Trumps purpose was never a Muslim ban

[beagle9]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Had nothing to do with "national security" either.

It was all about pleasing his blue collar voters.

. You got something against blue collar American's ? Do tell...

 

[Vandalshandle]

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

Well, if you were in Ireland, and the IRA is starting up again, i guess that the odds would be pretty good that Catholics are going to bomb the place...

. You can say this, but can't recognize the dangers that have taken place here on such a topic ? Hypocrite.

I have no idea what dangers you are talking about. But, then, I don't give the slightest credence to Trump and his fear mongers, so I don't lie awake every night scared half to death of the imaginary muslim under my bed.

 

[task0778]

" So you are certain that Trump was just as eager to ban Christian Syrians as he was Muslim Syrians? "

Of course not, the Christian Syrians are not the ones we have to worry about committing terrorist attacks against us. But he could not deny entry to the Muslims without also denying entry to Christians and every other religious group, which as you know would then be a muslim ban.

Were you aware that the first EO (and possibly the second, which I haven't read) had an explicit EXCEPTION for Christian refugees from Syria?

That is not true. Trump's 1st EO does have a provision that allows the Secy of State or Secy of Homeland Security to grant an exception to the ban on a case by case basis, but that provision is NOT exclusive to Christians. You are misrepresenting the truth sir.

Okay, it was limited to MINORITY RELIGIONS in Syria, which backhandedly excludes the MAJORITY RELIGION.

Can you connect the dots from there?

Which is not the same as an explicit exception for Christians, is it? And it was to allow those being persecuted for their religion to escape. Which does sorta backhandedly exclude the majority religion, no?

So you admit that it was effectively a Muslim ban.

No it was not, in any way shape or form. You seem to have a propensity to put words in other people's mouth, and frankly you're not very good at it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Were you aware that the first EO (and possibly the second, which I haven't read) had an explicit EXCEPTION for Christian refugees from Syria?

That is not true. Trump's 1st EO does have a provision that allows the Secy of State or Secy of Homeland Security to grant an exception to the ban on a case by case basis, but that provision is NOT exclusive to Christians. You are misrepresenting the truth sir.

Okay, it was limited to MINORITY RELIGIONS in Syria, which backhandedly excludes the MAJORITY RELIGION.

Can you connect the dots from there?

Which is not the same as an explicit exception for Christians, is it? And it was to allow those being persecuted for their religion to escape. Which does sorta backhandedly exclude the majority religion, no?

So you admit that it was effectively a Muslim ban.

No it was not, in any way shape or form. You seem to have a propensity to put words in other people's mouth, and frankly you're not very good at it.

How can a ban that offers exceptions to all religions except Muslim not be a Muslim ban?

 

[task0778]

I've noticed where the disconnect is with conservatives and progressives on trumps statements about banning Muslims. The issue is the context.

Conservatives see Trumps statements on banning Muslim in the context he made them. Trump saw the immigration issue as a national security issue. We need to keep Jihadists from entering the country to protect ourselves. His first instinct was to ban Muslims to keep jihadists out and was foolish enough to say it because of his political inexperience. He was quickly told he couldn't do that and revised his position. Why?

Because his intent was never banning Muslims. His intent was national security. Banning Muslims was his mean to those ends until he realized he couldn't do that. Then he focused on more tailored approach.

Progressives on the other hand think his intention is to ban Muslims. Presumably because he is a hatefilled islamophobe who wants to oppress minorities or some nonsense like that. They are completely losing the obvious national security issue with jihadists.

To conservatives his foolish statements were a means to an end: national security. Why? Because that's the context the statements were made. To progressives his statements were the ends and he is going to implement them by any means.

But trump never cared about banning Muslims in and of itself. Here are five reasons at prove that:

1) the context he made his statements were always wit national security in mind.

2) his executive order does not attempt to ban Muslims or any other group based on religion. it does not even attempt to apply to all muslims

3) it applies to all people in the affected countries regardless to religious iviewpoints

4) removing Iraq from the list when they complied with what the administration requested shows they never cared about banning Muslims.

