|user created polls & quizzes|
And our bozo president says he approves of it, even though he has no power to legally sanction or prevent it.
^ it's a moral issue and approval is the last thing it needs. It's wrong.... Islam wants world domination and america is bowing down for the chopping.
oh they have the power to stop it. but why don't they? that is an important question that has no good answer other than oil and money. Saudi has the oil, americans are expendable.
Something to think about for those driving around in 4x4's
Will Princess Charles become a Muslim? :-)
^Because america is stupid? No I don't think so.
Has someone taken over your account Quirk?
Voted : It's an absolute disgrace
Quirk99, the UK is worse for political correctness then the US is, especially when it comes to the violent and intolerant political ideology that passes for a religion/islam. Was it not former UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith who banned outspoken dutch critic of islam Geert Wilders from entering the country on the premise that he would incite "religious intolerance?" By contrast a year later it was a breeze for Wilders to travel to NYC to take part in protests against the mosque in question. In the UK its a crime to burn the koran too and several people have been arrested for it, its not in the US, that pastor in Florida proved that.
Of course as an atheist and I don't hold christianity in a much more favorable light then I do with islam, in fact I'll relish the day when both do humanity a favor and fizzle out, but you're right about the mosque being an offensive act of aggression toward the superior western world. However, from my point of view, the muslim terror attacks followed by the erection of the monstrosity is the most offensive thing to Christiandom and or the West since the seljuk turks conquered Constantinople, slaughtered all the christian residents and converted the Hagia Sofia into a mosque 750 years after the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Voted : It's an absolute disgrace
Not all Americans are fing stupid, simply given no quarter.
Don't forget that islam is an ideology, not merely a religion.
It wasn't an Islamic attack, it was a murderous attack. Al Qaeda doesn'trepresent Islam. This ballot and your comments here are no different then a fascist NAZI. Don't blame everyone because of the acts of a few. What a narrow minded BIGOT.
I'm aware of all that mr spleen and being an atheist I agree with what you're saying.
Apart from the bit about constantinople. your history is a bit adrift there. Constantinople was originally sacked by the crusades. A wholly christian attack. Also it wasn't the seljuk turks either it was the ottoman turks so I have to doubt your grasp on history.
My point is that it's not just christianity that I have a problem with it's all religion. Les6 as i've said before, many times, christianity is as stupid as islam. you are the one that chose to take it that i was defending islam. I suggest you rethink that point.
passiveson you just prove what an idiot you are every time you speak. You comment isn't even worth addressing.
Not really sure what you're getting at luigi. the same could be said of christinity so what is your actual point? What I mean by stupid is that americans are looking at europe and shaking their collective heads over how islam is overunning it. well it's happening in america too. so stop looking over here you might miss what's happening in your own country.
I don't think it is matter of PC but matter of the law of land, and its not being built on the site the towers once stood, its few blocks away, how far from ground zero should AMERICANS be told they can worship.
In my opinion for what its worth, We need to focus on the rights of every American regardless of religion or non religion not on taking away some rights.
Should we not allow British Embassy in Washington because the Brits burned that city in 1812 or ban in DC The Episcopal Church which has its origins in the Church of England?
Multiculturalism has failed in Europe, even the European leaders have made a tacit acceptance to this fact. USA is not Europe, no part of it has ever been ruled by the Muslims.
USA has been vehemently saying that it not US vs Islam. Making a mosque at the site will not make the Americans subjugate to Islam or embrace it.
What about the people who were killed in 911? We all know where the attackers came from, what was there religion ,who they wanted to kill, what was there motivation.
Bigots live in the history. Waging wars for dead and gone.
But can we say that 911 is a history after just 10 years. What good a mosque will do for 3000 killed people and millions who have been left with a scourge called terrorism for ever.
Voted : It's an absolute disgrace
Hagia Sophia became a museum after 482 odd years. Mind you, it became a museum and not a church
The question really shouldn't be is political correctness allowing the Mosque to be built, but should the law be changed to prohibit the right of Americans to build a place of worship in an area zoned for such a building, in this case a Mosque.
If political correctness applies at all, it probably should be directed at those building the Mosque.
^ I mean should they have taken into factor the view of those opposing the mosque and moved the location.
Liberty is a hollow word. There is no such thing like absolute liberty.
There is politically correct liberty, depending on who you are.
