Unveiling according to the Prophet

[Bob]

You seem to prefer describing my positions, or your idea if what they are, to actually discussing with me by answering my question. Not really a good way to have open dialogue, since I answered your question.

"What are your views on innocent Muslims?", besides being a ridiculously broad question, is relevant how to this discussion we're having? I mocked you by asking an equally irrelevant, although less broad question about your views of the United Russia ruling party in Russia.

A better mockery of your inability to follow a dialogue would've been achieved if I had asked, "What are your views on war?".

[Michael Hardner]

"What are your views on innocent Muslims?", besides being a ridiculously broad question, is relevant how to this discussion we're having? I mocked you by asking an equally irrelevant, although less broad question about your views of the United Russia ruling party in Russia.

Thanks for admitting that you responded to my honest question with mockery. It's just difficult for me to discern what your views are on Muslims in Canada who have nothing to do with middle east conflicts. I can't read between the lines with regards to your posts, which generally seem to denegrate that religion.

I ask questions so that we can have dialogue, and I can get a better idea of what you're trying to say.

[Bob]

Thanks for admitting that you responded to my honest question with mockery. It's just difficult for me to discern what your views are on Muslims in Canada who have nothing to do with middle east conflicts. I can't read between the lines with regards to your posts, which generally seem to denegrate that religion.

I ask questions so that we can have dialogue, and I can get a better idea of what you're trying to say.

I don't speak in code, and I don't post things with ulterior motives. I am an open book on MLW. I say what I mean, and I compose clear and coherent posts that don't require interpretation. Your struggle to "read between the lines" with respect to my posts is unnecessary. If anything, it says a lot about you. My posts are to be taken at face-value, nothing more, nothing less.

The question you asked, "What are your views on innocent Muslims?" is just such typical Michael Hardner. It's totally out of left-field, it's a absurdly broad and irrelevant question, and it demonstrates that you are unable to follow the dialogue of the thread. You've just stated that you are trying to decipher my posts, as if you need some sort of decoder ring from your children's breakfast cereal box. What is there to decipher? Again, I say what I mean and I compose clear and coherent posts.

[dre]

Michael Hardner is oblivious to his tacit support for Islamic terrorism.

:lol:

[Scotty]

A river of blood isn't enough, you want tears too?

Or just the oil?

I want the Muslim world to stop blaming others for their own ignorance and backwardness. It didn't originate with the west in 1953. It's been an ongoing process for centuries.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Scotty

[cybercoma]

I don't speak in code, and I don't post things with ulterior motives. I am an open book on MLW. I say what I mean, and I compose clear and coherent posts that don't require interpretation. Your struggle to "read between the lines" with respect to my posts is unnecessary. If anything, it says a lot about you. My posts are to be taken at face-value, nothing more, nothing less.

The question you asked, "What are your views on innocent Muslims?" is just such typical Michael Hardner. It's totally out of left-field, it's a absurdly broad and irrelevant question, and it demonstrates that you are unable to follow the dialogue of the thread. You've just stated that you are trying to decipher my posts, as if you need some sort of decoder ring from your children's breakfast cereal box. What is there to decipher? Again, I say what I mean and I compose clear and coherent posts.

The fact that you refuse to (can't?) answer the question is telling enough.

[Shady]

Canada doesn't exist in a vacuum would be my guess.

One could apply that to pretty much anything.

[Bob]

The fact that you refuse to (can't?) answer the question is telling enough.

I don't understand the question or the motive for asking it. Why don't you answer it first?

Edited December 27, 2011 by Bob

[Michael Hardner]

I don't speak in code, and I don't post things with ulterior motives. I am an open book on MLW. I say what I mean, and I compose clear and coherent posts that don't require interpretation. Your struggle to "read between the lines" with respect to my posts is unnecessary. If anything, it says a lot about you. My posts are to be taken at face-value, nothing more, nothing less.

The question you asked, "What are your views on innocent Muslims?" is just such typical Michael Hardner. It's totally out of left-field, it's a absurdly broad and irrelevant question, and it demonstrates that you are unable to follow the dialogue of the thread. You've just stated that you are trying to decipher my posts, as if you need some sort of decoder ring from your children's breakfast cereal box. What is there to decipher? Again, I say what I mean and I compose clear and coherent posts.

