"But that is the SOLE MOTIVE behind the attacks, the idea that the Muslim God wanted such violence to occur."

No it isn't.

Ok apart from obsessing about muslim identity to the point that Bin Laden calls the USA a "crusader" country, what's the motive?

does he own stock in Raytheon and Halliburton?

he got tired of travel and wanted to live as a hermit?

promoting praxis by striking capitalist towers?

he thought Bush was pushing gun control back 30 years and needed a slapdown?

and everybody from Nigerians to Brits signs onto this agenda because suicide bombing is the new X sport?

& if politics has degenerated to American stuff its not our fault, I even started a thread to talk about Belgian elections whcih got good responses but the Belgians never thought of it

"crusade" over here means any moral effort

as in The Crusade in Europe

the crusade against illiteracy

it is most commonly used to refer to defeating other Americans because they live wrong

Though I disapprove of the Imam and a Mosque beings built at that location, that is not my point.

My point is that the Imam is being funded by the State Department, and Obama has given his implicit support of the project. I do not believe that a Mosque, which will be granted tax exempt status, is worth the return that the government is investing in it. In other words, our government is up to wasteful spending again.

My philosophy is that the government should never invest in a project unless it is worth the return. I have seen a lot of wasteful spending since Obama took office, such as single wind turbines that produce negligible energy. Seriously, wtf?

This mosque business is stupid beyond belief. I mean, the fact that they're even considering allowing such a thing to be built there. The message it sends, in my opinion, is tantamount to the imagery of the US Marines on Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima, and the victorious Red Army soldiers on the ruins of the Reichstag, Berlin. There's a reason why that imagery is so powerful. Nothing else strikes such a clear and decisive message through the heart of history, "We came. We saw. We conquered."

So it is with a mosque constructed on Ground Zero. One can say "it's just a building." Sure, it's "just a building" to me, too. But that's not what gets communicated to the mind of the "enemy," especially an Islamic fundamentalist one which has a habit of interpreting every landmark and historical site into a warped context of epic religious symbolism. In all the lands they've put to the sword, they build mosques over important cultural and religious grounds of the previous owners. Naturally, they'll see this as nothing less than an act of the most humiliating and disgraceful submission on the part of the United States. A glorious day the tide finally turned against the infidels.

Being dedicated to tolerance only works when both sides buy into the ideal. It's suicidal to treat others with the same values who wouldn't think twice about slitting your throat, and would just as soon laugh as you gurgle on your own blood with all your pathetically naive gestures of mutual peace and respect.

Of course, had the US tended to its own affairs, none of this would have become such an issue in the first place. Once again, we can trace a direct route to the heart of the suffering back to government.

@Chris_Balsz

Excellent! Then we can agree that government has done nothing to alleviate the situation.

They better not build a church anywhere near where Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City! Sacrilege.

Oh wait, no its only Muslims who are all terrorists.

To be fair its a religion whose followers are told to go into the world and convert people that has a history of violence and links to several terrorist organisations....oh wait I am talking about Christianity again!

The point I am making is as a Christian I find it laughable the way people automatically get hysterical over the word Islam. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, 99.9% are peaceful yet they all judged by the 0.1% by some people on here.

They are not building a Mosque on the site of the world trade centre, there is a fairly large monument there, that means it is not offensive - if you get offended at a Mosque being vaguely near the site then you must be offended at Muslims occasionally walking near it, which means they shouldnt be allowed in new york! Which means they shouldnt be allowed in the USA! WE ARE WITH YOU KEMP! DEATH TO THE INFIDEL MUSLIMS!

Idiot.

> V.Kemp wrote:

>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.

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.
Also, i would very well write such a book. You probably think the book would be about "conquering this part of the world after we have destroyed a monument in said part of the world", but instead the book probably is about "oh damn... we destroyed something very important to this part of the world, how should we live on in said part of the world now without having conflicts with the people from said part of the world?". Have you read the book? If you have, then maybe your arguement could be stronger than mine. If you have not however (neither have I), then why are you making such claims when, judging by the Imam's history, my description of the book is probably much closer to the truth without presenting evidence for your claims? and with evidence, i mean facts/quotes from reliable sources, so NOT vague websites that concentrate on only 1 issue or FOX News.

that latter part of your post "The only people... it be built." is just a personal attack, probably made because of lack of good arguements (the normal causes of such attacks).

so next time you post, please refrain yourself from making personal attacks, and PLEASE present some evidence for the claims you keep repeating instead of just repeating them over and over again. otherwise it'd seem to me that you, instead of these others, are the troll here.

thank you.

>>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.

My point in regards to the Mosque is where do you draw the line? It is not on the site of the evil terror attacks merely in proximity. If they are not allowed to build where they want to where do you suggest? Is there a real distance where a Mosque stops being offensive?

If they wanted to build it on the 9/11 site I would happily help burn it down as it would be incredibly insensitive, but they dont.

The Imam looking to build the Mosque made an ill advised though not factually incorrect statement. 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, I dont agree with him, I believe the man is evil, but if America had no influence there the attacks would not have taken place.

Finally you claim this is a trophy site sought by your enemy. Who is your enemy? Al Quieda or Islam? To my knowledge there is not a single member of Al Quieda pushing for this Mosque, which would infer that the people who are are classed as your enemy by the fact they are Muslim.

Yet if it was a church no one would have been offended Justinian.

Non-existent entity? While the entity of Islam exists and it needs a place to gather worshipers, these American Muslims are paying taxes, no places of worship, many worshipers go abroad, taking their taxes with them plus any companies they run/own.

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