Liberty can be invoked to build a mosque. But this liberty needs to be politically correct which is not in this case.
We the peasants don't call the shots.Our Filthy rich overloards do....Sorry?
quirk, you continue to speak in generalities, capisce?
I think you must know that islam, beyond a "religious" belief, dictates law, as in it is against the law for a woman to be in public without covering her body and legally, a woman can be put to death for having a boyfriend. Law, not religion.
Christianity may say that adultery is wrong, but charges are not brought up in criminal court against adulterers. Too simple for ya?
Well, I'll admit, Renaissance history isn't my strongest suit. But the fact is the turks conquered Constantinople and basically raped the city and its residents in the name of islam, which at that time, paralleled Rome in its significance to Western Christendom, it was the 9/11 of the 15th Century.
Of course I think its been established on here the kind of character passiveson is; but in fact, his likening his opposition to nazism (a juvenile tactic some American political pundits take when they don't get their way) is quite off base. In reality, Islam has much in common with fascism, or the more extreme ideology national socialism. All three are violent and intolerant political ideologies hell bent on purging the world of their perceived threats and enemies as a means of generating fear and hatred among their populace to keep in check and tax said populace while justifying the expansion of the influence of the ideology by any means at the same time. Anyways quirk is right, best to ignore this unpleasantry from here on out, there's no reasoning with it.
Volt_Air is right in that multiculturalism has failed in Europe. The German, French and British governments have all openly embarrassed this fact in the last year with islamic populations reaching 5-10% in each. V_A is also right in that the US isn't Europe, which is an important distinction to make, as in most old world countries, there is a fusion between nationality and ethnicity, whereas with mass immigrations to the United States from every country under the sun in the last 400 years, this fusion has been lost and a multicultural society can thrive to an extent for a limited period of time. Still, the muslim population has remained very small, and while the president has to say America is not at war with islam or risk alienating key allies in the war on terror, the American people may not necessarily believe it, and the 9/11 mosque is a prime example of this. For now, I think democracy, the rule of law and measures against the expansion of islam in the west can co-exist in a democracy, because I don't think liberal democracy and a growing islamic influence can co-exist, as islamic culture holds vastly inferior social values to those of liberal democracy, it may not be ideal, but a stitch in time saves nine. I'd rather restrict religous freedom temporalily then lose it permanently, along with LGBT rights, Women's rights and my own classical Democratic rights to free expression and suffrage.
"Too simple for ya?" yes i'm beginning to think you are.
"But the fact is the turks conquered Constantinople and basically raped the city and its residents in the name of islam, which at that time, paralleled Rome in its significance to Western Christendom, it was the 9/11 of the 15th Century. "
Not really. christianity hadn't attacked the twin towers well in advance. that was the end of constantinople as a power. When they asked the pope for help during the ottoman seige the pope refused and left them to die.
Larry the problem here is that this is very recent history. It is also being funded by saudi arabia. Do you think the saudis would let you build a church? not a fucking chance. Think about that when you are suggesting being liberal towards these murdering sexist idiots.
I don't see christianity as very different from islam and just to address luigis rather imature post. Is it law not to kill people because the bible says so or not?
Don't be so clever you cut yourself because I'm here with the salt.
Quirk, here is idiocy-
"...an islamic attack on america",
Wrong. It wasn't ISLAM who attacked America, it was a handful of RADICAL Muslims. They may be supporters of Islam, but they are not polical representives of Islam.
How many Muslim's and Islamic Nations supported America in the aftermath? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, the list goes on. These are representives of Islam, not Bin Ladin or the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
"...at the site of islams greatest conquest",
911 is not 'Islam's' greatest conquest. You are lying and spreading racist propaganda. Islam had nothing to do with 911. Al Qaeda is responsible for 911 and has no authority in Islam. Osama Bin Ladin and the Taliban have been condemned by a majority of Islamic Nations, Islamic religous leaders and Muslims throughout the world.
Even Iran distanced themselves from the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
I'm amazed at how truely prejudiced, full of hate and deceitful you are to lie, twist the truth and blame hundreds of millions of muslims for the acts of a few thousand. Disgraceful.
Passiveson I'm done wasting my time with your stupid comments give it up.
Next you'll be telling us the crusaders weren't christians.
Utter fucking moron.
^ lol Last words of defeat.
Give me evidence that the leaders of Islam planned and executed the 911 attack?
