Jihadist groups hail Trump’s travel ban as a "victory"

Jihadist groups on Sunday celebrated the Trump administration’s ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries, saying the new policy validates their claim that the United States is at war with Islam.

Comments posted to pro-Islamic State social media accounts predicted that Trump’s E.O. would persuade American Muslims to side with the extremists. One posting hailed the U.S. president as “the best caller to Islam,” while others predicted that Trump would soon launch a new war in the Middle East.

“[Islamic State leader Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi has the right to come out and inform Trump that banning Muslims from entering America is a ‘blessed ban,’” said one posting to a pro-Islamic State channel on Telegram, a social-media platform. The writer compared the executive order to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which Islamic militant leaders at the time hailed as a “blessed invasion” that ignited anti-Western fervor across the Islamic world.

Several postings suggested that Trump was fulfilling the predictions of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American born al-Qaeda leader and preacher who famously said that the “West would eventually turn against its Muslim citizens.”

Jihadist groups hail Trump’s travel ban as a victory
9/11, San Bernadino and the gay club massacre were victories which could have been pre-empted by this victory.
 
Here we go with averages again, they are just for losers.
That's true! Obama was definitely a "loser" in the eyes of the American people. That's why the Dumbocrats lost nearly 1,000 seats during his reign of terror and why is average is so pitiful.

The fact is - if Obama was "popular" with the American people he would have a very high average. Not one of the lowest all time.

Hard to have very high approval ratings when a fairly substantial group of Americans still believe that he is a Kenyan Muslim (and rather dark-skinned)....Nonetheless, Obama, in spite of several mistakes he made, STILL managed in approval ratings, in all 16 polls compiled by Real Clear Politics an average of 53.1 percent. ......Heck, Fox has him at 57% and even Rasmussen at 62%.

Now, of course, Obama is not that popular in Patsy's trailer park but luckily that trailer park is NOT America.
 
No "average" here either buttercup....

Opinion | Bush’s ratings beat Obama’s
The above eternal moron (Patsy) had to find a poll from back in 2013.......
How can one not love nat4900 "logic". Barack Obama's official approval rating after 5 years (which means one full term in office) is "irrelevant" but President Trump's approval rating just 5 days on the job is so important, it requires multiple threads and a discussion ad nauseam.

What a partisan hack.... :lmao:
 
How desperate does one have to be to talk about "approval ratings" after one week in office?


Aren't you one of those brainwashed Trumpster who goes around spewing, ..."...Trump has done more in a week than most presidents have done in 6 months...."???

Live with the results......LOL
 
How desperate does one have to be to talk about "approval ratings" after one week in office?
Aren't you one of those brainwashed Trumpster who goes around spewing, ..."...Trump has done more in a week than most presidents have done in 6 months...."???

Live with the results......LOL
He has accomplished more in six months than Obama did in 8 years. He's repaired relations around the world that Obama destroyed. He's restored U.S. sovereignty. He's created jobs that Obama sent overseas. He's approved affordable energy that will lower prices which Obama "necessarily caused" to skyrocket.

The issue is that you arbitrarily dismiss all of Obama's record-low approval ratings while screaming about Trump's after one week. Tell you what buttercup - let's wait one year and then have a discussion. Ok? Otherwise you just sound like a butt hurt partisan hack (which you are - but I'm assuming you don't want to present yourself in that light because you're all about lying).
 
9/11, San Bernadino and the gay club massacre were victories which could have been pre-empted by this victory.


Actually, 9-11 could have been prevented if the GWB entourage bothered to read their daily briefings...Of course, Trump is "too smart" to also read those........
(maybe his wife can read those briefings to him.)
 
9/11, San Bernadino and the gay club massacre were victories which could have been pre-empted by this victory.


Actually, 9-11 could have been prevented if the GWB entourage bothered to read their daily briefings...Of course, Trump is "too smart" to also read those........
(maybe his wife can read those briefings to him.)
He did read them. Unfortunately, he was following a Dumbocrat president who did what Dumbocrat presidents always do - ignored national security and cut defense.
 
