Unveiling according to the Prophet

[Guest Peeves]

I am not sure to which religion you're referring. Zoroastrian? Baha'i?

Taking a flier I'll suggest the Aztecs with their human sacrifices going on around every corner and that nasty god Huitzilopochtli. Personally If they move into the neighborhood I move out.

[Guest Peeves]

It's not irrelevant for exactly the reason I stated above. Your arguments wear a thin veil.

There you go again, (Reagen impersonation), bringing up veils, never satisfied with your Muslim rants.

[Guest Peeves]

Your problem is that you like to use Islamist, not to just refer to terrorists, but to imply that the entire religion is filth. Your denotation is Islamic poitical fanatics, but you don't say "terrorists" sine qua non, rather you imply that it is Islam that is the necessary condition. In other words, you say Islamist filth, but imply Muslim filth, which is unequivocally a bigoted remark. The fact of the matter is that there are millions upon millions of Muslims that not only disagree, but condemn terrorism and political extremists that use religious zealotry to justify violence. However, you paint them all with the same brush, marking them for no other reason than their faith as inferior to you, your religion, and your culture. Without even knowing a Muslim person's political beliefs, you make the assumption that Muslim means terrorist, which is BS.

Why do apologists insist in telling us what we imply, assume or say?

If I say Islamists or Islmofascism or Muslim terrorists, or Islamic radicals, or Muslim extremists, I'm doing my best NOT to confuse such with the moderate Muslim.

Yet, there are those that want to twist, spin and turn the label , definition, or qualification used for specificity as a libel or condemnation of all Muslims. That's blatantly unfair and disingenuous and most will see through such dishonesty.

Is then the following referencing ALL Muslims? Is it IMPLYING of all Muslims? Is a specifically referenced group not satisfactorily defined as a separate entity from the whole? Of course it is.

in practice, Islamic fanatics operate a fascistic concept of the "pure" and the "exclusive" over the unclean and the kufar or profane. In the propaganda against Hinduism and India, for example, there can be seen something very like bigotry. In the attitude to Jews, it is clear that an inferior or unclean race is being talked about (which is why many Muslim extremists like the grand mufti of Jerusalem gravitated to Hitler's side).

Only an inciting agent wishing to provoke, or a dishonest apologist would read and suggest that anyone remarking on a specified term of reference would condemn the author of more than is said by

"Assumption" by "Implication", by Ommission, or by "bigotry."....

I suggest that if one leaps to a conclusion not in evidence they are dishonest.

Granting "the millions upon millions of Muslims" that abhor and condemn violence and terrorism, does anyone care to deny that other millions of the billion plus, support and applaud terrorism?

Anyone familiar with sectarian Muslim violence knows that when Sunni are murdered some Shiite applaud and cheer and vice versa. And...sadly they are often otherwise pretty good people.

[Guest Peeves]

It is bigoted to say that Christians and Jews are more enlightened (the implication being that they are superior) than Muslims. It's the same kind of stereotype that was used to subjugate Jews, Natives, and Africans.

Enough already with your charges of "implication" If I say millions of the billion plus Muslims are unable to read the Koran, that must be proved one way or another, but nothing is implied beyond what is said.

[cybercoma]

Why do apologists insist in telling us what we imply, assume or say?

If I say Islamists or Islmofascism or Muslim terrorists, or Islamic radicals, or Muslim extremists, I'm doing my best NOT to confuse such with the moderate Muslim.

Yet, there are those that want to twist, spin and turn the label , definition, or qualification used for specificity as a libel or condemnation of all Muslims. That's blatantly unfair and disingenuous and most will see through such dishonesty.

Is then the following referencing ALL Muslims? Is it IMPLYING of all Muslims? Is a specifically referenced group not satisfactorily defined as a separate entity from the whole? Of course it is.

Only an inciting agent wishing to provoke, or a dishonest apologist would read and suggest that anyone remarking on a specified term of reference would condemn the author of more than is said by

"Assumption" by "Implication", by Ommission, or by "bigotry."....

I suggest that if one leaps to a conclusion not in evidence they are dishonest.

Granting "the millions upon millions of Muslims" that abhor and condemn violence and terrorism, does anyone care to deny that other millions of the billion plus, support and applaud terrorism?

Anyone familiar with sectarian Muslim violence knows that when Sunni are murdered some Shiite applaud and cheer and vice versa. And...sadly they are often otherwise pretty good people.

[cybercoma]

Why do apologists insist in telling us what we imply, assume or say?

If I say Islamists or Islmofascism or Muslim terrorists, or Islamic radicals, or Muslim extremists, I'm doing my best NOT to confuse such with the moderate Muslim.

