Let me slow it waaaaaaaay down for you.
This thread began as a discussion of who Khizr Khan is - how do French burials relate to that? In the same way my comment related to French burials. Oh, sorry, not slow enough....My first post was to make the point that, in spite of the fact that the French muslims repudiated the terrorists, Mr. Khan (the topic of this thread DID NOT). Why does my shift from France to Khan confuse you so, when the previous shift from Khan to France did not. John actually posted in response to someone stating that the vast majority of muslims do not speak out (which is true, notwithstanding the community in France).
You seem to be eager to swallow the Hillary propaganda uncritically - so let me review:
Trump says that we need to stop all muslim immigration until the US can figure out what is going on. That means a temporary ban, which means that some would be allowed - in time (but you, and Khan, bought the liberal lemonade that it means all muslims for all time, evidently).
Let me rephrase, to suit your delicate sensibilities. When one, like Mr Khan, objects to what Trump said (ban muslim immigration until we can figure out a way to deny radical jihadists), they are objecting to the idea of denying entry to any (because, intelligent people understand that such action would ban some, but not all). When I say "any" and "all" it necessarily means among those who want to immigrate. Essentially, what Khan, and the rest of the howlers are saying is: "You can't stop these people from coming in, it is unconstitutional (a lie)", which invites the question, "whom, then, can we deny entry?". Because the implication is clear that none (of those who apply) should be denied - or all who apply should be allowed. My position is bolstered by the revelation that Khan helps illegal immigrants remain here.
So - if it is OK to change the topic from Khan to France, it is certainly OK for me to change the topic from France back to Khan (I didn't lose you there, did I?)
Khan's speech was a whine about how Trump objecting to indiscriminate immigration is unconstitutional, clearly implying that there should be no controls (just like the dims do); thus dishonoring his son's service and sacrifice while calling, "King's X. My son was killed fighting ISIS".