5) the order has always been temporary, which makes no sense if the purpose was secretly to ban Muslims.

Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.

Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?

..and Trump has been in office for almost 60 days, and his "temporary ban" was supposed to be 90 days, "until we find out just what is going on...". So, I am wondering just why he insists on taking the issue to the SC, since that would only happen long after the 90 day "temporary" ban would have expired. It certainly looks like Trump is not going to lift a finger to vet anybody until he wins his court fight, which is, of course, driven by his ego, and not national security.

But, I understand his priorities. We simply MUST get to the bottom of the imaginary wiretapping by Obama before we deal with national security.

Unbelievable that you would post something so self-contradicting.

Twice Trump has tried to better the vetting process and twice now he has been hamstrung by activist federal judges who acted out of authority they do not possess.

Trump's trying to do what good he can for the people, and liberal appointed judges are delaying the inevitable and committing career suicide.


I hope they get hammered. Illegally screwing around with the country's safety for political reasons is unconstitutional and quite possibly treasonous.

Excuse me, but Trump has been in office almost 2 months, and there is nothing stopping him from improving the vetting process. The only thing that has been stopped is the ban. Are you telling me that it is impossible to vet without a ban? if so, then what I am hearing is that the "temporary" ban is just another Trump lie, and that he intends to ban as long as there is a muslim in those countries that want to attack us.

What makes you think Trump isn't trying to improve the vetting process as we speak?

I think Trump knows very well that a permanent ban would not play well politically, abd would indicate a failure on his part to improve the vetti

That is not true. Trump's 1st EO does have a provision that allows the Secy of State or Secy of Homeland Security to grant an exception to the ban on a case by case basis, but that provision is NOT exclusive to Christians. You are misrepresenting the truth sir.

Okay, it was limited to MINORITY RELIGIONS in Syria, which backhandedly excludes the MAJORITY RELIGION.

Can you connect the dots from there?

Which is not the same as an explicit exception for Christians, is it? And it was to allow those being persecuted for their religion to escape. Which does sorta backhandedly exclude the majority religion, no?

So you admit that it was effectively a Muslim ban.

No it was not, in any way shape or form. You seem to have a propensity to put words in other people's mouth, and frankly you're not very good at it.

How can a ban that offers exceptions to all religions except Muslim not be a Muslim ban?

When you only ban 25% of the world's Muslims instead of all of them, that's not a ban on Muslims. When you ban people from only 7 of the world's 50 Muslim countries, that's not a ban on Muslims. When you allow exceptions to people being persecuted by Muslims from those 7 countries, that's not a Muslim ban either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then again he doesn't want to stop Saudis, even though more Saudis have killed people in the US than any other nationals from other Muslim countries.

Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?

..and Trump has been in office for almost 60 days, and his "temporary ban" was supposed to be 90 days, "until we find out just what is going on...". So, I am wondering just why he insists on taking the issue to the SC, since that would only happen long after the 90 day "temporary" ban would have expired. It certainly looks like Trump is not going to lift a finger to vet anybody until he wins his court fight, which is, of course, driven by his ego, and not national security.

But, I understand his priorities. We simply MUST get to the bottom of the imaginary wiretapping by Obama before we deal with national security.

Unbelievable that you would post something so self-contradicting.

Twice Trump has tried to better the vetting process and twice now he has been hamstrung by activist federal judges who acted out of authority they do not possess.

Trump's trying to do what good he can for the people, and liberal appointed judges are delaying the inevitable and committing career suicide.


I hope they get hammered. Illegally screwing around with the country's safety for political reasons is unconstitutional and quite possibly treasonous.

Excuse me, but Trump has been in office almost 2 months, and there is nothing stopping him from improving the vetting process. The only thing that has been stopped is the ban. Are you telling me that it is impossible to vet without a ban? if so, then what I am hearing is that the "temporary" ban is just another Trump lie, and that he intends to ban as long as there is a muslim in those countries that want to attack us.

What makes you think Trump isn't trying to improve the vetting process as we speak?

I think Trump knows very well that a permanent ban would not play well politically, abd would indicate a failure on his part to improve the vetti

Okay, it was limited to MINORITY RELIGIONS in Syria, which backhandedly excludes the MAJORITY RELIGION.

