and is building luxury homes and a second golf course.

In 2015, when he first made his anti-Muslim comments, Damac Properties in Dubai stripped Trump's name and his as well as Ivanka's photo from billboards and the property's name. But Damac later reversed itself. (A day later they were replaced with images of Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone in The Godfather and Damac and Trump were back in business.)

A second Damac project (Akoya 2 or Akoya Oxygen, it's hard to keep them straight) is opening in Dubai next month near a Trump-licensed golf course and private residences.(Trump doesn't own these properties, he gets paid for the use of his name on them.)

In a video captured by a guest at Trump's New Years Eve party in Palm Beach, Mr. Trump can be heard singling out “Hussain and the whole family” as “the most beautiful people,” referring to Hussain Sajwani, the chairman of Damac Properties, which owns the Trump International Golf Club in Dubai; Trump PRVT luxury homes, and a Trump Spa, in addition to the new golf course with his name that is about to open.

Here's a picture of Sajwani, Donald Trump and Ivanka Trump on the Dubai Golf course.

Sajwani was also at the opening of Trump's hotel in Washington, D.C.

From Damac's website last night, extolling the virtues of Trump's golf clubs and private residences:

With a passion for meticulous craftsmanship, thoughtful design and glorious finishing, Trump PRVT raises the bar when it comes to elite living. A stunning collection of mansions and villas are situated in a private, gated community among the fairways of the Trump International Golf Club Dubai and offer the highest levels of privacy and exclusivity in signature Trump style.

Ivanka was the one who claimed to put in the leg-work on Dubai. Speaking at a an Arabian hotel real estate conference in 2015 or 2016, she proudly announced on her website she'd be moving on to meet with prospective business partners in Abu Dhabi.

Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates and it’s really a city unlike anyplace else. It’s growing at an impressive pace. The city’s towering skyscrapers are magnificent and I can’t wait to see the Trump name join the downtown Abu Dhabi skyline. (I’m also looking forward to seeing a gorgeous Trump resort on the beautiful white beaches of Saadiyat Island!).
It doesn't look like Trump was successful at getting a place in Abu Dhabi. And, I noticed, none of the Trumps are on the 2017 conference list of speakers for Dubai -- the program makes no mention of anyone from Trump. But he still makes money from them, as the Abu Dhabi Tourism and Culture Authority rents space in Trump Tower.

Abu Dhabi is richer than Dubai -- it has lots more oil -- and more glitz. It has less crime (just this week a female Spanish tourist was sentenced to life in prison for possession with intent to distribute 2 pieces of hash contained in a pack of cigarettes, after selling a similar small amount to a Swedish tourist who gave police her name after being busted. He got four years for using the hash -- the crime of use has since been reduced to a misdemeanor, but too late to help him. Her life sentence allows parole after 25 years.)

Here's a photo of Donald and Melania with the CEO of Qatar airways, which leases space in Trump Tower.

Several prominent Saudis have had residences at Trump Tower. Here's a photo of Trump and Melania with Prince Mutaib bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a former minister in the Saudi government, and member of the Saudi royal family.

Prince Nawaf bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, a Saudi royal family member who owned a 10,500 sq. foot (975 sq. meter) condo at the Heritage at Trump Place that went on sale this year for $48.5 million.

Vice did a report on the squalid living conditions endured by the workers at Trump International in Dubai.

You know it's bad when over a year ago people like Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush used words like unAmerican and unhinged to describe Trump's anti-Muslim remarks:

Former vice president Dick Cheney called Trump’s statement “against everything we believe in,” and presidential candidate Jeb Bush called Trump “unhinged.”

New Zealand news reported last week that Trump's middle-eastern properties are potential terrorism targets.

"They may kidnap a Trump worker and not even want to negotiate," aiming for publicity instead, said Colin P. Clarke, a political scientist with the RAND Corporation who studies terrorism and international criminal networks.

The Secret Service protects Trump and his family, but not his workers.

