May we quote you?

Uh-huh, sure you are.

I'm an Israeli supporter, you twit.

You're a Nazi supporter, you retard.

Didn't you also praise 1930s Germany?

What makes you think my father is an Arab Israeli?

Are you a Joo?

Well, I was wrong.

That's the first true thing you've ever said on this board.

Still waiting on the cops. Are they coming next week?

But clearly they were only at war because of the vile christians.

If it hadn't been for them the Muslims would have been peaceful, happy and tolerant.

I do wonder though how these north africans and arabs came to dominate a place in Spain which is neither in north Africa nor the middle east.

Certainly not by war as they are all pacifists. But it is a bit of a quandary.

Still can't answer the question, eh?

By US law people here are free to choose their own religion.

Due to our history most people have chosen something other than Islam.

That is a slap in the face to those Muslims who do not feel it should be a choice, who believe instead that all people should be forced to convert.

This policy of religious freedom led to 9/11. Ergo it's all our fault for not forcing our citizens to convert to the “religion of peace”.

for years the USA has tried to extend its influence to all parts of the world, believing that its own particular views on government and economics are superior. In much the same way that you fear Islamic influences on your culture, they fear your influence on theirs. When a country goes out of its way to promote a doctrine directly opposed to that of others it often faces fear, hatred and violence.

It was not an excuse for 9/11 it was my view as to why it happened. In my view loss of life is never excusable. As for the US imposing it's beliefs on others by force I never claimed it had, i stated that they promoted their own doctrine of democracy and freedom of religion. This is directly opposed to the doctrine of fanatical muslim extermists. When a group feels threatened by another they can lash out and this is what i believe happened in the case of 9/11. Unjustly the USA was attacked for its beliefs.

No, it was an explanation. I stated that they attacked you because they fear and dislike what you represent. They fear the loss of control that Democracy represents. They fear the people of their countries learning about the freedom offered in the West. They fear that they are outdated and will fade away.

America was the victim of this attack of that there is no doubt. However, it is important to understand the reasons for the attacks so that we are better able to prevent future attacks. By learning how to work with native culture rather than against them we have a much greater chance of peace.

As for Japan in 1941 there is a rather large difference between a few thousand men in caves deciding to attack the US and a large industialised power declaring war.

A formal war between two opposing powers is very different. The situation between the US and extermist Muslims is different as they are dissperate groups fighting for individual leaders with a few larger organisations such as AlQueda leading the way. This is both their greatest advantage and their greatest weakness. They do not have a structure or a base so they are very difficult to track or corner especially in their home areas. However, they can never win a true victory over an organised and powerful nation state. They cannot invade they can only destroy. Therefore the problem is not how best to remove an opposing force it is how best to neutralise the attacks they make.

Well that might be true if Islam didn't have such a long history of violence and oppression.

The problem Judaism and Christianity haven't spilled blood in the name of the church since the last crusade. Islam was blowing up something somewhere in the world in the last 6 to 12 hours. Judaism hasn't spilled blood in quite sometime like since before Christ.

Last time I checked, Teach, none of the things you mentioned are legal justification to oppose a building.

So it's wrong to oppose the building of a mosque because it would be insensitive to thousands of people killed in a muslim terrorist attack, but it's okay to oppose the building of a mosque because you want to use the space to generate tax revenue?

Or is it only okay when liberals are the ones opposing the mosque?

it is fairly well accepted

Oh I'm sure it's “fairly well accepted” among those who hate America and all it stands for. Whether it's actually true is another matter.

Nope not even close asshatma, try again, try listening to facts and the words we post, not the voices echoing around the single brain cell in your skull.

Islam has been violent for 1400+ years, and none of it has been 'provoked' by policies, but rather the teachings of the Imams and the words of the Koran.

Start there and try again, you might get it right in this life time.

You are deranged, Stan. When I put you in your place, like I do routinely, I have no reason to hide behind another name.

You are my groupie, Stan.

No, Stan. You are confusing people again. You are MY groupie, that means you are MY bitch.

Watch, I can make you comment for as long as I want.

I have no reason to hide behind another name.

Maybe you should start. It might be about the only way possible for you to recover your dignity and credibility.

You have never once put a single person on this board “in there place”. You have succeeded in three things, however. Proving how stupid, how ignorant, and how bigoted you are.

Nothing more than that, however.

and you have created twenty times as many terrorists by doing so

Proof please.

Oh and don't forget the long and storied history, over 1400 years worth, of Islamic violence, most of it unprovoked.