Name one Islamic Prime Minister, Head of State, a marjas, Grand Ayatollahs or immam incriminated by US investigators.
What evidence do you possess to back up this fallacy that Islam attacked America?
"Even Iran distanced themselves from the Taliban and Al Qaeda."
^Because Iran is a SHIA islamic theocracy, and the taliban and al-qaeda are SUNNI islamic theocrats. If Al-Qaeda had their way they'd subjugate or kill all shia muslims to sunni islam, and vice versa in Iran's case.
World homosexuality laws by region:
Dark Blue = same sex marriage legal
Blue = Other type of civil union legal
Light blue = foreign marriages and or civil unions recognized
Grey = No recognition of same-sex marriage
Yellow = Homosexuality illegal, minimal penalty
Orange = Homosexuality illegal, large penalty
Red = Homosexuality illegal, life sentence
Dark Red = Homosexuality illegal, capital punishment
So, that in mind, lets count all the tolerant and peaceful islamic countries on the map:
Yellow: None I can see, well that's a good start.
Orange: Uh oh! Morocco, West Sahara, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Guinea, Egypt, Senegal, Syria, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Somalia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Malaysia, Ghana, the list goes on...
Red: Pakistan, Sierra Leone and Bangladesh.
Dark red: Mauritania, North Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Afghanistan -- note its only islamic nations that go as far as killing LGBT individuals --.
I rest my case.
Are you suggesting laws against homosexuality is evidence that Islam carried out 911?
God I hope I never have you on my jury.
No you idiot, I'm giving analysis on what islam is, or what it is certainly not, a peaceful tolerant religion. Rather its a violent and intolerant political ideology certainly capable of terror attacks like 9/11.
Maybe not all muslims have the balls to fly a plane into a tower, but a hell of a lot of them sympathize with those muslims who do:
And how well do muslims integrate into society? Well, ask them yourself:
I said "Give me evidence that the leaders of Islam planned and executed the 911 attack?"
You said "So, that in mind, lets count all the tolerant and peaceful islamic countries on the map"
And then you said "I rest my case."
Sounds to me like you're implying this is evidence of guilt for 911, idiot. If you don't have evidence to support an allegation, don't blame Islam or all muslims for 911, Hitler.
I don't care much for the American government either, does that make me guilty too? Just because a person considers themself Muslim first doesn't make them guilty of an 'Attack on America'. It's apples to oranges.
You were asking quirk that question, I was merely backing up a point I made earlier, that islam is not a religion, its a violent political ideology, and muslims are no better then nazis, and you my friend, are no better then a nazi sympathizer.
Don't play that 'I wasn't talking to you' card with me Spleen. You copied a qoute from my prior post immediately following that same post, so you were obviously were addressing me. And even if you weren't, why didn't you just say that instead of talking that smart assed smack?
You have the potential to be an intelligent conversationalist except for the occasional deliberately childish chides. Now go light some candles, put on some Barry White and go fuck yourself.
Yes, I addressed your point, and then I went on to another that had nothing to do with your response to quirk. Originally, I had revisited this forum to post the correlation between islam and LGBT genocide and discrimination and no I didn't respond in the manner of a smart ass when you took issue with it, I explained then as now that the LGBT post had nothing to do with anything you said, as anyone can see, rather the LGBT post was supporting the fact that islam is a violent political ideology and nothing more, though ultimately terrorism is where the follies of islam arrive at if allowed to fester unchecked, and when that happens, yes, quirk is quite right, islam is to blame.
I'm sorry that you're to egocentric to have been capable of comprehending the above the first two times. However I won't reiterate it a fourth.
But here is where I insist that christianity is capable of just the same. How long before there is a little bit of yellow in the USA?
Go back 200 short years and it was burning women alive on suspicion of witchcraft of all things. Don't assume that's all in the past. it existed 1800 years before they managed that one and truth be told ww1 and ww2 were triggered by religion. I consider it the first and second protestant wars.
passiveson stop expecting me to address you. I told You I'm not interested in debate with you. I only debate with people who can understand when they are wrong. you will fight on no matter how wrong and then resort to name calling and flaming when you are shown to be lacking in understanding. I doubt i could put that any more tactfully.