Can you connect the dots from there?

Which is not the same as an explicit exception for Christians, is it? And it was to allow those being persecuted for their religion to escape. Which does sorta backhandedly exclude the majority religion, no?

So you admit that it was effectively a Muslim ban.

No it was not, in any way shape or form. You seem to have a propensity to put words in other people's mouth, and frankly you're not very good at it.

How can a ban that offers exceptions to all religions except Muslim not be a Muslim ban?

When you only ban 25% of the world's Muslims instead of all of them, that's not a ban on Muslims. When you ban people from only 7 of the world's 50 Muslim countries, that's not a ban on Muslims. When you allow exceptions to people being persecuted by Muslims from those 7 countries, that's not a Muslim ban either.

Wrong. A ban on Syrian Muslims is a ban on MUSLIMS from Syria.

 

[task0778]

Were not trying to stop the Saudis because its not a Muslim ban. Its a temporary ban on travel from countries where it is difficult to vet people properly. There is not such a problem with Saudi Arabians, and there are very few Refugees that I know of coming out of Saudi Arabia. WHY is this so hard to understand?

..and Trump has been in office for almost 60 days, and his "temporary ban" was supposed to be 90 days, "until we find out just what is going on...". So, I am wondering just why he insists on taking the issue to the SC, since that would only happen long after the 90 day "temporary" ban would have expired. It certainly looks like Trump is not going to lift a finger to vet anybody until he wins his court fight, which is, of course, driven by his ego, and not national security.

But, I understand his priorities. We simply MUST get to the bottom of the imaginary wiretapping by Obama before we deal with national security.

Unbelievable that you would post something so self-contradicting.

Twice Trump has tried to better the vetting process and twice now he has been hamstrung by activist federal judges who acted out of authority they do not possess.

Trump's trying to do what good he can for the people, and liberal appointed judges are delaying the inevitable and committing career suicide.


I hope they get hammered. Illegally screwing around with the country's safety for political reasons is unconstitutional and quite possibly treasonous.

Excuse me, but Trump has been in office almost 2 months, and there is nothing stopping him from improving the vetting process. The only thing that has been stopped is the ban. Are you telling me that it is impossible to vet without a ban? if so, then what I am hearing is that the "temporary" ban is just another Trump lie, and that he intends to ban as long as there is a muslim in those countries that want to attack us.

What makes you think Trump isn't trying to improve the vetting process as we speak?

I think Trump knows very well that a permanent ban would not play well politically, abd would indicate a failure on his part to improve the vetti

Which is not the same as an explicit exception for Christians, is it? And it was to allow those being persecuted for their religion to escape. Which does sorta backhandedly exclude the majority religion, no?

So you admit that it was effectively a Muslim ban.

No it was not, in any way shape or form. You seem to have a propensity to put words in other people's mouth, and frankly you're not very good at it.

How can a ban that offers exceptions to all religions except Muslim not be a Muslim ban?

When you only ban 25% of the world's Muslims instead of all of them, that's not a ban on Muslims. When you ban people from only 7 of the world's 50 Muslim countries, that's not a ban on Muslims. When you allow exceptions to people being persecuted by Muslims from those 7 countries, that's not a Muslim ban either.

Wrong. A ban on Syrian Muslims is a ban on MUSLIMS from Syria.

It's you who is wrong, the ban on ANYONE from Syria is not a ban on Muslims from Syria. The fact that the EO allows exceptions on a case by case basis for non-Muslims does not mean that every non-Muslim is exempt from the ban. Ergo, Trump's EO is NOT a ban on Muslims.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

It only takes one ISIS terrorist to get through as a refugee (out of the thousands being let in) to use a Mack Truck to mow down a high school band marching in a local Christmas parade.

