Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

And most full of crap

So many superlatives in a single post! Well done fahel!

fahel has taken lessons from haycrapper -
Copy and paste - the wanker's substitute for multiple orgasms

fahel-if you believe that Israel was at all invoved in 9/11-which you must as you have posted it, than there is no hope for you.

Most of what I had to read through filled me with sadness as most of it is totally false. Another version of the Protocols of Zion.

Poor misguided soul-so full of hatred.

funny old life, but despite a couple of requests no one has thought to respond to my post 3433, which cc'd below ..... so i ask again ....

=========

i have not and have no need to watch U-tube propaganda

however, the Ground Zero argument is no counter.
it could/should be questioned from where the $70m required is coming (shame it hasn't gone to help their brothers in pakistan!) and certainly it is very insensitive and arguably intentionally provocative, notwithstanding that there can be no LEGAL objection

it is of course supremely ironic that non-islamic nations are supremely careful about not causing offense (being insensitive!) and the wrath of Allah or worse is called to rain down on those who dare or even are deemed through some warped logic to have transgressed

I don't think it matters either way. The fact that Bin Laden was a muslim had no relevance. It is the same as condemning Christians because some peopole behave badly in the name of Christianity. If people want to put up a buildin sg for the worship of extra-terestial beings then why not let them. A more important point is whether to subsidise any faith schools and give them preferencial tax treatment. why not have a school getting special treatment that has Father Christmas worship at its core or the sturdy of fairies.

as i am sure you were told at school, "Answer the question asked, not the one you wanted to be asked" ...... now try again

Actually that post above does not even look like s question. If it is then what is the question?

Cynic,

One answer to your question???

The money for the building in / on ground zero area was agreed to before the floods etc. in Pakistan. (Ie."gifted to" or contracted to.)

Superficially, which seems to suit you, it could be considered provocative, but I believe in Jerusalem there are Synagogues built next to Mosques and many people of both faiths to community got on well together and supported and help members of either group.

I am not an adherer of any religion and a religious sceptic, but it is interesting to me many members of my wife's family are of Christian faith. some Orthodox, Catholic Protestant and others are of Moslem background, with of course a fair smattering of atheists. (No Jewish members, but some Jewish friends, not sure how that religion escaped.)

Strange all the family are accepting and respecting of each other.

That is tolerant and not damming.

I think your attempt at provocation, is due to your underlying lack of tolerance.

You seem to have grown older, but not matured.

The money side of it not of any business of anyone. It would be the same as when a church or synagogue is built and people might ask why the money was not spent on some humanitarian cause. i have a lot of sympathy as I can't stand any religion. I am not pro-Muslim, far from it. I would be anti-mulsim as with any faith. My complaints about Israel is not religion based. It is based on the Palestinian cause and the bad treatment by Israel.

BBC today

The European Union has criticised Israel for convicting an organiser of weekly Palestinian protests against the West Bank separation barrier.

EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said she was "deeply concerned" about Abdullah Abu Rahmeh, who now faces several years in prison.

She said he was a "human rights defender" committed to non-violent protest.

Israel's foreign ministry described her statement as highly improper.

Jailed since December, Abdullah Abu Rahmeh was convicted by a military court on Tuesday of inciting protests in the West Bank village of Bilin and of participating in the protests without a legal permit.

Lady Ashton expressed deep concern "that the possible imprisonment of Mr Abu Rahmeh is intended to prevent him and other Palestinians from exercising their legitimate right to protest against the existence of the separation barriers in a non-violent manner," her office said.

"The EU considers the route of the barrier where it is built on Palestinian land to be illegal," it quoted her as saying in a statement.

Her statement drew a sharp rebuke from Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor, who said that any "interference with a transparent legal procedure is highly improper".

Sentencing is scheduled for next month, after which Abu Rahmeh - a 39-year-old schoolteacher - will appeal the conviction, his lawyer has said.

Activists have been protesting against the barrier for five years in what they say are mostly peaceful demonstrations. Some demonstrations have been attended by stone-throwing Palestinian youths.

Israel says it considers the protests to be "violent and illegal". Israeli security services have fired tear gas, stun grenades, rubber bullets and on occasion live rounds at protesters.

