Donald Trump wants to ban ALL Muslims entering the US

His ban targeted shia muslims.

 

His ban targeted Iranian nationals because he sought to put pressure on the government of Iran to secure the release of American hostages. If the same hostage crisis had unfolded with China or Argentina, we may have done the same. Islam wasn't a factor in the ban.

 

swing and a miss. Perhaps there is some picture you could misidentify to help make your point though.

 

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Pew: 2.75m Muslims in US. 81% say killing civilians in name of Islam never justified; 5% say rarely justified; 7% sometimes; 1% often; 6% DK</p>&mdash; Byron York (@ByronYork) <a href="https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/674932901151121408">December 10, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

I wonder how those numbers compare to the numbers who believe killing innocents in the war against terror is justified? What are the numbers that have no problem with collateral damage we've inflicted in Afghanistan, and Iraq?

 

Seems about the norm relative to what percentage of Conservative Americans are fine with 'collateral damage' aka killing civilians.

 

You believe those things to be morally equivalent?

 

Poll results can be deceiving without any context or baselines. Here's a similar poll that paints an entirely different picture than you're suggesting.

Gallup Poll:

 

Was it Gallup or "Muslim American Polls"? Is there a direct link to the Gallup study in which these poll questions appeared?

 

Afghanistan, no; Iraq, yes. Iraq will eventually turn out to be the biggest mistake in American history between body count, fiscal outlay and complete and utter avoidability.

 

His good friends, the Clinton's, have made him promises and his part of the deal is to ensure Hilary wins. He's doing a hell of a job. Why the GOP hasn't kicked him out is beyond laughable, dude is not a Republican at all.

 

I think it has quite a ways to go to come close to Vietnam. The targeting of civilians by a nation seems to go in and out of style. RMS Lusitania, fire bombings, napalm...

 

In the perspective of the dead Iaqi toddler... Ya... Probably ya.

 

what about your perspective? I'm sure dead people were against it.

 

My perspective is state sanctioned killing of a toddler is as morally reprehensible as terrorist sanctioned killing of a toddler.

 

So intention or reasoning (spread democracy vs spread religion) has no bearing, just results.

 

Easy enough to find:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx

 

If someone drops a bomb on your family, would it make you feel better if they told you that they didn't mean to hit your family but rather some radical Christians that were in the area and a threat to them therefore they were totally justified in the attack?

 

That's a reprehensible moral equivalence.

As if the fire bombings of Dresden were morally equivalent to the 9/11 attacks.

 

Fire bombing of Dresden was one of the worst crimes the U.S. ever committed - resulting on the scale of 100k lives lost and was totally unnecessary.