OBAMA Bombed 5 Out Of The 7 Countries TRUMP Banned — MEDIA DIDN’T CARE

Just to put things in perspective, people are freaking out about a temporary travel ban but didn't give a crap when the previous administration killed them on the ground in their own countries.... just food for thought.

www.blacklistednews.com...—_Media_Didn’t_Care/56571/0/38/38/Y/M.html

While the lying media is freaking out over President Trump’s travel ban for seven Middle Eastern countries deemed security risks, they didn’t give a damn about Obama bombing them.

Though the media is currently in a tizzy because Trump’s executive order held up around 300 people at airports, Obama’s bombings were reported as completely reasonable to bring about peace.

Out of the seven countries that were banned by President Trump last Friday, five were bombed by the Obama administration: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya and Somalia.


Where were the George Soros funded organizations protesting the “nearly 100 attacks” that have occurred since 2009 in Yemen “resulting in the deaths of hundreds of militants, but also many civilians?”

Did Chuck Schumer shed a tear for the 62 Syrian troops killed and 100 more wounded that the Obama administration “accidentally bombed” in 2016?


It’s fine for the Nobel Peace Prize winning President to bomb these people in their own countries, but for President Trump to temporarily prevent them from traveling to our country to keep America safe is “un-American” and “unconstitutional.”

Obviously, you didn't get the new directives issued by resident liberals declaring Obama off limits in any current political discussions.

Tread carefully.

nm

Obama bombed Muslims? He obviously killed/murdered a great many of them.

But that's not as bad as what Donald Trump is doing, by not letting a few into America.

a reply to: infolurker


Starred and flagged.


But really you should be banned for uncovering blatant hypocrisy in the leftist swine we call the MSM news.

Thanks for making a thread about this. I also remember the cheerleading from MSNBC and CNN in the lead up to Iraq and Libya. It was sickening and they pretend it never happened in regards to Iraq. The propaganda from them to bomb Syria was intense too but the British parliament got in the way of that, not that funding extremists in the ongoing civil war ended up being much better... probably. It's not like Libya and Iraq are any better off because of the direct interventions there. All of the above are a mess.

Selective outrage is the new thing.

Its virtue signalling.

I seen a Reddit post with a soldier next to a foreign girl saying something along the lines "we bombed her country and shes not allowed in ours"

We should be helping them yes, but in their own country.

Give the Man some time.

He will.

a reply to: muSSang

It should also be remembered the only time Americans voted for the candidate with the greater militaristic foreign interventionist agenda was Bush in 2004. Obama ran as less interventionist than McCain or Romney and Trump less interventionist than Hillary. The MSM and the establishment supported and advocated these wars but the American people did not.

Bush 2004 was after 9/11 and people were still not thinking rationally. What Bush did in attacking Iraq and naming Iran and N. Korea as the axis of evil was akin to attacking China after Pearl Harbor and naming Siam and Argentina as the axis of evil. If there is a modern day axis of evil Saudi is their leader with Pakistan and Afghanistan being the other members. Bush got one right but his methods in combating these new threats were laughably outdated. Shock and awe (blitzkrieg) might have worked in the 1930s but today war is fought in a very different manner.

a reply to: infolurker

Will you people make your minds up? I thought Obama created the terrorist? So wait, now he didn't?

Wait, weren't you guys on ATS going on and on about how he did nothing?

I don't know what to believe anymore.

So, Obama was combating terrorism?

a reply to: Tsubaki

Obama didn't do anything other than follow. In Libya he followed the French President and in Syria the British parliament when he backed down from the red line and then funded dubious groups there when the establishment politicians pressed him for action. He wanted to achieve regime change goals without looking like a warmonger and in the end it may have lead to more loss of life, certainly more than if he had rejected those goals outright.

a reply to: infolurker

You're right, from the other side is typical knee jerk reaction. Happens all the time. Basically go for it without thought or sitting back and waiting for a result.

These type of people have no idea. Very little focus without looking to the bigger picture in the long run. If it fails, sure, wave your signs and beat your drums. If it works then reword the sign and beat a drum in support. Betcha they wouldn't march in support when it works in the longer term. Neither would the current imbecile media. Get it right.

Stupid people.