A list of dangerous cities, according to the New Zealand news article:

  • Trump-branded apartment tower in Seoul, South Korea
  • Trump Towers Istanbul (city with several terror attacks)
  • A planned Trump International property in Bali (which everyone should be boycotting anyway as it executes non-violent foreign drug offenders);
  • A Trump International property under construction in Mumbai (home to the 2008 bombings attributed to Lashkar-e-Taiba)
  • A Trump International tower being built in Manila in the Philippines (home to Abu Sayyaf Terror group and a president who allows viligante killing of suspected drug traffickers)

In Abu Dhabi, which currently doesn't have a Trump property but is only an hour's drive from Dubai, "an American school teacher was stabbed to death in a mall bathroom by an extremist with ties to al Qaida in December 2014." She was executed in 2016.

More than 50 Jordanian parliamentarians have called for their country to ban Donald Trump from entering Jordan. But their King is scheduled to arrive in Washington for a meeting with Trump this week. He just returned from Moscow where " President Vladimir Putin thanked Jordan for supporting peace process in Syria."

Ivanka met with the Jordanian Queen Rania in New York a few weeks ago, reportedly about "women's issues."

Seems like Jordan had a heads-up on the Muslim ban. Remember this ad Royal Jordanian Airlines took out before the elections everyone thought was just humorous?

Finally, here is the text of Iran's response to Donald Trump's ban on Muslims. More on that here.

"The United States administration's decision to impose a ban against Muslims' travel to the US – though for a temporary three-month period – is a flagrant insult to the Muslim world, specially the great Iranian nation; and despite claims about confronting terrorism and protecting security of the American people, it will be recorded in the history as a great gift to extremists and their sponsors," the statement read.

...[Iran will] will take reciprocal measures in order to safeguard the rights of its citizens until the time of the removal of the insulting restrictions of the Government of the United States against Iranian nationals.

< Trump's First Raid in Yemen: U.S. Military Member Dies | Rudy Giuliani Claims Credit for Trump's Muslim Ban >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Let's see (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 04:44:36 PM EST
    15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, 2 were from the UAE and 1 each were from Egypt and Lebanon. Yet none of these countries are on the banned list (and I am not saying they should be. There should be no list). This is clear proof that this list is crock of sh-t. It is targeted at a specific group of people. A violation of international law. Bannon is saying the media should be silenced and Conway says media people bad mouthed Drumpf before the election should be fired. Are you people now ready to stop getting your panties in a wad when comparisons are made to Hitler, Goebbels and the rise of the Nazis. Read a history book. The comparisons are real and valid. Tell the big lie long enough and it becomes the truth. Find a bogey man and blame the country's problems on that bogey man. Rise up! Resist. "By any means necessary." - Malcolm X

    Also, why is Iran on this list? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 06:54:37 PM EST
    Iranians are largely Shiite. ISIS, Al-Quaida and other extremist groups are Sunni. These extremist Sunnis kill Shiites. Of course, captain cheeto and his minions are too stupid to know the difference. Or want to know the difference.

    I'm more than pretty sure (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Peter G on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 06:14:59 PM EST
    that you are totally wrong about what other TL'ers are on board with, Linea.

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:40:54 AM EST
    commenters should speak for themselves, not others on this site.

    Hyperbolic (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 06:20:38 PM EST
    A lot of otherwise calm, rational people are sounding the alarm.

    Why would anyone ... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 08:33:15 PM EST
    ... cite a statement from Trump as evidence of ...

    ... anything?

    Factcheck - Trump's facile claim that his refugee policy is similar to Obama's in 2011

    Not to mention the fact that, according to the guy Trump told to come up with the ban (Giuliani), Trump told him he wanted a "Muslim ban", then asked him to come up with a commission to figure out how to do it legally.

    So (none / 0) (#16)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 08:36:31 PM EST
    80% of the Muslim world can come and go as they please, how is that a Muslim ban?