There have been two fatalities among protesters and an American peace activist suffered brain damage after being hit by a tear gas canister.

Israel says the barrier was established to stop Palestinian suicide bombers entering from the West Bank.

But Palestinians point to its route, winding deep into the West Bank around Israeli settlements - which are illegal under international law - and say it is a way to grab territory they want for their future state.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice in The Hague issued an advisory ruling that the barrier was illegal and should be removed where it did not follow the Green Line, the internationally recognised boundary between the West Bank and Israel.

the situation in jerusalem is very different.

Ground Zero, for very obvious reasons, is highly sensitive to the american psyche - and quite rightly too.
there are, or so i believe, a couple of other mosques within a few blocks so to build another within the immediate vicinity, would seem at best, totally insensitive and at worst, intentionally and downright provocative.

i will accept your point that money to set up this building was promised before the floods in pakistan, but nevertheless, it would be prudent for the authorities to check its provenance, as indeed would be done here.

as for lacking tolerance, it cuts both ways, which you seem to have ignored.
indeed, tolerance implies an appreciation of the sensitivities of others.
the "noisy" muslims are very quick to take affront for alleged insensitivity (intolerance), though the same choose to be blind to similar in others - as in this instance

============

meanwhile, your buddy Bullseye cannot even perceive the question, so clearly beyond his abilities to answer it .... no surprise there i guess

I'd be more inclined to ban all churches, mosques and synagogues anywhere unless they pay taxes, rates etc like any business and allow them no special privilages or status.

Cynic,

From a little hearing of a brief interview of those supporting and involved the "Moslem building" in Ground Zero, they appeared to be attempting to be conciliatory, although I thought slightly naive and their timing could have been better.

Ie. I wouldn't have done it there and now, but the one thing I remember was in spite of all the previous killings, Golda Meir and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat "shook hands" and negotiated.

It may have been wrong, but both sides attempted to change and move on.

i think you are being very naive or should i say, incredibly gullible ..... conciliatory in even proposing to build a mosque on this site can scarcely be thought of as conciliatory .... perhaps i am being stupid, but please explain

do you think that the authorities in UAE, let alone Saudi or Syria or Iran or similar, would allow an anglican church, let alone a synagogue, to be built within sight (i would like to say spitting distance) of one of their mosques, let alone one of high profile?

===========

Bullseye - you're a total arsehole and as usual your post has no intelligence or relevance whatsoever

cynic
Why does it matter if Saudi would not allow the same thing? It seems to me that the US is just being open minded and showing a lack of prejudice.

if you have time watch this video and then pass it on

http://www.youtube.com/user/n1n2n3n4100#p/f/138/eAaQNACwaLw

don't confuse what the law will allow (and in this instance the constitution too) and what common human decency should dictate - i.e. respect for the feelings of others ....

however, i note that you tacitly agree that no moslem country would entertain for one millisecond the idea of a "foreign" church being built within spitting distance (sorry, sight) of one of their mosques ..... so yes, it does matter; as my grandfather said, "treat others as you would like to be treated"

Saudi is not very liberal regarding churches and mosques. In fact there are no churches or synagogues in the whole country, although there have been negociations about allowing a church. Iran is quite different. There are lots of churches and synagogues and some within sight of mosques.

when did you last go to iran?
why is iran's jewish population now perhaps 10% of what was one of the largest jewish communities in m/e?

how many churches and synagogues in UAE?

and yet again - but then you are pretty dumb - the point about the proposed mosque adjacent to Ground Zero, is the fact that it is a very high profile and NEW structure

Cynic,
Perhaps, the Jewish contingent has emigrated from Iran to Israel.

I am wondering, whether you are blinkered, or thinking of standing for the next election to Israeli administration. Your grandiose stances would fit well with those who are presently in control of that country.

With you present reactionary stances you seem well equipped to help Israel continue their present method of negotiations. in any future peace processes concerning the whole of the M.E.

There is an old adage If something isnt working, changer your approach.

Many of your statements reflect the intransience and inflexibility by both sides, in previous attempts to achieve a decent settlement, for all the people of that region.

Previously, Israel was negotiating from a position of strength, but America and the majority of the World appears to be less supportive than previously.

It would be sensible to recognise when the tide goes out.