As traditional I am posting my thoughts long after they would do any good.
__________

The economy has gone to crap and the government of the UK wants to save some pennies by cutting defence: Should we get rid of "Trident"?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: The Trident nuclear submarine system is a replacement in itself, a replacement of a largely land based missile system which was expensive and made much of the UK a prime target, and needlessly so at that.
  With our nuclear weapons at sea the only reason one would have for a full-scale nuclear strike on the UK would be to kill millions of civillians. Such an attack would decimate the UK, turning it into a cauterised death-zone awash with radiation, but it would not make us incapable of retaliation, or "Taking the bastards with us" as I like to think of it. Having our nuclear weapons hidden at sea means that we can get you even when we're dead.
Think about it.
  We NEED trident.
  You want to save some money, look at the Aircraft Carrier problem; We sell them after 3 years, and 75% of the time they've never seen an aircraft. Our tech doesn't need that kind of turnover, we're not America, and we can't keep up with them, so why don't we just do  the best with what we've got until we absolutely have to replace the WHOLE ship?
mumble
grr
mumble

Who cares *how* it works, it's made up
At least the problem is believable.

I smell of burning.

Exactly. If they release that, half the world will be traumatised by the end of the week.

Oh I've read the thread, 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.

Apart from your "It's insensetively close" argument, everything else is just hypocrisy as far as I can tell.

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.
__________

I wasn't trolling you or accusing you of straw-manning... In case you haven't noticed you are one of the few "opposition" posters that I don't call nasty names. I was asking you because you reply with honesty-to-a-fault.
And I still think it's a little hyppocritical of America to get pissy with 1 mosque when there are _how many_ religious psychos operating freely within America? That disturbs me greatly.

Like in french?

Zardoz was awesome.

"We need to know how to get from this-" _ "to this" \

Did they also harrass the yellow Power Ranger for being a man (look at the bumps in the action sequences)?

> Godwin's Law wrote:
> In my defense, Fokker, I've tried learning a couple languages, but failed miserably because I'm terrible at learning systems that are purely arbitrary.  <

Arbitrary? :s

> Petrolstone wrote:
> We (the US) were funding the "Freedom Fighters". Then they turned on us. <

After you [bleep]ed up Iran by destroying its _democracy_ simply because it didn't want to do business with you, possibly because it didn't like your methods of doing business.
__________
__________

Why are we discussing this anyway? It's not like America is going to say "Look, I'm sorry, alright? I was a greedy, selfish twat and I [bleep]ed everything up, k? Now what do you want me to do about it?" not because it can't, but because the people aren't ready yet. That and America still thinks it can fix everything.
Like it or not America is going to have to sit and watch as Iran falls to crap and chaos from the inside, all the while knowing that "I did that. That's my fault."
And that will be a very sobering day indeed.

> V.Kemp wrote:
> 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. <

  But the scientologists are a well known, active and continuing threat to Americans and the American way, unlike the "terrorists" that have tried to attack America since the 11th Sept attack, an attack which turned America into a borderline paranoid schizophrenic judging by the security precautions it has taken.
  And while you're avoiding thinking about it:
  Who is doing more damage to America? The lying, stealing, murdering, legally-sanctioned Scientology people, or a bunch of glorified firebugs living in a country so secure you can't even buy simple wire without appearing on a government agenies watch list?

> 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. <

  Why would a christian want to use the 11th Sept as a tool to draw attention to their religion and their way of thinking? Given that you are one of the people I respect and read, do you honestly think I believe your "I don't understand what you're saying so I'll repeat myself" line of argument? No, no I don't.
  Christians have their own 11th Sept's, lots and lots of them, and they use them all of the time to provoke thought. In a Christian way, of course. Going way back in time there's Soddom and Gomorrah, two cities annihlated by God itself for practicing, if I understand the vague biblical description and the resulting term (sodomy) correctly, a pregnancy-free alternative to sex with their wives (unless you believe the entire of the two cities were gay). Jumping forwards past a lot of crap I can't be arsed to waste time researching, there's the crusades. How many died during those? How many churches now stand within muslim land? One church was even built inside a mosque.
Some people might say fair is fair, I say tough shit; you can do it, they can do it, for yours is the land of liberty and freedom, for all men. ALL.

> 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. <

  That was a valid point, and that was a valid question, and you know it. The fact that you employ Avogadro word-game tactics to weasel out of being held up to your own standards is very revealing about the true nature of your position.

> But they're all farther away than this location where the building was hit by a plane's landing gear during the attacks. <

That means "All of the other places of worship are further away", right? That is why I know even you are making distance an issue.

Like it or not, hear it or not, I think you have a little prejudice and hypocrisy to deal with before you can pretend to be discussing this in the logical manner you so sarcastically threw at me.

__________
__________

> Chris_Balsz wrote:
> Actually I don't like them either and say so.  Are you equating Scientology with the govt of Iran? I think I will oppose anything built with money out of the Islamic Republic. <

As you can see by the above argument, I was merely drawing attention to the fact that all this hyppocritical mosque argument really does is draw attention from the real threats to Truth, Justice, and The American way. In my personal opinion I think this is intentional, a way to distract the public into knee-jerk reactions and sound-byte arguments.

> Which is it? The uproar about a harmless wubbable mosque is disgusting and barbaric, or it's the sort of thing that oughta happen in Anytown USA, and we only beef about it because we're bigots? Choose one. <

The uproar about a [] mosque [that is no more dangerous than your average methodist, fundementalist or evangelical christian church, which to me] is disgusting, [] barbaric, [and hyppocritical,] [] [and] it's the sort of thing that oughta [be allowed to be built] [] in Anytown USA, and [] [you] only beef about it because [] [you]'re [hyppocrites who can't live by your own rules, as evidenced by your espousing uber-christian sentiments when your rates of divorce, unwed sex, drug use, and bastard children are on the rise] [].

> I think it more like permits won't be issued for them to do it themselves. <

Is there a reason for this, I'd genuinely like to know?

> It's named after a victory shrine, on a site of terror in the name of religious extremism, by a jerk who likes controversy and blames America for offending Muslims. <

Sauce?

Argument:
It could be said that every historical church in the UK is a victory shrine to the death of the pagans built on a pagan site of religious significance.

Arsehole:
It could be said that every church, house, and government building in the USA is a victory shrine over the natives. It could be said that your very way of life offends the natives.

Point:
So what, we've all done it! But if it genuinely bothers you that much then why are you giving them the attention they want, dumbass?

__________
__________

> tavius wrote:
> Doesn't seem very sensitive to suggest building a mosque near the very place a Islamist attack which slaughtered 3k happened just 9 years ago.

Sure, they have the legal right to do it, but it's not wrong to suspect the motives or at least the lack of sensitivity on the part of those who would propose such a thing. <

"Just" nine years ago?
Three thousand deaths _including_ Muslims (not the ones flying the plane).
No, it's not wrong to suspect their motives, it's [bleep]ing stupid. Their motives are the same motives of any religious nutjob.

__________
__________

There's a difference between being an arsehole and telling the truth:

Would it surprise you, or upset you, to learn that how you Americans view this mosque and the people that will run it is exactly how the rest of the world, including secular christians, see America?
You're scary and nutty and we're afraid of you and what you might do.