It's a great rhetorical strategy to conflate the attacks on various militant groups (that many people did oppose) with a blanket policy based on country of origin, but it's pretty weak sauce.
It's possible to think that bombing is wrong, while still holding the opinion that the immigration order is worse.
You're seeing the conservative social media strategy in action -- repeat talking points to divert discussion whenever "their side" is criticized.
If we want real discussion we have to ignore efforts to change the subject!
'...the conservative social media strategy in action -- repeat talking points to divert discussion whenever "their side" is criticized.'
tomp isn't trying to change the subject. Instead he asks a valid moral question: why would someone refuse to visit the USA because of Trump's (comparatively insignificant) executive order, yet the same person not be put off by a far more morally repugnant act: Obama's killing of thousands with drone attacks.
tomp also has a strong argument in his comment below about hypocrisy. I'd want him on my team in a debate - he sounds like an honest man.
I mean, I'm not happy that America has been at war since 9/11. I simply don't think I can attack America for being in wars, that my own country is participating in, at least not without being a hypocrite.