Thanks. My life was incomplete until I read your post, Mr. Augustus.

America's power didn't wane. Its people flushed it down the toilet. And demanded more, free welfare toilets.

>>Oh I've read the thread...<<

Then please stop asking questions that have already been answered repeatedly.

>>and all I've seen typed is what I've heard Americans say on the news, and all I've heard on the news is a lack of good reason to not allow this mosque.<<

You haven't responded to any of my points on why I think it is unwise to build a victory mosque for the 9/11 attacks. Maybe you should reread the thread? You haven't responded to any of the posts, only repeatedly attacked straw-man arguments nobody ever made. Like You did again:

>>If it does get moved to another building, will there still be a demonstration, I wonder? I'm willing to bet "yes", and that will speak volumes.<<

You're implying that the objection is anti-islam, not anti-9/11-victory-mosque. This is all you've had to post this entire thread. All you've posted is that all objections to the mosque are anti-Islam and so clearly unfounded and bigoted. You've done this while ignoring the actual posts in the thread, never responding to the statements and points contained in them.

You're trolling. Try responding to what's posted in the thread. You've never responded to the objections to the mosque posted in this thread. You've only claimed that objections are based on anti-Islamic sentiment and called those who object to the 9/11 victory mosque anti-Islamic bigots. If all you have is straw-man and ad-hominem arguments, you don't have anything but fallacious thinking.

You would presumably extrapolate from the data that 88% of blacks support Obama while the majority of the country disapproves to conclude that the majority of the US citizens--who elected Barack Obama, a man of mixed race--are racist.

Also note that you're basing your conclusions ENTIRELY on the TV coverage available to you; TV coverage which has been well-documented to INTENTIONALLY support Obama, only showing whites who oppose him, covering all allegations of racism, bigotry, and violence by those who oppose Obama (even without ANY documentation despite the presence of cameras) and ignoring all violence and intimidation (and there's a bit of it) by supporters of Obama.

If you had real substance to your post you wouldn't have to make up a rant against Palin. You'd be able to post her own words and actions and explain why they make her nuts. You didn't.

I'm not a Republican. I have a lot of liberal views. But the only way you could possibly be so ignorant is to intentionally learn NOTHING of the world around you but what ONE biased source tells you, without even investigating common-sense questions their very poor coverage leads rational human beings to. You obviously have no regard for the truth, only for making ridiculous allegations which your intentionally limited knowledge doesn't rule out.

I'm sorry Render, but I have a policy where I don't respond to trolls. If you want to do something other than spam, we'll be glad to have you.

>>1. a. They won't disclose the backers.<<

Many of them are open about it in public. Do you have eyes and ears?

>>You don't like the Church of Scientology either, but let them build anywhere they like, regardless of the rumours of their lies, thefts, murders, and their weak and gullible sources of funding.<<

Scientologists are not seeking to build a victory shrine to their great 9/11 victory. This has been pointed out repeatedly in this very thread.

>>So he wants people to think and talk about Islam, just like your preacher, pastor, bishop or vicar wants you, your neigbourhood, and anyone who drives past the church to think about Christianity. Is that a crime?<<

No, it's not "just like" what you describe. None of those you mentioned want to use a 9/11 victory shrine as the motivator of thought. Additionally, nobody has claimed it's a crime to build a 9/11 victory mosque in this thread.

>>You say that distance is not part of the discussion, and should never be, and then you point out that this building was close enough to be hit by a piece of plane, therefore making distance an issue again.
In your personal opinion, should there even be a mosque within New York?<<

Now you're obviously just trolling. And you obviously haven't read any of this thread. The bit about me "making distance and issue again" after you attributed to me a statement I never made was a funny bit of an ignorant juvenile attempt at logic, though. Thanks for the laugh.

&#9773; Fokker:

1) That question has been answered repeatedly. I started to type out the list of reasons we know this Imam is a radical who justifies/rationalizes terrorism, but stopped before I started repeating that the area doesn't have the significant Muslim population of other areas of NYC and has no need of a mosque (mosques already exist is better locations for virtually all Muslims in NYC). If you didn't read it the first 5 times, there's no reason for us to repeat things again pretending this'll be the time.

2) This question has already been addressed. I'm sure everyone who objects to this location for a mosque built by radicals would have a varying opinion of what's appropriate. But they're all farther away than this location where the building was hit by a plane's landing gear during the attacks. This is really a moot point. I'm going to decline to bicker about the difference between 500 and 800 yards in favor of leaving more room for content.

3) None built by radicals as victory shrines for a great victory on 9/11.

That's a weird comparison. Mexico isn't half as close to me as a dozen other nations are to every European. But an irrelevant comparison, as well, so nevermind.

They just ignore all of the facts stacked up to more than suggest he's a jerk, and presume the name refers to a "golden age" after Muslim conquest (It just so happens that this golden age was after a conquest. We are not to read anything into that), based upon the presumption that he's not, in fact, a jerk.

Asking what European languages are and pointing out that some are widespread completely misses the point.

The initial post inquired about Europeans here and the languages they speak. That Dutch is also spoken in X, Y, and Z former colonies has nothing to do with it. And asking for clarification of what is a European language, off-topic as it is, is additionally ridiculous. If you can't figure out that English, Spanish, French, German, Dutch, Italian, etc are European and Mandarin or the 50,000 Indian dialects etc are not... Yeah.

So now you know what I meant, as well as that it was figurative. Imagine what someone who didn't have a good working knowledge of English and common expressions would think. Now that would be a lively forum.