    Because it focuses on (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 08:39:57 PM EST
    Muslims and not other religions--with Christians getting special treatment.  That is discrimination.

    Just because only few African Americans were told to sit at the back of the bus, did not meant that conduct was not discriminatory.  Pretty basic stuff.


    It focuses (none / 0) (#19)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 08:49:16 PM EST
    On 7 countries that are terror centers. And it is temporary, much like Obama did in 2011

    In those countries, perhaps genocide has been practiced on the Christians.

    It certainly could have been rolled out in a better fashion, but this is the Donald, and I wouldn't expect that of him


    Temporary religious tests (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by MKS on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 08:53:53 PM EST
    are still religious tests that are expressly forbidden by the Constitution.  What is so hard about this?  But I have no doubt fans of "The Donald" don't think much of Constitutional rights, especially for brown people.

    Adding the word "temporary" does not wash away the stench of this policy.  If someone is "temporarily" kidnapped, does that make it better?

    And, "temporary" has a way of becoming permanent.

    Obama's policy was totally different, as has been explained here.


    It is the country of origin (none / 0) (#21)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 08:55:38 PM EST
    As 2011 was for Iraq

    Ahhhhhh .... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 09:08:02 PM EST
    ... so like Saudi Arabia and 9/11?

    Perhaps? (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 09:04:29 PM EST
    In those countries, perhaps genocide has been practiced on the Christians.

    "Perhaps" doesn't justify religious discrimination.

    On 7 countries that are terror centers. And it is temporary, much like Obama did in 2011

    The only thing that's similar about it is Trump's claim that it is temporary.  Obama never had a ban, temporary or otherwise.  Visa application processing slowed when they re-examined their screening procedures in response to a specific threat - the discovery that two Iraqi refugees had been implicated in bomb-making in Iraq that had targeted U.S. troops. Not to mention the fact that the evaluation of screening procedures did not prevent all citizens of that country, including green-card holders, from traveling to the United States, as Trump has done.


    Once again (none / 0) (#24)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 09:09:47 PM EST
    It is a country wide ban, temporarily.  
    If they allow some from those countries that have been subject to genocide.......

    Once again ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 10:13:50 PM EST
    ... it's not remotely "similar" to what Obama did.  Obama never had a ban at all.

    No idea what your last sentence is supposed to mean, but much like Trump, you offer no evidence to back up your claims of a "perhaps" genocide against Christians.  In fact, ISIS has killed far more Shiite Muslims (and even Sunni Muslims thst ISIS claims to fight for) than Christians.


    We're SCARED! (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    On 7 countries that are terror centers.

    I am thousands of times more likely to be killed by a fellow native American citizen, either drunk and behind the wheel, or armed with the Second Amendment than I am by a Muslim with a grudge.

    Why should I waste a moment's thought on the insignificant threat of a foreign terrorist, next to the statistically far more significant danger posed by my fellow Americans?   Why should the taxpayers waste a nickel on those fears?   After all, how much of the day do you spend worrying about the very real danger posed by armed Americans or drunks?

    If we accept tens of thousands of deaths by firearms as the "price of the freedom protected by the 2nd Amendment," then why are we so terrified of a threat that inflicts as much harm as a bad traffic accident?

    I will say this.  Anyone who is afraid of foreign terrorists in the United States is a coward and does not deserve the freedom he or she demands.

    Are you a coward or do you believe in freedom?  When did cowardice become the defining American characteristic.  I may be in the minority, but I prefer freedom.


    Come up with (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 10:08:39 PM EST
    Some cockamamie justication as to why KSA and UAE were left off the list to go along with your other cockamamie justifications for this policy. I am curios to read whatever other dreck you can fabricate.

