>>The foreign policy of America DID contribute to the terror attack. Osama Bin Laden believes (mistakenly) in his cause of freeing up the Arab world from American influence<<

They say that, but our enemies hate all of the west: including the nations with no soldiers or influence in their nations. They hate our values and our way of life. They believe it's their right to rule a global Islamic state. It's not a secret... they talk about it all the time. It's obvious in their actions, which are focused on terrorizing and destroying the west, which is far too developed for them to expect to lead to victory in "freeing up the Arab world from American influence." If that was actually their primary concern, they'd be far more politically active at home. Unless they're just too busy mutilating women and stoning teenagers.

>>Who is your enemy? Al Quieda or Islam?<<

zzz. I'm not encouraging the trolling.

>>Why is non western barbarian in your eyes? That shows a narrow minded view point that borders on the scary.<<

zzz I'm not encouraging the trolling.

Both questions were previously answered, and suggest ad-hominem arguments.

If Buddhists are atheists, I want to know how they came to "know" all the bull**** they came up with to fill all these books on Buddhism I have sitting on a shelf 3 feet in front/above this keyboard!

Some publisher played an awful trick on me!

---

I think his point, Chickenwingz, was that atheists commit to a belief on faith, just as members of any faith do. While some may think that the Atheists' conclusion is more likely/sensible than any theoglogy's conclusion, it is their absolute commitment to/belief in their unKNOWN conclusion that is an unconfirmed belief, just as theologians' beliefs. Which is why I completely agree with Chris's statement immediately above this post.

I think Agnostics, by definition, also commit to the belief that the truth of the matter is unknowable? (I'll never find a label!) If we were to define agnostics as calculating that (that the truth is unknowable) most probable but being open to any possibility (you just gotta PROVE it!), I think we could satisfy his (avogadro's) statements still. If only I owned a dictionary company!

>>are you calling me a troll here? cuz i'm not trying to troll this discussion, actually presenting facts/quotes from reliable websites... which is something i haven't seen you doing.<<

I was rolling on from you to others, with those last comments specifically. As for facts and quotes from reliable sources, I'm not here to post links to things on the evening news you could find out in 5 minutes with a google search. If you don't want to know the public news stories that are available to everyone and not in dispute, don't ask me to provide them for you. My points are not less valid because you want me to link the news in every post. Rauf has made plenty of comments on the public record. You didn't respond to my dome of the rock parallel because the implications are obvious and undeniable. But when you don't respond, you can deny them... VERY VAGUELY. I'm not interested in such an intentionally dishonest exchange.

>>judging by the Imam's history, my description of the book is probably much closer to the truth <<

Troll? If you believed that, you would have responded to my dome-attack parallel. And that's not counting his public statements on Sharia. Or his intention to proceed despite the families' protests. I could go on, but nobody who "disagrees" will respond to any of this anyway. I'm too embarrassed to respond with extensive analyses and explanation. Explaining things more and more and more and more simplified in an endless quest for responses to basic statements repeatedly ignored just makes things ridiculously complicated and incoherent very quickly. If you're going to avoid the content, you're going to avoid the content. It doesn't reflect on me that I post explanations which get ignored repeatedly while those ignoring them still post as if they're remotely interested in an exchange.

I explained more clearly with examples that I have absolutely no problem with Islam and my objections would be identical with any parallel situations involving other religions in similar circumstances. Response? "Bigot!" is replaced with "Idiot!" and "please refrain from making personal attacks!" because I responded to a personal attack.

I was responding to personal attacks (Khaz) with what you quoted and objected to. I'll be sure to respond to ad-hominem attacks more specifically in the future, because it appears some posters cannot remember where they have and have not engaged in them. You, Mr Wingz, haven't even read the Imam's comments supporting Sharia law as recently as 2009, yet contend that his WTCless NYC skyline book cover, consistent remarks on public record, and location for the mosque [etc] are not what everyone else accepts as obviously true (including every former Hamas member I've seen interviewed, who don't find it to be the least bit speculative), so I lost interest responding to you there. I was referring to more than Khaz, but didn't feel the need to identify people by name. Anyone who called me a bigot or idiot but didn't respond to basic points of discussion is too embarrassingly stupid and juvenile to deserve dignifying with naming.

I'm not going to cite an academic to show that Imam who supports hamas + Imam who supports Sharia law + Imam who blames US for 9/11 + Imam who publishes book about spreading Islam [which includes violence] with a WTC-less NYC skyline + Imam who wants to locate victory mosque within a stone's throw of WTC site = Not an American-loving, radical-violent-Muslim-reforming Imam who you claim he is. If I cited an academic you would call him a conservative ideologue and not respond to him either, just as you haven't responded to any of my content.

Going from "bigot!" to "idiot!" when 10 repeatedly simplified refutations of "bigot" made it old is a tiring and senseless exercise in "how to crap all over a forum." It is logically followed with "How dare you respond to 'idiot!'? Your inference that the idiot who called you an idiot is an idiot is inappropriate!" This, obviously, is also a senseless exercise in "how to crap all over a forum." I am not referring to you specifically, Mr. Wingz. I think you misunderstood my admittedly not specifically directed response to repeated ad-hominem attacks.

I'm just suggesting that everyone who ignores the actual content of a posts and instead fills their post with things other than responses to what they take issue with [with an explanation of how/why] and additional points for discussion are really out of place on a discussion forum. I'd love to ignore the trolls and respond to content, but too often it's 100% trolling straw-man attacks to fill in for content, followed with ad-hominem attacks when the straw-man attacks are pointed out, and that adds up to 100% garbage 0% content going on in a thread.