>>Im not sure you can say the Mosque IS built by radicals Kemp, one sentence from one man does not make the group radicals.<<

This is one of those things that has been firmly established and I'm not interested in trying to convince you of. You could bury your head in the sand and tell yourself that the 9/11 hijackers weren't radicals either, and I wouldn't bother arguing with you about it. I started to list all of the reasons this is silly to discuss and realized how silly it was to repeat them all again. There's no law against trolling either, but I still say it's undesirable.

>>To me it shows that America is not a bigoted judgemental country, it can discern between the minority terrorists who claim to be Muslim and the actual Muslims practicing the faith. It sends a clear message that the country is not anti Islamic but anti terror.<<

I understand your point and I don't brush it off at all, let alone lightly. But America has no need to show that it is not a bigoted and judgemental country. Name me a Muslim nation (nation predominantly Muslim or a Muslim theocracy) where, in their wildest dreams, they can imagine having our freedoms in their country. I won't hold my breath. The danger here lies in our enemies perceiving us as weak--And they do. With our democratic principles and ignorant/irresponsible leaders who don't hesitate to lie in the interest of extending/securing their power, our enemies see all of our infighting as weakness. And, indeed, it often is, when it results in us acting against our own interests because some politician figured it in his interest to please some fringe group who wants daily spa treatment and X-Box for detainees who want to murder American civilians in the name of Allah.

>>It is almost an extension of the "non negotiation with terrorists" policy. Al Quieda are not capable of dictating American policy - they tried to cause a division between Christian and Islamic Americans and look, working in harmony to spread understanding near the 11/9 site.<<

But they don't perceive it this way. And that's not my novice opinion; they say it openly, all over the place. We're not fighting with someone who could gain support by portraying us as bigoted: our enemies are infinitely more bigoted than US policy or US public sentiment could be remotely compared to since slavery was legal. Such as Imam Rauf, who wants to see America more Sharia-compliant. The proposed mosque will have the opposite effect of promoting harmony. And it's not a secret. And it's hardly debatable. If understanding and harmony were the goals, they wouldn't have chosen this site. They wouldn't have chosen to continue in their quest for funding despite the protests of the victims of the 9/11 attacks.

>>It also provides a victory for the moderates over the radicals, they are not being treated the same by the Obama administration, the distinction is clearly there - the evil Imams that exist to convert people to radicalism can hardly say look at how America treats us when this Mosque is built.<<

First, radical Imams don't give a damn what the USA does. They'll rant and rave against the USA, the great satan, regardless of US actions. It's in their interest. It's good for maintaining their influence, relevance, and power. Why the US continues its massive aid to middle-eastern nations is a testament to political corruption, ignorance, and apathy on a scale I'd rather not think about.

Second, you're proposing that some of the biggest bigots on the globe wouldn't be able to call us bigots if we allow the mosque. They don't support what you're prosing we do to make ourselves look good to them. If they did they'd be busy fighting for those rights in the middle east and wouldn't have time to propose a mosque nobody's paid for here. We should worry that they might call us bigots? They're openly bigger bigots than we'd be if we stoned junkies and cut off pieces of women. You're talking about our need to espouse a value that they don't have in order to appease them. We already own tolerance and nonviolence. We have nothing to prove to Rauf or any supporter of Sharia on the planet.

>>Nor is it disrespectful to the victims, the Muslims building and praying in the Mosque did not support nor take part in the terror attack, they had no links and will not be glorifying it, the fact they are Muslim does not matter, it would be like war veterens protesting outside Sony America saying that having a Japanese business in America is disgraceful and disrespects the war dead.<<

We are no longer at war with Japan. There aren't countless radical religious fanatics in Japan who openly boast that Sony America is a monument to Japan's biggest triumph in centuries. So I disagree. It would not be like that at all.

Do you know the history of Cordoba? I'm still having trouble believing that you honestly think anyone who supports this mosque supports it in the name of tolerance and harmony. Even the name rubs it in everyone's faces. Some people choose to put their heads in the sand, not learn their history, and help their enemies mock them while their enemies cheer and laugh at their childlike ignorance. Read up on Cordoba (I can't imagine that you have any knowledge of it) and, in light of what you learn, please explain how the Cordoba House is a fitting name for a project about understanding, tolerance, and harmony. It's obviously not, and anyone who tells you otherwise chooses to remain ignorant or is lying.

Sharia violates every value America stands for. This Imam who supports it doesn't support it and embrace American values. To claim such doesn't even make any sense. They're incompatible. It's incoherent.

This selection of location pleases radicals and offends victims of the attacks. How does either aid in understanding or harmony? Knowingly pleasing radical murderous militants and offending victims (regardless of whether or not the perceived offense is in bad faith or not) seems to me to be about as far from understanding as one could get.

This isn't about Islam. This is about not aiding our enemies openly mocking us while a minority in our country side with our enemies over their own nation (giving them the benefit of the doubt, most are just disgustingly willfully ignorant). They call us weak for our democratic principles and open dissension. They call us ignorant heathens. The last thing we need in our struggle against people who hate freedom, women's rights, and all kinds of other things that we in civilization have agreed upon beyond discussion is for large numbers of us to support them in their open slap to our face to prove they were right. No moderate Muslim wants that either.

The Little man!

They discovered they didn't break laws.

Just like the guy with the fake uniform and fake medals isn't breaking any laws.

That they're not breaking laws doesn't change the fact that they're liars. UEA scientists intentionally mislead people in their representations of their data. Sure, they're not criminals. They're just bad scientists. They should become politicians, since that's their higher priority anyway. They might seem honest by comparison.