    They used the 7 countries (none / 0) (#29)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 05:25:43 AM EST
    listed by the Obama administration, and added 3 terror ridden countries.
    Correctly, the policy itself can be argued as draconian, but it was what he said he would do during the campaign.
    The actual rollout of this policy was amateur hour, and appears to have been run by White House personnel as opposed to coordinating with the appropriate agencies.
    Hopefully this will diminish the authority of those who rolled this out in this fashion.

    TrevorBolder: "They used the 7 countries listed by the Obama administration, and added 3 terror ridden countries."

    ... a travel advisory from the Obama administration for Americans who were either going abroad in 2015 or already overseas. It was not a travel ban on inhabitants of those countries who were coming to the United States. Any attempt to establish a correlation between then and now is inappropriate.



    Why are you asking me? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Yman on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 08:44:38 PM EST
    I'm not the one who promised a Muslim ban while campaigning.  I'm not one of the 90% of Republicans who voted for him after he made this promise.  I'm not the one who Guiliani said told him to come up with a "Muslim ban".

    But if you want my opinion, they were trying to come up with a pretext for a ban that they thought would be legal.  That's what Trump's right-hand man said.

    Still can't figure out why anyone would cite a statement from Trump as evidence of anything - particularly his facile attempt to hide behind Obama.


    I deleted the quote of Donald Trump (none / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:39:22 AM EST
    No false facts here please

    The sun rises on an awful day in America (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 06:07:24 AM EST
    But NYT says Flynn has been "layered over" as Bannon emerges as most influential. So Uhhhh Flynn, start leaking my man.

    I would never cross Flynn. I wouldn't place myself in any sort of position near Flynn if I could help it.

    Flynn is not the topic here (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:42:20 AM EST
    please use an open thread for him

    MAGA #4 (none / 0) (#4)
    by vicndabx on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 04:28:32 PM EST
    Didn't include Pakistan either. You know the country that harbored Bin Laden and has a Taliban cheering section. Even Guiliani and Fox wondering on that one.

    Kevin Drum at Mother Jones says it all: (none / 0) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 04:30:03 PM EST
    LINK. "As always, Republicans are ruled by a mean-spiritedness that's just plain nauseating. They're perfectly willing to go along with a plan that will cause tremendous hardship for other people even though they know perfectly well it will do nothing for national security. Its only real purpose is to send a message to a GOP base eager for a show of bravado against the rest of the world. Is that worth a bit of senseless cruelty aimed at defenseless foreigners? Of course it is. Hell, that's the whole point. And the suffering this causes? As usual, they just don't give a damn."


    Not just mean spiritedness. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 04:47:58 PM EST
    These people all believe that if someone else is winning or rising in life, then they think they are losing something. The fear of the "other" is beyond idiotic.

    I thought it (the VISA waiver exemption countries) (none / 0) (#11)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 06:22:17 PM EST
    was "compiled" by the Republican Congress and attached to the omnibus spending bill - which Obama signed. Anyhow, VISA waiver exemption is not the same as a ban

    You haven't been here long. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Chuck0 on Sun Jan 29, 2017 at 06:52:08 PM EST
    Read a history book. It is not hyperbole.

    Republican Trump (none / 0) (#28)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 03:48:02 AM EST
    is using President Obama to deflect criticism

    Trump targets same 7 Countries Obama (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    In December 2015, President Obama signed into law a measure placing limited restrictions on certain travelers who had visited Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria on or after March 1, 2011. Two months later, the Obama administration added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen to the list, in what it called an effort to address "the growing threat from foreign terrorist fighters."

    The restrictions specifically limited what is known as visa-waiver travel by those who had visited one of the seven countries within the specified time period. People who previously could have entered the United States without a visa were instead required to apply for one if they had traveled to one of the seven countries.

    Under the law, dual citizens of visa-waiver countries and Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria could no longer travel to the U.S. without a visa. Dual citizens of Libya, Somalia, and Yemen could, however, still use the visa-waiver program if they hadn't traveled to any of the seven countries after March 2011.

    Trump's order is much broader. It bans all citizens from those seven countries from entering the U.S. and leaves green card holders subject to being rescreened after visiting those countries.