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

I don't know...you tell me
Man accused of Fort Lauderdale mass shooting has mental illness but can stand trial
Horror in Roseburg: 10 minutes, 10 deaths in Oregon's worst shooting
NBC News
Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting - Wikipedia
2014 Las Vegas shootings - Wikipedia
Shooter Had
Police: 'Paranoid' H-E-B employee shoots 4 colleagues, killing 1 at South Texas store
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Man arrested in connection with Braintree mall shooting
Police investigating shooting at Crossgates Mall, still searching for suspect
Black Friday 2016 Turns Deadly in Multiple Shootings at Malls

Still waiting for examples of Assad and/or his army beheading people.

 

[beagle9]

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

Well, if you were in Ireland, and the IRA is starting up again, i guess that the odds would be pretty good that Catholics are going to bomb the place...

. You can say this, but can't recognize the dangers that have taken place here on such a topic ? Hypocrite.

I have no idea what dangers you are talking about. But, then, I don't give the slightest credence to Trump and his fear mongers, so I don't lie awake every night scared half to death of the imaginary muslim under my bed.

. No idea eh ? Then Fort Hood and all the rest were just figments of everbodies imagination right ? Pathetic.

 

[boilermaker55]

You need to get "the gropenfuherers" member out of your mouth to see the truth, you cannot see it through his belly.

At a December 2015 rally in Charleston, South Carolina, just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, Trump told thousands of supporters:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
On a side note from this lying pile of excrement. "the donald" In a 1991 interview with Esquire, Donald Trump suggested that sexy girlfriends are the antidotes to bad press: "You know, it doesn't really matter what they write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."
... you know, that christian he professes to be.

During a July 2015 campaign event at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, Donald Trump took on Senator John McCain's reputation as a war hero.

"He's not a war hero," Trump explained, shocking the event's moderator. "He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."

I noticed you failed to post what he actually said .

He posted what he actually did.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You need to get "the gropenfuherers" member out of your mouth to see the truth, you cannot see it through his belly.

At a December 2015 rally in Charleston, South Carolina, just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, Trump told thousands of supporters:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."
On a side note from this lying pile of excrement. "the donald" In a 1991 interview with Esquire, Donald Trump suggested that sexy girlfriends are the antidotes to bad press: "You know, it doesn't really matter what they write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."
... you know, that christian he professes to be.

During a July 2015 campaign event at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, Donald Trump took on Senator John McCain's reputation as a war hero.

"He's not a war hero," Trump explained, shocking the event's moderator. "He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured."

I noticed you failed to post what he actually said .

He posted what he actually did.

Guess what? As president he is fully within his rights and duties to do exactly that if he so wishes.

That's a fact! There's even precedence on this kind of thing.

Carter did it with Iran, for example.

No, no liberal activist judge has the right to stop the president from performing his sworn duty to protect the citizens of the US.

 

[radical right]

When you only ban 25% of the world's Muslims instead of all of them, that's not a ban on Muslims. When you ban people from only 7 of the world's 50 Muslim countries, that's not a ban on Muslims. When you allow exceptions to people being persecuted by Muslims from those 7 countries, that's not a Muslim ban either.

Good point. When the nazi's only killed 25% of the worlds jews that wasn't a holocaust.

 

[radical right]

It's you who is wrong, the ban on ANYONE from Syria is not a ban on Muslims from Syria. The fact that the EO allows exceptions on a case by case basis for non-Muslims does not mean that every non-Muslim is exempt from the ban. Ergo, Trump's EO is NOT a ban on Muslims.

No children allowed. But they make exceptions for white children.

 

[radical right]

At a December 2015 rally in Charleston, South Carolina, just a few days after the San Bernardino shooting, Trump told thousands of supporters:

"Donald J. Trump is calling for a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on."

When the person who writes an EO said he was going to write a muslim ban, why back away from his promise now.

 

[radical right]

Guess what? As president he is fully within his rights and duties to do exactly that if he so wishes.

That's a fact! There's even precedence on this kind of thing.

Carter did it with Iran, for example.

No, no liberal activist judge has the right to stop the president from performing his sworn duty to protect the citizens of the US.

The problem is that Trump is discriminating on the basis of religion, by putting a filter in place that lets non-mulsims in, and only catches muslims. And claiming it's not a muslim filter.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Guess what? As president he is fully within his rights and duties to do exactly that if he so wishes.