Instead of quoting me and telling me where one claims I am wrong (revealing why we disagree and have different conclusions), I usually see "well this is what I think most people who came to your conclusion think, and this is why THEY're ignorant!" ...Which has nothing to do with anything I posted.

"True Free Market" = Phrase produced entirely as a strawman attack by socialists and general lovers of tyranny.

Sane, real, not made-up by socialist and communist fans of the free market accept government as a necessary evil which is the appropriate arbiter of men's freedoms not infringing upon one another's.

A free market doesn't mean we have to ditch our values and not outlaw crack. Or babies drinking alcohol. It means more that no good will come with government becoming heavily involved (more than its necessary-evil role as expressed above) in our healthcare industry, automotive industry, financial industries, etc, for example. I'm done feeling the trolls.

I was not presuming you were obsessed with American politics, Douglas Reynholm. But you said that, as far as you read... when you had not read anything on the matter. And the internet offers abundant media, regardless of location.

>>But on the other side, he's entitled to the same degree of freedom of speech as those "God hates fags"-idiots and other (Christian) fanatics.<<

Nobody's arguing that he's not. I suggested rezoning or some other method to keep a victory mosque out. Didn't you read our posts either? I can't do anything but repeat if you don't address what was actually posted.

>>For the rest, why would a mosque near ground zero even be a victory mosque?<<

Because locating mosques on the sites of conquests is a recurring theme among murderous, radical Muslims? Because they want to place a mosque here despite the protests of the victims of the attack?

>>From a religious point of view it can not even be a victory mosque, as Islam's "competitors" would be Christian or Jewish buildings. If it would replace or be installed next to a dissapeared religious monument, it can rightly be a victory mosque. Otherwise you're confusing religion and politic acts.<<

You're confusing them. Muslims often intertwine the two. I would explain that the 9/11 attacks were both religious and political to the attackers, but I'm starting to feel silly for responding to what feels like trolling already.

I merely said I support preventing the building of a victory mosque because it's an embarrassment to our nation. It's no slight to sane Muslims who don't applaud murder: they're embarrassed that there are Americans dumb enough to allow a victory mosque as well. I'm not against Islam or mosques. I'm just against a victory mosque at this location. There are plenty of ways to rezone the area to honor the fallen and not give those who supported their murders a reason to laugh at the ignorance of their enemy.

>>You think they want to kill you because of religion?
hahahhahhahahhahahhahahaa
Ridiculous<<

You're just embarrassing yourself. There are a lot of Catholics, for instance, who live very modest lives. But they keep to themselves about it. There are some radical Muslims who live very modest lives. And they plot to murder the degenerates of the West who offend them by existing and believe strongly that they should be conquered by Muslims, as should the rest of the world. While there are political motives abound, political motives tend to stop at "get them the hell out of our country's affairs then stop caring about them altogether." It's religious fanaticism which leads to real hatred beyond any desire for change. 9/11 certainly didn't lessen the US presence in the middle east as is the common political goal. But it certainly gave radicals a murderous religious victory. And a fine place for a victory mosque. Ignorant troll.

Chickenwingz: If you wouldn't learn anything about me if a Christian destroyed the dome of the rock with a plane and I published a book with the Dome-less Jerusalem skyline on the cover (let's say for the sake of the example I was Christian) with a title like "Spreading Christianity in a Post-[date of dome attack] Jerusalem," then I don't think you're going to learn anything from anything I could reference, type, or link here.

He's learned better than to support Sharia by name in public anymore, but I wasn't seeking to mince words. It's like a politician telling you he's not going to raise your taxes, then arguing in court that what he's doing is raising taxes months later. Let's just call it what it is from the start. I'm not into word games.

The views of the people who want to build this mosque here are not a secret. It's obviously trolls we're responding to to have to point this out repeatedly. Everyone repeating that "they have the right!"  repeatedly ignores this. Nobody says they don't have the right. We're just saying there are plenty of legal ways to stop such a thing without removing their "right." They can keep their "right" to build a victory mosque and take it to the Nevada desert and exercise it there.

The only people trolling this topic are the people without the nerve to attack real human-rights abusers. They hate the US so blindly that they'd like to see it defeated by radical Muslim murderers who oppress, rape, and mutilate their peoples. They hate the US so much that it must be worse. They think victory mosque and they're immediately signed up with the radical liberals of the US who know they're lying but don't have the dignity to let that stop them from supporting what would be a victory for the US's enemies if only the US embarrasses itself enough to let it be built.

Loads of people just make things less accurate. When the majority have been miseducated by politically motivated hacks, the majority's input will only guarantee you get it wrong.

It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain.

I could have told you he suffered from at least one mental disorder from the fact that he's gay, which could have (in a more enlightened land with more enlightened laws) barred his employment and avoided all of those costs. But that wouldn't be politically correct.

>>The whole controversy only shows one thing: Americans associate Islam with Al-Qaeda terrorism. That is a pity.<<

So the fact that the Imam running this show published a book with the WTCless NYC skyline (

>>Ideology is nothing more than a drug that pacifies people so they can be controlled.<<

So the ideology of the US Bill of Rights and other protections of rights which kept the American people free for long enough to become an unprecedented superpower... is a drug that pacifies people so they can be controlled? They're being controlled now, in direct violation of that ideology. That ideology seeks to protect people from what you claim ideology is. Make sense!

That's why we have the bomb.