WWI had more to do with Imperialism then it did with religion, and WWII for much the same reasons. In Europe, sure, the nazis used Judaism as scapegoat for the justification of their ultra-nationalist policies that ultimately amounted in dissolution of Wiemar Republic in favor of the rise of Nazi Germany, but the Allies only declared war after the Nazis began to rapidly expand in Europe threatening their own interests, the Allies only used the invasion of Poland as a pretense for war with Germany so as to boost their own political and economic interests following the depression. In the pacific, war only began when the Japanese invaded Manchuria for resources, and when they attempted to do the same in Hawaii, again threatening the interests of the Allies.
And of course christianity is just as bad as islam, in fact, it has a worse track record, and one that continues into present day. Didn't the catholics come out last week and blame the liberal atmosphere of the 60s for child abuse within the church? But islam is the topic at hand here, and a far more malign threat today then any denomination of christianity.
Many people say that religion was not a factor in World War 1 but it actually was. The cause of World War 1 was a visit to Serbia from Austria's Archduke where he was assassinated by one of the many angry Serbians who were mistreated by the Austrian Government who enforced higher taxes to pay for churches. So Austria invaded Serbia angering other countries which turned into everyone picking sides and fighting each other. So technically religion was a root cause of World War 1. And World War 2 was also mainly caused by religion. Primarily Catholicism cause these wars. Just like most wars, World War 1 was started by religion. Hence my insistence on protestant wars.
But anyway yes islam. Well I still struggle with this concept of islam being nothing but a political construct. Again the same is true of christianity. But you surely don't pressume to tell every muslim that he doesn't actually believe in allah? In that sense i find actually muslims i meet to be far more devout than christians. Unless you consider both to be purely political entities which means you must feel the same way about israel. Which means You must also agree that the jewish state should be demolished because it has no political right to exist at all.
This should be interesting :-)
Yes, the assassination of ArchDuke Franz Ferdinand is the accepted flash point of WWI. But then political figures have been assassinated throughout history, and rarely does it result in a war stretching several continents. The assassination really had nothing to do with religion, so much as it did imperialism and nationalism. In the 1878 Treaty of Berlin, in the wake of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-8 that resulted in a Russian victory, the Austro-Hungarians were ceded two Ottoman provinces, Bosnia and Herzegovina, while at the same time all of the prominent European powers recognized the independence of Serbia from the Ottoman empire, including Austria Hungary. Decades later, just before WWI, the Balkan wars broke out between the Ottomans and newly independent Balkan states, including Serbia. The cause of this war was nationality based, even after the Treaty of Berlin there was still significant ethnic Serbian, Romanian, Greek and Bulgarian populations within Ottoman occupied land bordering these states, during this time the Kingdom of Serbia annexed what is now Kosovo and Macedonia from the Ottoman turks. This set a precedent for Serbia when it came to Bosnia and Herzegovina, as significant populations of ethnic Serbs lived in those regions. It was all on the part of the new Serbian dynasty who made it a point to reestablish the Serbian Empire of the 14th century, and to do this they exploited Serb nationalist sentiments. However a war with Austria Hungary would have spelt decisive defeat for Serbia, so anger began to fester in both Serbia and among ethnic Serbs in Bosnia regarding Bosnian succession, and when coupled with the excessive taxes and oppression from the Austrians you mentioned, it eventually to the point of insurgency, the assassination of Ferdinand being the peak of said insurgency. Of course tensions between Serbia and Austria Hungary had existed since Serb succession. So the Serbs turned to the Russian Empire for support, and when the Austro-Hungarians invaded Serbia the Russians declared war on Austria Hungary. Bound by the Triple Alliance act between Austria Hungary, Italy and Germany, the Germans declared war on Russia in response on August 1st 1914, three days later the United Kingdom, bound to Russia and France by the Triple Entente alliance, declared war on Germany. Germany preemptively declared war on France a day earlier, and invaded Belgium as part of the Schlieffen Plan. Italy never declared war on any Entente powers, but declared war on Austria-Hungary a year later in return for territory populated by ethnic Italians the Austro-Hungarians controlled promised to the Italians by the entente powers in return for their entry into the war. These Military Alliances came to be as an insurance policy for each respected power, none of which wanted to lose their colonial empires to another in any theoretical war.