Impressionable youth will always be drawn into conflict by talk of the deaths caused by a 3rd party. This much is true from the Great War to the Carthaginian Wars. Combined with the religious zeal impressed upon many youngsters in regions of the Middle East it is no wonder that extermist Islam is a growing force.

So what you're saying is, we should invade muslim lands, convert all of them to other religions, and educate them so they will no longer produce such impressionable youth.

Good plan.

Are you suggesting that Christianity any better?

Yes, we are suggesting that.

The Inquisition? That occurred hundreds of years ago and was limited solely to Europe. Not to mention it was committed by the Catholic Church. I don't know if you've heard but back around 1517 we had a little thing called the “Protestant Reformation”.

The Crusades? Muslims had invaded and conquered large swaths of Christian lands and were preventing all non-muslim religious pilgrims from entering the Holy Land. The Crusades were nothing more than an attempt by Christians to reclaim what was stolen from us. You really want to compare that to the unprovoked wars of aggression waged by the followers of Muhammad?

Destruction of pagan cultures? Last I checked there was nothing inherently “wrong” with trying to convert people to your religion. Indeed, that very right is enshrined in the Constitution under the “free exercise” clause. So if you have a problem with that then you have a problem with freedom.

Edit: Incidentally, I can't help but notice you failed to provide the proof Bthewolf asked for.

Impressionable youth will always be drawn into conflict by talk of the deaths caused by a 3rd party. This much is true from the Great War to the Carthaginian Wars. Combined with the religious zeal impressed upon many youngsters in regions of the Middle East it is no wonder that extermist Islam is a growing force. There is a reason why Martyrdom is an effective tactic.

Are you suggesting that Christianity any better? How many Crusades were there again? The Inqusition? The destruction of Pagan cultures?

YES much, the Crusades were a defensive response to muslim agression and expansion to in Christian lands, Spain, Jerusalem, etc. So that's a fail. The Inquisitions, there were several, were part of the evils of the early church that brought about the Reformation, and gave the civilized and peaceful church of today. It was a growing pain that the Church has apologized for. The destruction of Pagan cultures is the pahse of the church that died with the Reformation as well, at least in most areas, Central and South America were still to come, but that also a product of the Spanish Monarchy as well it's Church, much as the Spanish Inquisition. That died out in the late early 17th Century, and conversion was done peacefully from then on.

What you fail to see is that that all the bad things that the Catholic Church up until about 1650 max, Islam is still doing, and has been doing unabated and unchanged for 1400+ years!!

Probably because we didn't bust out the hammers and go to town earlier. You can follow the chain of events throughout Bush I and the Clinton administrations (especially the latter). The Cole bombing, in particular, got such a weaksauce response I'd have been more surprised if we /didn't/ get hit.

But wait, it's worse. The Khmer Rouge (which was supported by the NVA at the time) also took over Cambodia, leading to that quaint little series of events called 'the killing fields', aka 'let's drag the country back in time'.

It was so bad, in fact, that Joan Baez, normally a pacifist blockhead, tried to draw attention to it because she was horrified by what was happening. She attempted to get Jane Fonda to sign on, and was rebuffed.

I seriously wonder how liberals from that time sleep at night, knowing they were condemning millions to die.

Wait, let me get this straight, you're okay with millions dead as long as you can get a beauty pageant out of the deal, but people who want a building moved are complete monsters? Wow.

Yeah, I know. I saw that response via the Disqus email and just stared at it for a minute.

Millions dead — starved or shot by the brutal Khmer Rouge regime, and Vega thinks it's just fine because they get to host a beauty pageant there.

Congratulations, Vega. Well done. You've done what StanW, trenchraider, and so many others have failed to do: You have made me question not just your patriotism, but your humanity. And you cannot blame it on anyone except yourself, for a spectacularly blinkered view of history.

Everyone except Christians, Vega. Then it is “separation of church and state” and neighborhood estetics or whatever the latest anti-Christian BULLSHIT you come up with.

Double standards Vega, It is all you have!

You mean like when you are dismissively claiming there is no War on Christmas, or that Christians are whining when they are targeted by the ACLU and Liberals?

Sorry, Vega. You have already shown yourself to be a pathetic and unapologitic hypocrit on this issue. Time for you to run away again!

See Vega, that's my point. You dismiss any mention that Christians are under attack, then hyperventilate when someone looks ill towards a Mulsim.

There is no Muslims oppression. in fact, the get treated with kid gloves and have their plans fast-tracked through the system, while Christians get shut down.

And you know nothing of the “system” in question. Park51 was not “fast tracked”, that is a LIE. The Christian church did not get “shut down”, that is a LIE.