    Aweful nice of Obama to not target the (none / 0) (#34)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    countries Trump had business interests in.

    If you support Trump's ban (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    why not explain why, the reasons for the ban and how it will help?

    Relying on Obama is a silly artifice.  Trump looked for some cover....and of course found cover for not affecting the countries in which he has business interest.  


    I have no opinion on Obama's nor Trump's (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 02:38:05 PM EST
    actions re: the 7 countries. I think the most likely scenario is that our gvt previously identified 7 problem countries and now still considers them problematical.

    First you say (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 04:46:27 PM EST
    I have no opinion on Obama's nor Trump's actions re: the 7 countries.

    Then you provide the opinion that the previous sentence said you didn't have.  This is why you didn't do well on that written English paper.  What you write is supposed to make sense.

    I think the most likely scenario is that our gvt previously identified 7 problem countries and now still considers them problematical.

    Our government didn't previously ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 04:26:29 PM EST
    ... ban immigration from those countries.  Nor did it give preferential treatment to Christians at the expense of "others" from those countries.

    But it's not surprising that Trump would try to hide behind Obama by starting with those seven countries.


    commented in response to:
    Trump Excludes Muslim Countries With Trump Org. Financial Ties From Ban

    yes you did (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 12:44:25 AM EST
    the snipe at you was deleted.

    religion (none / 0) (#45)
    by thomas rogan on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 09:55:09 PM EST
    People seem to think that the US should have let in German Jews in the 1930's although it banned immigration in general.  So what is wrong with priorizing Christians from radicalized Moslem countries, since they are at much greater risk than Moslem arabs and if anything are the ones who need political asylum and protection from killings, church bombings, priest murders, etc.    

    Let me help (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 11:44:06 PM EST
    So what is wrong with priorizing Christians from radicalized Moslem countries,

    The government is required by the First Amendment to treat all religions the same.  It is prohibited from making distinctions between them.

    So the answer to your questions is: First Amendment.

    You either appreciate the Constitution or you don't.  Now we know how you feel about religious freedom.


    And if those (none / 0) (#51)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 05:33:39 AM EST
    Looking for refugee status, are a minority in that country, and oppressed, it matters not that they are all the same religion?

    That is why they are oppressed, because of their religion.


    All of those (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 06:15:37 AM EST
    organizations who vet the refugees take that into consideration. Remember that there are a lot of Muslims being massacred because they are the "wrong" kind of Muslim.

    So by that logic, ... (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 12:44:11 PM EST
    ... he should be giving preferential treatment to Yazidis, Turkmen and Shiites, too ... right?

    I never heard of a "Moslem" (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:00:35 PM EST
    country.  Do they have a lot of A-rabs?

    grammer police? (none / 0) (#47)
    by linea on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:20:14 PM EST
    "Moslem is an alternate spelling of Muslim. The words have the same meanings in all contexts, and both spellings have been in use for several centuries. Moslem was the preferred spelling until the first half of the 20th century. Today, Muslim is the preferred spelling."

    you dont feel he posted a reasonable question worth responding to?


    No (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:24:16 PM EST
    I think Pamela Geller calls them Moslems (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Wed Feb 01, 2017 at 02:02:31 PM EST
    or Moors or Saracens or blackamoors, I can't remember which.

    Spelling is not grammar (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Peter G on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 11:09:50 AM EST
    and "grammer" is neither.

    But what if they were :)? (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jan 31, 2017 at 11:05:30 PM EST
    Are we on the cusp of changing grammar's Webster's definition yet? They've been great over there. If I keep using words incorrectly long enough, they change the definition for me. Did I mention they're great folks over there? I am blaming them for starting this alternative facts sh*t.

    A double "no" (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 30, 2017 at 10:52:42 PM EST
    to someone dismissive of the Jewish passengers on the Voyage of the Damned. "People seem to think," he wrote???