As for WWII I have to dissagree. The Catholic church was vehemently opposed to both the regimes of Mussolini and especially hitler, though after the formation of both they decided to settle for the lesser of two evils and aided both governments, the greater evil being Stalin's Soviet Union and the spread of communism, which, with the establishment of the eastern bloc in the early cold war years, they were right to fear. But no, the catholics weren't completely innocent; I knew a lady from North Ireland who told me that during the war, catholic priests would light candles at night and strategically place them for the Luftwaffe to see, and know where to bomb. Its also an established fact that the catholic church helped many prolific nazis to escape via Austria and into Italy and on to the Spain before risky trips to the Southern Cone where fascism was alive and well, individuals such as Joseph Mengele and Adolf Eichmann. However Mussolini was an atheist as was Hitler, the only European fascist leader who showed any loyalty to the Vatican was Francisco Franco, who stayed Neutral during the war, except for limited military support against the Soviets who he had fought against during the Spanish civil war a decade earlier.
I stand by my assertion that islam is nothing but a violent political ideology though. Judaism and Buddhism are religions, in that the purpose of both is to further human comprehension and compassion for humanity, and all of humanity, whereas islam seeks to tear down and subjugate all non-islamic humanity, as does modern Christianity. Muslims place this unwavering and unquestioning devotion into allah and Mohammad much like nazis did hitler, much like North Korean communists do with Kim II Sung (who posthumously retains the title of "Eternal President of North Korea) and Kim John-Il. In fact the shia-sunni schism had nothing to do with any spiritual awakening or an alternative interpretation. It had to do with who should lead the Caliphate after the prophet mohammad died, it was purely political. Which leads me to Israel.
There's no denying it, Israel today was politically engineered, the ideology in this case being Zionism, supported by Christian Zionists in the west. Now, that being established its impractical to demolish a state in its entirety. We can get into a large historical debate challenging the merits of Israeli existence, or Palestinian existence on the flip side. However we can go another route and accept that in 2011, human civilization has inherited the Palestinian-Israel conflict. We can accept the fact that we will pass down its legacy to the next generation, but we can choose how we go about it. We can choose to pass down the legacy through munitions, or through history text books. I'd prefer the latter, and I believe the only way to do this is to establish a Palestinian state while preserving an Israeli State. And I would hope for peace and prosperity in the long term on both sides, because in the absence of peace and prosperity, people turn to extreme political ideologies such as islam, and zionism.
That's quite a heady reply :-) But we wont clear up the religion issue here anyway it's got to many variables.
But the reasoning you use to justify islam as a political belief need looking at. For instance "Judaism and Buddhism are religions, in that the purpose of both is to further human comprehension and compassion for humanity" I disagree. I don't think judaism is any less violent than islam. have you read the talmud and it's take on none jews? they are expendable. in much the same vein as islam. They all serve the old testament and that is hardly a moral book is it?
"Muslims place this unwavering and unquestioning devotion into allah and Mohammad much like nazis did hitler, much like North Korean communists do with Kim II Sung (who posthumously retains the title of "Eternal President of North Korea) and Kim John-Il" Just like christians with christ.....
"In fact the shia-sunni schism had nothing to do with any spiritual awakening or an alternative interpretation. It had to do with who should lead the Caliphate after the prophet mohammad died, it was purely political." How is that any different to constantine using christianity as a political ploy to remain in power and push the roman empire into new heights of barbarism?
I feel that when religion and politics mix it all goes wrong. If islam is a political entity then so are all the others. I must admit to being a little baffled as to why you think otherwise or indeed what difference to the situation your insistence engenders.
Well yes I could of used christian examples, christianity having so many parallels to islam, but I was making the case that islam is a violent political ideology, so it was best to use examples where it goes without saying that said examples are violent political ideologies.
That said I find a lot of jews in the west take anything that could be perceived as extremism with a grain of salt, considering their history... its not hard to see why, they do so for good reason. There's also no more then 13 million jews world wide vs. 1 billion muslims and 2.5 billion Christians, so as an atheist and secular humanist, even if judiasm was generally as violent and irrational as the other two, 9 times out of 10 the battle I pick will be against Christianity or islam. As for Buddhism it doesn't enforce a dogma on its followers, Buddhists don't recognize the concept of "sin" and therefore they don't believe in hell which is a dramatic difference from the abrahamic religions. You know I really can't think of any examples of a Buddhist ever committing an act of terrorism in the name of Buddha or Buddhism. The one incident that gets me was the self-immolation of Buddhist priests in Vietnam during the Buddhist crisis. Sure it was an incredibly fucked up thing to do, but I know if it where muslims the government was cracking down in place of buddhists, the muslims would be blowing themselves up in public places, and for that matter I could see similar acts of violence if it were christians or jews in the place of buddhists. I also look to the people's republic of china. The PRC holds two territories that aren't ethnically Han Chinese, one being Tibet which is primarily buddhist, and the other being East Turkestan, which is primarily muslim. The populace of both regions in the past have made it clear they wish to separate from China, but its how they've gone about it is where they differ. I remember muslims in turkestan throwing grenades at government institutions during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, for the life of me I can't think of an act of non-violent resistance on the Tibetan front. Sure I don't agree with buddhist or jewish philosophy, I'm an atheist, but the seem to pose near minuscule threats to humanity as opposed to christianity and islam.