Two clear examples of people that don't have the balls for dialogue and debate, but instead use lies and misinformation to gin up their bases to win an election.

The Cordoba House Mosque got push through with undue speed.

LIE. That process went on for months. You only heard about it when your masters found it to be a wedge issue.

Hearing were held and they were given the green light.

The hearings were for zoning, and landmark status only. Which were no-brainers. Another LIE. They don't have the “green light” because they still have to get non-profit status and raise money.

The St. Nicholas Church tried to go through the same process and was pushed back every time.

LIE. It is not the same process.

I'll say that again. LIE. IT IS NOT THE SAME PROCESS, LIAR.

Nine years later, the Port Authority and the City of New Your have declared it a dead issue.

LIE. The Port Authority has no authority over the Park51 property, whereas it does have over the St Nick space. Shall I say that again?

Yoru lies have become legenday Vega. You are genetically incapable of telling the truth about anything.

You have told a few lies just on this one post, Stan. I don't blame you for the misinformation, you are just parroting what your masters give you.

But don't get all swollen when someone checks your bullshit, and then call them a liar.

You may go now.

Dirt. It's whats for breakfast.

Right, no War on Christmas, Vega. If you keep saying that long enough, it'll become true, won't it.

Like hell there is no war on Christianity, every chance you libtards get a chance you take Christianity out of the public square through judicial fiat, whether or not it's at the national, state or local level of government, hell some of our own legislators are against Christianity.

Vega,

For weeks we have pointed out to you that there has been no GOVERNMENTAL INVOLVEMENT (well with the exception of President Pookie sticking in his two cents worth) with denying the Muslims the right to build that damn Mosque.

The American people are simply asking them not to build it on that particular site out of respect for the people murdered in that vicinity.

That Imam and his followers/backers of this are just being provocative, so that they can be the minority victim dejure of the day so that they can scream “***Racism, Bigotry, and last but not least calling it anti-Semitism*** (which is what Daisy Kahn called it on the Sunday morning talk shows.) From the way they are framing the debate, it sure as hell doesn't look to me like they want “a religious dialog” or any “bridge building” with other religions.

You mean besides candidates lying about the issue? Beside party campaign ads lying about the issue? Sure, no government involvement at all.

A television ad is an act of government?

Did the ad introduce a bill to congress about the issue? Did it ask a judge to intervene? Did it force Obama to block the mosque with all his presidential authority?

Or is more of those pesky opinions that you don't think people should be allowed to have.

Asking? Try demanding, threatening and lying.

Yes, the people are treating the mosque with just a little less hysteria than the left treats Walmart whenever it tries to open a store.

And it's a portion of the population. You don't speak for me.

For someone who doesn't think opinions matter, you sure seem to like expressing yours. But I guess the bill of rights only applies to the people you want it to.

Sure, it's all their fault. It's not like they already have mosques the same distance away. It's not like this Imam hasn't been in lower Manhattan Tribeca for decades. It's not like they are ALREADY using this space for prayer.

Sure, it's all their fault.

Where is the video of all the people protesting outside of the mosques that already exist? I mean, if people don't want mosques anywhere in New York like you claim, there must be protesters outside all of the existing mosques. Perhaps you can supply a link to these stories?

Nothing was “cleared”, and it's no more massive than any other building on that block or the previous building that was there.

If Nazism declared itself a religion, would you let them build a shrine next to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, D-Vega?

See, YOU confuse the political movement known as Radical Islam with a religion.

Your argument here: I know you are but what am I.

You and Mahatma sure take up for each other a lot, Vega. Hard to spearate the two, OR THE ONE of you!

Really, I guess that is why you reply to my posts to Mahatma and he posts on my replies to you.

Maybe you have two personalities, Vega. And all this time, I thought you had none!

Then stop posting as Mahatma and trying to prop yourself up, Asshole!

Sure you don't Mahatma.

And you are a known troll now. We expect such behavior from your ilk. Why should you be any different than martha, crthn, hoggo, etc? I see no evidence in the posting styles, but Stan has good reason given your behavior to suspect you of sock puppetry.

Run along now.

TR

TR

Bullsh–.
You are on friendly terms with every troll here aside from Martha. (whom you dont even bother denouncing any more) You even go so far as to activly support them and lend them legitimacy by handing out “likes” to troll comments. So yes, you take up for these scum.

What is it they say about knowing them by the company they keep?

It's kind of fitting that your comment comes in a thread about Islam, because your as a bad as a so-called “moderate muslim” in refusing to reject your fellows and thus enabling them.