Are you Bob now? Is there some collective "we" group that has taken over the forum that the rest of us should know about?

[cybercoma]

Enough already with your charges of "implication" If I say millions of the billion plus Muslims are unable to read the Koran, that must be proved one way or another, but nothing is implied beyond what is said.

Less enlightened means inferior. Full stop. It wasn't even implied. I was being generous.

[eyeball]

I'm not sure what you mean by "on the backs of oppressed Muslims (even with superfluous apostrophe). The Magna Carta long preceded any exploitation of your favorite victim culture.

Would you care to explain how you believe we achieved freedom 'on the back of oppressed Muslims'?

We saved our poor asses from the tyranny of communism throughout the Muslim world by aiding and abetting capitalist tyranny throughout the Muslim world.

Let me guess you guys couldn't perceive the OWS message either could you? In a fucking pig's eye you couldn't. You clearly don't gave a rat's ass about anyone else's freedom but your own and so long as your stacks alright you likely never will.

The Islamic countries of course are rioting because they are being murdered and oppressed by the West!.

No, they're fed up with being oppressed and murdered by the sorts of tyrants we've long regarded as being our BFF's. Well not forever, but as long as there's still some oil left.

[Guest Peeves]

Are you Bob now? Is there some collective "we" group that has taken over the forum that the rest of us should know about?

Certainly is, we're the ones taking on the 'Truthers" world wide. Conspirators forever! Long Live Conspiracy theories.

And enablers and apologists.

[eyeball]

The West's freedom and achievement began long before the beginnings of its contemporary involvement in the Middle East..

That's right, I should have said we sustained our freedom on the backs of the oppressed.

The fact we sold out our principles so cheaply places us near the bottom of the heap as far as evil and hypocrisy go.

We knew better all along but we did it anyway. We've behaved in a pretty goddamn disgusting manner when you get right down to it.

[cybercoma]

Certainly is, we're the ones taking on the 'Truthers" world wide.

What the hell are you talking about? Are you calling me a "Truther"?

[Bob]

Your problem is that you like to use Islamist, not to just refer to terrorists, but to imply that the entire religion is filth. Your denotation is Islamic poitical fanatics, but you don't say "terrorists" sine qua non, rather you imply that it is Islam that is the necessary condition. In other words, you say Islamist filth, but imply Muslim filth, which is unequivocally a bigoted remark. The fact of the matter is that there are millions upon millions of Muslims that not only disagree, but condemn terrorism and political extremists that use religious zealotry to justify violence. However, you paint them all with the same brush, marking them for no other reason than their faith as inferior to you, your religion, and your culture. Without even knowing a Muslim person's political beliefs, you make the assumption that Muslim means terrorist, which is BS.

I say what I mean and MLW regulars certainly don't need you to engage in some sort of warped leftist exegesis in order to interpret my statements for their benefit. When I say Islamist, I mean Islamist. When I say Islam, I mean Islam. When I say Muslim, I mean Muslim. I cannot be more clear than that. I grasp nuance and utilize it often. You are certainly in no position to be critiquing someone like myself of being ambiguous or unclear in writing, although of course that will not stop you from regularly and intentionally (or stupidly) mischaracterizing my statements.

Leftists like yourself want to control what can and cannot be said, as you've demonstrated several times in other threads where you've alleged that "hate-crimes" are being committed on MLW by invoking a ridiculous section of the Human Rights Act of 1977 prohibiting electronic transmission of of messages that are "likely" to expose a person belonging to an identifiable group to "hatred and/or contempt". You're trying to bully this forum with not-so-subtle legal threats. You're trying to shut down discussion on MLW, your entire schtick is utterly despicable.

[cybercoma]

I say what I mean and MLW regulars certainly don't need you to engage in some sort of warped leftist exegesis in order to interpret my statements for their benefit. When I say Islamist, I mean Islamist. When I say Islam, I mean Islam. When I say Muslim, I mean Muslim. I cannot be more clear than that. I grasp nuance and utilize it often. You are certainly in no position to be critiquing someone like myself of being ambiguous or unclear in writing, although of course that will not stop you from regularly and intentionally (or stupidly) mischaracterizing my statements.

Leftists like yourself want to control what can and cannot be said, as you've demonstrated several times in other threads where you've alleged that "hate-crimes" are being committed on MLW by invoking a ridiculous section of the Human Rights Act of 1977 prohibiting electronic transmission of of messages that are "likely" to expose a person belonging to an identifiable group to "hatred and/or contempt". You're trying to bully this forum with not-so-subtle legal threats. You're trying to shut down discussion on MLW, your entire schtick is utterly despicable.

I'm sorry, Bob. I didn't realize you were so intimidated by me.