He did read them. Unfortunately, he was following a Dumbocrat president who did what Dumbocrat presidents always do - ignored national security and cut defense.

Re-read what you wrote and you TOO would agree what a fucked lame retort that is....LOL
 
He did read them. Unfortunately, he was following a Dumbocrat president who did what Dumbocrat presidents always do - ignored national security and cut defense.

Re-read what you wrote and you TOO would agree what a fucked lame retort that is....LOL
Bill Clinton had 8 freaking years to take care of Al Qaeda and he completely ignored them. Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton. They had him. He told them "no". On top of that - he cut defense half a trillion dollars over his 8 years.

And...even Bill Clinton himself admitted he could have killed Bin Laden and chose not to. Humiliated yet nat4900? You should be...

Bill Clinton: 'I could have killed' Osama bin Laden in 1998

Bill Clinton: "I could have killed" Osama bin Laden - CBS News

Bill Clinton and the missed opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden
 
Bill Clinton had 8 freaking years to take care of Al Qaeda and he completely ignored them. Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton. They had him. He told them "no". On top of that - he cut defense half a trillion dollars over his 8 years.

And...even Bill Clinton himself admitted he could have killed Bin Laden and chose not to. Humiliated yet nat4900? You should be...


You're such a huge moron and you don't seem to want to hide how truly fucked up you are.....

Bill Clinton back in early 1996 HAD NO BASIS to capture or kill OBL.....NO REASONS besides OBL badmouthing the US for having our soldiers in Saudi Arabia......

If our government had to go after everyone what bad mouths its policies, you and your ilk would REALLY be in re-education camps.God knows you are in NEED of some education .
 
Bill Clinton back in early 1996 HAD NO BASIS to capture or kill OBL.....NO REASONS besides OBL badmouthing the US for having our soldiers in Saudi Arabia......
Bwahahahahaha!!! Oh man...you are more ignorant about U.S. history than any person I have ever encountered. Every post you make is humiliating for you.

Bin Laden was behind the first bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993. I can tell by your immature posts that you clearly weren't around then.

Five years later - in 1998 - he was behind our embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. It was at that time that he was named to the F.B.I.'s Most Wanted list.

You moron. Even though you're too ignorant of history to know this stuff - common fucking sense should tell you that if Bill Clinton was speaking about killing Bin Laden it was clearly due to his crimes against the U.S. :eusa_doh:
 
Bill Clinton back in early 1996 HAD NO BASIS to capture or kill OBL.....NO REASONS besides OBL badmouthing the US for having our soldiers in Saudi Arabia......
Yes folks....our little progressive high school friend here really is this ignorant of the topic at hand. But it doesn't stop this fragile little snowflake from popping off at the mouth anyway.
 
Yes folks....our little progressive high school friend here really is this ignorant of the topic at hand. But it doesn't stop this fragile little snowflake from popping off at the mouth anyway.

Still the same fucked up moron, Patsy???

READ the 9/11 Commission report and you would see that I am 100% correct.....NO BASIS to capture or kill OBL back in 1996.....NONE...........In 1998, the evidence had changed and Clinton did order a strike in Kandahar where we thought OBL was hiding.

Of course, Sean Hannity tells you to "think" otherwise; so, being the idiot that you are, you listen to Seany............

Go have another drink and sit on your toilet to come up with another of your "versions."........LOL
 
Yes folks....our little progressive high school friend here really is this ignorant of the topic at hand. But it doesn't stop this fragile little snowflake from popping off at the mouth anyway.
NO BASIS to capture or kill OBL back in 1996.....NONE..........
Bwahahahahaha!!! The fragile little snowflake doubles-down :lmao:

Buttercup...Osama Bin Laden was behind the first WTC bombing in 1993. That is a fact. And that is very much a basis to "capture or kill" Osama Bin Laden. And Clinton was well aware of it. But being a Dumbocrat - he ignored him, neglected national security (even losing the nuclear codes), and cut defense to the tune of half a trillion dollars over his 8 years in office.

Instead of allowing your ego to cause you to double-down on your stupidity - you should try reading this sometime....

IMG_3172.JPG
 

Forum List

Back
Top