Your posts are clear, but I'm not clear on whether you want to discuss things or not.

For example, you have stated here that an entire religion is "repugnant". Leaving aside that this is an insult, whether or not you have anything to back it up the point is: it's just a personal view, unless you do back it up.

Are we supposed to be interested in your tastes here or do you have anything to say that's relevant to the rest of us ?

As I said, you insulted an entire religion on here just in passing. When somebody denegrates and entire religion this way, it's tough for the rest of us to determine what we're supposed to do with that information. This is why I have to try and read between the lines with you. If there indeed is nothing else, then there's no discussion to be had and we can just ask you to keep your opinions to yourselves.

I couldn't see ever trying build a empirical argument around my likes/dislikes and yet here you are doing it every day. To me, it takes a large ego to post one's proclivities on a discussion forum, and then to expect others to read it and be enlightened somehow. When I ask you to post facts, you seem to be wounded by the idea that I base my conclusions on anything other than what you tell me.

It's a discussion board. In order to discuss things, we have to have points of discussion. It's elementary.

[Guest Peeves]

The fact that you refuse to (can't?) answer the question is telling enough.

Rather:

What are your views on terrorists martyrs that participate in murder of innocents in 'the name of Allah"?

Innocent Muslims believe, as stated in the Koran, that suicide is unacceptable just as is murder of another not participating in an attack on Islam.

Now an innocent Muslim will outright condemn such, a Muslim that finds a way to condone, explain or attempt to minimize, justify or decline to condemn is therefore hardly to be considered an 'innocent."

Then, those that openly condemn the "Muslim terrorists" are in danger of attack themselves.

You should be asking the question, "Why are Muslims killing other innocent Muslims now and for centuries?"

[Michael Hardner]

You should be asking the question, "Why are Muslims killing other innocent Muslims now and for centuries?"

Just by the phrasing of the question, you can tell that the conversation will be fruitless.

[cybercoma]

I don't understand the question or the motive for asking it. Why don't you answer it first?

You're the smartest guy on the forum and here you're claiming you don't understand the question?

[WWWTT]

If you disagree with the placement of a thread, click the REPORT button and state you reasons. Charles and Greg are the moderators - they will read it.

Thank you!

WWWTT

[jbg]

Michael Hardner is oblivious to his tacit support for Islamic terrorism. he probably even opposes the term "Islamic terrorism", and perhaps even "Islamist". Since his apologism the most oppressive and destructive ideologies and their proponents is grounded primarily in his own ignorance rather than a more malicious and deliberate attempt to deceive us, this phenomenon is perhaps less vile.

It is definitely far less vile. From my dealings with Michael Hardener there is nothing vile about him. He's part of the majority of all peaceful countries that don't want to face the reality that what passes for leaders in large parts of the world hate the West. That has been true since the beginnings of time and will always be true.

The West has always been perceived by more primitive people as a dire threat to their way of life. And there is some truth to that worry.

At its most benign, the primitive groups have to worry about a "brain drain" of their best people to a better life in the West, leaving them with less competent and capable people.

At the next level, the primitive groups worry about the impact of modernizing islands in their midst. The Muslim people have that problem with India, Israel and to an extent the Phillipines. The Chinese have that problem with Hong Kong.

The responses often involve suppression and/or violence.

Still, the consequence of terrorist-apologists is largely the same, whether their narratives originate from a place of malice or from a place of massive ignorance and seeming inability to grasp somewhat abstract concepts (as is clearly the case with Michael Hardner).

Not really. When the right confluence of events happen these people do get the message. The Michael Hardeners of the world are patriotic and loyal; just in denial.

[cybercoma]

Is it really so hard for you people to understand that calling Islam primitive, backwards, and unenlightened is extremely offensive to the millions of Muslims around the world that do not subscribe to the violent and abhorrent political tactics used by the extremists and terrorists out there? Thread after thread, you guys can't help yourself but paint all Muslims with the same coloured brush and it's nothing if not offensive to those who don't have those beliefs and go so far as condemning those things themselves.