[Scotty]

It is bigoted to say that Christians and Jews are more enlightened (the implication being that they are superior) than Muslims. It's the same kind of stereotype that was used to subjugate Jews, Natives, and Africans.

I said that Christians and Jews "by and large" come from more enlightened societies than Muslims. This is indisputably true. Your anguish at my stating it simply shows that your opposition is based more on political correctness than any actual interest in facts or truth.

[Scotty]

It has to do with the religion. He said as much when he wrote, "not coincidentally."

Certainly a religion can have a detrimental effect on a society in which it holds power. Imagine, if you would, one of the Aztek religions where human sacrifices were regularly practiced holding sway over a nation today.

[Scotty]

Less enlightened means inferior. Full stop. It wasn't even implied. I was being generous.

You were being silly.

[Scotty]

We saved our poor asses from the tyranny of communism throughout the Muslim world by aiding and abetting capitalist tyranny throughout the Muslim world.

Drivel. We combated their proxies with our proxies throughout the world. The middle-east was simply one of those areas. However, through of the cold war the Soviets were actually the arms masters of most of the more benighted Muslim states, including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon, Jordan and Sudan. However, the middle east has been governed through dictators all the way back to the beginning of the area's history so it's not like we changed anything.

No, they're fed up with being oppressed and murdered by the sorts of tyrants we've long regarded as being our BFF's. Well not forever, but as long as there's still some oil left.

Sure they are, and that's why they're replacing them with their own tyrants. Because they uh, love freedom so much.

[Scotty]

That's right, I should have said we sustained our freedom on the backs of the oppressed.

Drivel. All we did was make a deal with the local government to ensure that the oil we discovered and developed was shipped to us without being impeded. The only conflicts which arose were when the Soviets interfered.

There's little desire for or interest in Freedom in Muslim states. In every single case where they've had the opportunity to vote for their own government they've voted in favor of rigid theocratic parties. Iran is the governing model for how Muslims wish to be ruled.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Scotty

[Michael Hardner]

Hasn't the US had significant influence onhow we got to the current situation?

Didn't they play their usual games there, and lose?

[Scotty]

Hasn't the US had significant influence onhow we got to the current situation?

Didn't they play their usual games there, and lose?

Would you care to clarify your meaning?

[Michael Hardner]

I'm speaking of US interference in Iranian politics.

[eyeball]

Drivel. All we did was make a deal with the local government to ensure that the oil we discovered and developed was shipped to us without being impeded. The only conflicts which arose were when the Soviets interfered.

Wow, that's the epitome of the proverbial piece of work in light of what you've got pinned to your posts. Old Rex would be proud.

There's little desire for or interest in Freedom in Muslim states. In every single case where they've had the opportunity to vote for their own government they've voted in favor of rigid theocratic parties. Iran is the governing model for how Muslims wish to be ruled.

Iran is the governing model for how Muslims wish to be ruled.

This is just so perverted on so many levels - I'm at a real loss for words. Iran is the result of the governing model we imposed on Iran when we smothered the birth of Muslim democracy in it's cradle in 1953.

Drivel. All we did was make a deal with the local government to ensure that the oil we discovered and developed was shipped to us without being impeded.

All we did is doom the world to generations of blow back.

Speaking of bad blood, does all that blood oil you often hear about when the virtues of the Keystone bitumen pipeline are advertised get you feeling all ethical and teary eyed too? You freaking people make me puke.

Edited December 27, 2011 by eyeball

[jbg]

How does one "dialogue" over the noise of jets screaming into the WTC?

Why not hopscotch over the metaphor and make your point directly ?

MLW is a place for dialogue, and there don't seem to be any terrorists or terrorist supporters here.

Michael, I certainly don't think you're a supporter of terrorists.

My difficulty is that when "moderate" or "responsible" Muslims sit down to make common cause with Christians or Jews, some more extreme group disagrees with this approach, and violently. It is very difficult to treat with a group that wants the other group to submit to them.

[eyeball]

Michael, I certainly don't think you're a supporter of terrorists.

My difficulty is that when "moderate" or "responsible" Muslims sit down to make common cause with Christians or Jews, some more extreme group disagrees with this approach, and violently.

When our freedom loving elected leaders make common cause with violent bloody dictators you also have great difficulty when people point to that as the reason the west is so hated.

It is very difficult to treat with a group that wants the other group to submit to them.

I'll say.

[Bob]

Michael, I certainly don't think you're a supporter of terrorists.

My difficulty is that when "moderate" or "responsible" Muslims sit down to make common cause with Christians or Jews, some more extreme group disagrees with this approach, and violently. It is very difficult to treat with a group that wants the other group to submit to them.

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. 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).

Edited December 27, 2011 by Bob