That's some quite revisionist history there... The Syrian conflict isnt even that old.

It started in 2011.

In 2013, US starting supplying arms to syrian rebels. This was our first intervention in the conflict.

In Sept 2014, Obama gave his syria speech and Congress authorized action in Syria. Bombing started shortly after w/ other countries participation.

How does 2 years suddenly turn into 8? And doesn't Congressional approval for the action, conflict with this idea that Obama was acting in Syria alone?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/...

That means that the civil war and the refugee crisis are at least in part the direct results of actions of the United States.

Your link, nor the actual wikileaks document supports the claim that US sent the CIA into Syria in 2006.

It talks about funding to Freedom House, American University and others for information, conferences, etc.

I think you would have a good point if it were true about CIA involvement.. but I believe people have a right to speech. And that's all that this appears to be.

I'm not ready to agree that the US is the source of the Syrian civil war just because we encouraged speech without the approval of a dictator.

He's destroying the lives of my friends. There are 100,000 such people affected according to the DOJ in court, and they all have friends as well.

Geopolitics is complicated, and the right action isn't so obvious that I'm going to be in the streets whenever someone drops a bomb. I don't and can't understand things with enough certainty to be outraged. This situation is obvious. He's destroying lives for useless political pandering.

The difference is not the degree of immorality, but my certainty of it.

Moreover, a president who bombs other countries is not going to suddenly bomb me. This president already tried to deport my friends, and almost all of my friends are immigrants. Can any of us feel safe now?

You know that Syrian refugee crisis that's going on where nearly 500,000 have already died and countless more are permanently injured? How many lives do you think that has ruined? Did you also know that the wikileaks cables revealed that the Obama's CIA was in Syria and stoked the fires to start that civil war?

>Moreover, a president who bombs other countries is not going to suddenly bomb me. This president already tried to deport my friends, and almost all of my friends are immigrants.

You know what? That's really shitty. I didn't vote for Trump, don't support this retarded EO, and will be glad when he's gone. But it's absolutely disgusting that you can consider this shit incident to be anything close to the magnitude of the lives the government has destroyed over the last 16 years. This is trivial by comparison.

Plus, the United States is sickeningly nationalistic, and still carries a hint of pride about its immigrant origins. "This child wanted to come into the U.S., but the cruel President Trump won't let him!" packs more punch than "President Obama issued a drone strike against one side of a multifaceted conflict in a small country you know nothing about."

There's also the fact that Obama was on the team that typically opposes military intervention and racism (at least ideologically...), and it's harder to get people outraged at their own side. The Republicans might have had trouble riling up their base with drone strikes on muslims, so they went for other hot buttons. The Democrats, on the other hand, are perfectly happy to sink their teeth into the travel ban.

I'm one step more cynical than that. I think this is the butt-hurt media riling people up because their darling lost the election. Oh, and of course ratings. When the news broke via wikileaks that the CIA, under Obama, started the Syrian civil war which as led to half a million deaths it was barely a blip on the radar because the media liked the guy who did it.

And just so I understand you correctly.. you're saying the green card holders and other visa holders who had their lives disrupted by this order, the judges who ruled that the order is likely illegal, the 97 tech companies in this article whos lawyers think this is illegal, Sally Yates, ACLU, Cato institute, state AGs in CA, WA, CT, HI, IL, IA, ME, MD, NM, NY, OR, PA, VT, VA, and DC...

are all acting entirely politically.

You're even accusing the judicial branch, including judge(s?) appointed by republicans, of ruling against this order because the dems lost an election?

The Syrian civil war is at least in part THE RESULT of US involvement.

I'm not saying the green card holders are acting politically. I'm saying the thousands of people protesting are expressing partisan bullshit selective outrage.

Obama bombed Syria so much we literally ran out of bombs. I'm going to repeat that again for effect. The United States of Bomb-merica bombed Syria so much we ran out of bombs. We're making cluster bombs and selling them to be dropped on these places, weapons which the use of is a war crime in most of the world. For years there's not been an peep out of these people. Now suddenly some people can't travel where they wanted to and it's like the next rise of Hitler. Gimme a break, there's half a million dead on Obama's hands and nobody gave a shit.

The EO was a pretty shit idea. I don't support it and I don't support Trump. If the Judicial is able to clear it up, then that's great. The group(s) I was referring to with the political posturing are the media with frankly disgusting coverage intended to inflame an already delicate situation, and the protesters who are largely their pawns.

In fact, if you read the actual document from Wikileaks, the funding seems to consist of funds for informational campaigns, conferences, etc -- all talk. A lot of it entirely outside of Syria. And the amount is fairly small as well - $6m over 4 years. No military/cia operations, nothing about rebels, etc are found in the document.

To get back to the topic though.. I would suggest that if the issue is legitimate, then the protest is also legitimate.