Every march costs millions. Go back to work. Oh,,,orr, should've have said that aye.

Kind regards,

bally

It all comes down to the media manipulation of the left. The media, Hollywood, Academia are all in the business of indoctrination. You'll find that when the media is outraged, these people are outraged.

originally posted by: TheBulk
It all comes down to the media manipulation of the left. The media, Hollywood, Academia are all in the business of indoctrination. You'll find that when the media is outraged, these people are outraged.

They are labeled sheep for a reason.

originally posted by: MysticPearl
Selective outrage is the new thing.

It's a leftist swine thing. You wouldn't understand.

What's amazing is the MSM news is reinforcing these ideas.

Completely eradicating the idea of cognitive dissonance the bleeding heart liberals experience by presenting one-sided leftist propaganda.

But Obama has a Nobel PEACE Prize!!!
He's Peaceful and Promotes Peace!
So those were 'Peaceful Love Bombs of Friendship'...

The media sure has indoctrinated people to some extreme insanity this time around...
The way these kids here at the university talk these days is utterly ridiculous and hysterical.

originally posted by: Tsubaki
a reply to: infolurker

Will you people make your minds up? I thought Obama created the terrorist? So wait, now he didn't?

Wait, weren't you guys on ATS going on and on about how he did nothing?

I don't know what to believe anymore.

So, Obama was combating terrorism?

The way I understand it, although this may be a bit simplified:

He was a small part of a larger group that created/funded/supplied/supported the terrorists in order to have A) a boogeyman to fight(contractors/weapons manufacturers make money, guys in the pentagon get promoted and pay raise, other news gets covered up by ISIS coverage, it has multiple benefits), and B) a reason to bring a bunch of people into western nations who will, a) be pissed off we bombed their country and cause problems, like terrorist attacks, allowing our freedoms to be curtailed even more, and b) be a huge voting block for the dems who brought them in the country and gives them all the free stuff they want, and c) help create the "global community" they want...they're thinking 50-100 years in the future, trying to create a One World Government. In order to achieve this, they have to destroy the sense of nationalism, national pride, especially in the most powerful nations, like the Western Alliance... How they plan to deal with nations like China? Well, their population is already swelled, so perhaps they have another large scale war planned, if China does not "correct" the problem on their own.

So yes, he "helped" create them (basically just by okaying other, more powerful peoples ideas), AND he is/was "fighting them", all at the same time while ALSO "not doing enough" to combat terrorism (his masters don't want it totally defeated... they need them around still for a while longer).

It all depends on your perspective. If you don't see the bigger picture, it might seem from your perspective that he is/was "not doing enough", or helped create them, or you might see that he is/was "valiantly fighting the terrorists" from your perspective, which, technically, he is/was...just enough for show, but not enough to really kick the SH outta them... cause he and his masters don't want them totally defeated. When you see the bigger picture, however, you see that he is/was doing all these things, as a part of a more complex, long term agenda. It's not so black and white as saying that he is/was either "a terrorist or a sympathizer or supporter of terrorism" or is/was "totally kicking the terrorists asses every chance he gets to the fullest extent".



Anyway, to the OP, this is funny, they are apparently so evil we need to bomb the crap out of them, but not so evil that we shouldn't welcome them into our nation with open arms. But of course, Obama has magical bombs that can only hurt "the bad guys". And America has magical borders that only "good guys" can go across... lol. Oh, and everything Trump does is evil and his intentions are all wicked and he just wants everyone to die and suffer... lol.

Of course when Obama was killing all these people, it was no biggie... only when a white person kills a non-white, then it is wrong and actually visible to people. But when a nonwhite person does it, it's a non issue. Just like Chicago, all the black on black violence is the white mans fault, or it is simply not an issue at all. So Obama could kill all the brown people he wants and it's ok. But if Trump doesn't let a few of them into our country, OMG, that Fking BASTARD... you evil Sunofabitch TRUMP how dare you???!!! He's Hitler and Obama is Jesus Christ .

originally posted by: carewemust
Obama bombed Muslims? He obviously killed/murdered a great many of them.

But that's not as bad as what Donald Trump is doing, by not letting a few into America.

Holy cow dung. There is proof that Dems actually think it is worse to keep them from moving in THAN TO BOMB THEM.