TR

Oh wow.
Now you are trying the “keep on topic” gambit? Wow. That's lame. I'll tell you the same thing I tell the trolls, establishing the credibility (or lack thereof) of a member is always on topic.
The company I keep? The folks I associate with here (and I assume you are talking about Stan) are respected long time regulars on the forum. They just react negatively to you as you've taken to trolling on a regular basis. Thus you deserve what you get. If I behaved as you have of late I would expect them to pile on me as well. But I don't and thus they don't either.

And yes, you do keep company with the trolls in that you interact with them as if they were legitimate members of the forum, comment positively on their trolling comments, and leave them “like” points. Thus you are enabling them, when you should be denouncing them. While I don't agree with Stan's belief that you are engaging in sock puppetry, you are indeed doing alot of very questionable things of late.

Finally, the only reason I bother leacturing you is that I don't want to see you make that final slide into full blown troll/idiot status. You are awful damned close now, but you could reverse alot of the damage you have done to your own reputation with a little work. i'd like to see that happen.

TR

I don't feed trolls. I counter them and help to remind others that these are not legitimate members of the forum.

But was afaid this would happen. I offered a final peace offering and you brushed it off. I was the last guy on this forum who actually gave you the benefit of the doubt and stood up for you. But you threw that away.

Dude, you have devolved completely in the last two years. Look how far you have come. Your bahavior in this thread is typical. You have not added anything to the conversation. You have just insulted, baited, and argued with the regulars. Sadly, that's typical of you these days.

Guys, I'm through defending Vega. He's devolved into a full blown troll. Feel free to treat him with the utter contempt and dismissal that one espects such creatures to receive. I used to like the guy and actually felt he was a productive member of this community. But he's fallen far and hard. R.I.P, Vega. You were once a decent fellow. Now you deserve everything you get and more. I wash my hands of it.
Have at him, guys. He's all yours.

TR

You are full of shit. TR has defended you in the past. That is a fact.

Take it easy on Vega Stan. He probably ran out of personal lubricant and has a sore asshole.

At least try being original enough to come up with your own joke. You took mine and tried running with it and it aint working.

“Really, D-Vega? Do you really want to run around accusing other people of having no interest in debate?”

Yup. I did that.

“Remind me again, which side of this argument has been shouting “bigot!” over and over again to cow the other side into silence?”

Why, that's been your side actually. Your side who has been making false analogies. Your side who has been lying about where and what this is. Your side who has been calling anyone who support the rights of these people anti-Christian, and anti-American, etc.

Your side. Don't get all bent out of shape when someone calls it what it is – discrimination (I can provide you with the meaning of this word if you need it again.)

“For that matter, remind me again why you decided to change sides in this debate?”

I didn't change sides. I conceded to the point of a possible compromise. I am not on your side, rest assured.

“Was it because of any sort of well-reasoned, logical argument?”

Yes, and I explained it thoroughly.

—
I came to that conclusion due to a lot of thinking. While they do have a perfect right to do this, part of living in a diverse society is understanding and compromise. A compromise solution is one that also doesn't infringe on their free practice. Freedom doesn't always mean everywhere you like. Logically, that's where you arrive. Moving a few blocks north could be a token of good will for everyone involved. Otherwise, this could get very nasty and people could get hurt.
—–

“No. It was because a muslim told you to.”

No, I never said that. I respect her opinion more than the usual rightwing hacks, but she didn't change my mind. I change my own mind.

“And yet you have the balls to accuse other people of having no interest in debate.”

That's right. Because it's true. You are not interested in a debate with this imam or congregation.

Why, that's been your side actually.

Oh that is rich. Our side has been screaming “bigot!” at anyone who disagrees? Really, D-Vega? Would you like me to pull up the various Ground Zero mosque threads from the last few days?

I didn't change sides.

So you were against the Ground Zero mosque before you were for it?

I conceded to the point of a possible compromise.

Yeah, that's called “changing sides”.

Yes, and I explained it thoroughly.

Of course you did. You were quite clear about the fact that the only reason you decided to change sides was because a muslim woman said she was against the Ground Zero mosque.

No, I never said that.

Actually you did say that. You said it was, quote, her “unique perspective” that convinced you. Her “unique perspective” being, of course, that she is a muslim.

I change my own mind.

Right. I'm sure that's what Winston Smith would've said.

That's right. Because it's true. You are not interested in a debate with this imam or congregation.

Last I checked, it was the Imam himself who refused to engage in any negotiation or debate on the location of his proposed mosque.