OMG, so much writing.
Careful people! Most likely, Quirk99 has cut and pasted his words from the net! Like the liar he is, he cant comment with his own knowledge so he uses Wikipedia a great deal! The fake is exposed.
This is too funny! Quirk99 in other ballots you say we are not integrated! Hah! Too funny. Now you say that us allowing Mosques to be built mean we are fools?? Pardon me? You're logic is flawed! Do you not realize we can read your other entries!! See my friend, the fact that we do NOT ban Burquas like they do in France shows that we in fact are much more integrated than you! Europe is burning and it is your own fault!
You're idiocy is showing itself Quirk99. The fact is, Europe and the UK in particular is a closed and racist society! You are flawed and you know it!
So in some ballots according to you, we are not integrated and in this one, we're too integrated?
The EU is falling and falling fast! The UK is being over run my Muslims. Here? they're moving here and living great lives! That just really eats you up, doesn't it? Shill.
^StacyG, muslims now account for +10% of the total population in France, +5% in the UK. In the US they make up less then 1%. Add 15-30 million muslim rats to your country and then get back to us on how much they've contributed to the US.
Mr_Spleen, did you even read my comment? If you did youd see that your response has nothing to do with what I wrote I'm American. This guy Quirk99 would like to pretend that we have a problem intetrating Muslims. No we don't. Europe does though.Very much so. When he can face the dire straits of his own country then he can talk. As for what you wrote i have no idea what telling me those statistics has to do with my comment entry.
I did read what you said. You said:
"See my friend, the fact that we do NOT ban Burquas like they do in France shows that we in fact are much more integrated than you!"
France's population is now over 10% muslim, America's is below 1%. So that's not a fair comparison.
"The UK is being over run my Muslims."
Again, the UK has a much higher population of muslims per capita then the states, not a fair comparison. Muslims can't be integrated no matter where they go. If Americans let enough of the savages immigrate to the US overtime, America will start to experience the problems France and the UK are; they'll move to NYC, Chicago, Los Angeles and so forth by the millions, set up parallel monolithic communities and demand tolerance while the number of islamic on jewish/women/LGBT/christian/hindu hate crimes soar thousandfold. In other words, you can't say muslims integrate better in the United States when you hardly have any. Give the malignancy on humanity islam is time to spread in the US and then make up your mind.
"Careful people! Most likely, Quirk99 has cut and pasted his words from the net! Like the liar he is, he cant comment with his own knowledge so he uses Wikipedia a great deal! The fake is exposed.
by StacyG "
Are you really that stupid??
"This is too funny! Quirk99 in other ballots you say we are not integrated! Hah! Too funny. Now you say that us allowing Mosques to be built mean we are fools?"
If you consider the al aqsa mosque to be muslims intergrating with judaism then you're absolutely right.
"You're idiocy is showing itself Quirk99. The fact is, Europe and the UK in particular is a closed and racist society! You are flawed and you know it! "
The only thing showing here is your lack of any kind of understanding and the fact you have serious personality problems.
"So in some ballots according to you, we are not integrated and in this one, we're too integrated?"
Nope, never said that. I said islam is taking the piss out of your own laws. Hardly the same thing now is it....
In short stacyg it would be better if you just didn't comment. your passiveson style approach to discreditting people is winning you noone to your side. you're just coming across as someone who has issues.
actually forget it stacyg the al aqsa mosque probably doesn't exist and neither do radical muslims either and america is still full of indians... meh
^ I cut and pasted that from stacyggpedia
quirk if you feed them they will keep coming back.....
^ I know but secretly it keeps me amused for hours :-)