[DogOnPorch]

Is it really so hard for you people to understand that calling Islam primitive, backwards, and unenlightened is extremely offensive to the millions of Muslims around the world that do not subscribe to the violent and abhorrent political tactics used by the extremists and terrorists out there? Thread after thread, you guys can't help yourself but paint all Muslims with the same coloured brush and it's nothing if not offensive to those who don't have those beliefs and go so far as condemning those things themselves.

lol...too bad. Religion doesn't deserve respect 'just because'.

[Michael Hardner]

Not really. When the right confluence of events happen these people do get the message. The Michael Hardeners of the world are patriotic and loyal; just in denial.

Denial about what? I have no doubt that many hate us, but our way of life continues to succeed, including our pluralism.

I have faith in our philosophies; I don't think we need to change to adopt their holy war mentality.

[Scotty]

Is it really so hard for you people to understand that calling Islam primitive, backwards, and unenlightened is extremely offensive to the millions of Muslims around the world

I understand it. I just don't care. Why do you care so much about offending people anyway? You clearly don't mind offending them personally, so why does it bother you to offend some great amorphous mass of humanity far away?

Let me be clear again that my judgement is in response to actions and behaviour. I am almost as contemptuous towards these Jews and the only slight advantage they have over the Islamists is they haven't produced a subset of bombers and martyrs ... yet.

In some ways I'm even more contemptuous. At least most of the Arabs work for a living, or want to. Not these leeches.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Scotty

[cybercoma]

I understand it. I just don't care.

I guess that tells me all I need to know about you. Who cares! Being white, middle-class, Christian and male, you don't have to worry about our society broadbrushing you because you'll always have people excusing activities as the work of fanatics or fringe groups. All I'm suggesting is that the same respect be extended to others. Who cares though. They're not equal anyway. They're inferior and deserve the labels you in your privileged position create for them.

[Scotty]

I guess that tells me all I need to know about you. Who cares! Being white, middle-class, Christian and male, you don't have to worry about our society broadbrushing you because you'll always have people excusing activities as the work of fanatics or fringe groups. All I'm suggesting is that the same respect be extended to others. Who cares though. They're not equal anyway. They're inferior and deserve the labels you in your privileged position create for them.

Riiight. Because no one puts labels on Scottish people, or the Irish. Naahhh. No cliches or broad brushing there.

Spare me your self-righteous sermonizing. I don't go out of my way to offend anyone but I'm not going to whitewash things because someone might be offended by the truth either.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Scotty

[DogOnPorch]

Riiight. Because no one puts labels on Scottish people, or the Irish. Naahhh. No cliches or broad brushing there.

Spare me your self-righteous sermonizing. I don't go out of my way to offend anyone but I'm not going to whitewash things because someone might be offended by the truth either.

Hear, hear.

[jbg]

Is it really so hard for you people to understand that calling Islam primitive, backwards, and unenlightened is extremely offensive to the millions of Muslims around the world that do not subscribe to the violent and abhorrent political tactics used by the extremists and terrorists out there? Thread after thread, you guys can't help yourself but paint all Muslims with the same coloured brush and it's nothing if not offensive to those who don't have those beliefs and go so far as condemning those things themselves.

I give up, Cybercoma.

Why don't we read, in just about every day's papers, of Christian or Jewish attacks killing hundreds of helpless people? And I'm not talking about collateral war damage, which is far from a daily event.

[jbg]

Denial about what? I have no doubt that many hate us, but our way of life continues to succeed, including our pluralism.

Denial abouto the fact that Radical Islam is taking advantage of our openness to kill us.

[jbg]

I want the Muslim world to stop blaming others for their own ignorance and backwardness. It didn't originate with the west in 1953. It's been an ongoing process for centuries.

No, it started on May 14, 1948 with Israel's independence and desecration of a tiny patch of ground in the middle of the Ummah.

[DogOnPorch]

No, it started on May 14, 1948 with Israel's independence and desecration of a tiny patch of ground in the middle of the Ummah.

I got it pegged to about 490 BC. Perhaps a bit earlier. East vs West...the classic confrontation of the ages.