That's a fact! There's even precedence on this kind of thing.

Carter did it with Iran, for example.

No, no liberal activist judge has the right to stop the president from performing his sworn duty to protect the citizens of the US.

The problem is that Trump is discriminating on the basis of religion, by putting a filter in place that lets non-mulsims in, and only catches muslims. And claiming it's not a muslim filter.

How many Founding Fathers of the US were Muslims again?

Islam is just a world domination scheme purporting to be a religion.

 

[Coyote]

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

It only takes one native-born American to do that, too.

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

I don't know...you tell me
Man accused of Fort Lauderdale mass shooting has mental illness but can stand trial
Horror in Roseburg: 10 minutes, 10 deaths in Oregon's worst shooting
NBC News
Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting - Wikipedia
2014 Las Vegas shootings - Wikipedia
Shooter Had
Police: 'Paranoid' H-E-B employee shoots 4 colleagues, killing 1 at South Texas store
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Man arrested in connection with Braintree mall shooting
Police investigating shooting at Crossgates Mall, still searching for suspect
Black Friday 2016 Turns Deadly in Multiple Shootings at Malls

Still waiting for examples of Assad and/or his army beheading people.

Is that you're criteria for brutality?
Syrian children detail torture by security forces (VIDEO)
Syria: Barrage of Barrel Bombs
http://www.newsweek.com/photos-syria-allegedly-show-torture-systematic-killing-278894

Can't find any decapitation examples so I guess that's ok then eh?

 

[radical right]

How many Founding Fathers of the US were Muslims again?

Islam is just a world domination scheme purporting to be a religion.

Cassious Clay was a muslim.
Lew Alcindor was a muslim.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Maybe we shouldn't add to that number with immigrants?

So we shouldn't try to prevent the ISIS terrorist from doing that because it's possible for a native born American to do it also?

Just pointing out the hypocrisy. ISIS isn't our only danger in the U.S., and it's time to stop pretending that foreign terrorists are killing us in greater numbers than anyone else.

Say you're camping, and a mosquito and a bear both get into the tent. You're going to kill the mosquito first?

Are you seriously telling us the muslims, the fucking people blowing shit up, killing people with axes, and attacking everything in the west are the fucking Mosquito's and the Christians are the bears?

Are you seriously this fucking dumb?

Say you're at the mall with your wife and kid and there are 2,000 Christians in there shopping. And there are two or three muslims. What are the odds you need to worry about the Christians being the ones that will set off a bomb or go on a shooting spree?

I don't know...you tell me
Man accused of Fort Lauderdale mass shooting has mental illness but can stand trial
Horror in Roseburg: 10 minutes, 10 deaths in Oregon's worst shooting
NBC News
Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting - Wikipedia
2014 Las Vegas shootings - Wikipedia
Shooter Had
Police: 'Paranoid' H-E-B employee shoots 4 colleagues, killing 1 at South Texas store
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Houston shooting: Nine injured, suspect dead - CNN.com
Man arrested in connection with Braintree mall shooting
Police investigating shooting at Crossgates Mall, still searching for suspect
Black Friday 2016 Turns Deadly in Multiple Shootings at Malls

Still waiting for examples of Assad and/or his army beheading people.

Is that you're criteria for brutality?
Syrian children detail torture by security forces (VIDEO)
Syria: Barrage of Barrel Bombs
Photos from Syria Allegedly Show Torture, Systematic Killing

Can't find any decapitation examples so I guess that's ok then eh?

That's a 404-Decapitation not found. Thank You.

Okay, so some army guys tortured the kid to find out where the baddies were.

I don't condone that. However, kids like that will chuck grenades at soldiers.

 

[Marion Morrison]

How many Founding Fathers of the US were Muslims again?

Islam is just a world domination scheme purporting to be a religion.

Cassious Clay was a muslim.
Lew Alcindor was a muslim.

And one was a boxer and one was a Basketball player. Both were American-born black men.

It's "Cassius" by the way, and the locals from where he's from hate him for some reason. Blacks, too.

404-Muslim founding fathers not found.