How many Jewish tribes does this statement cover?

What period did the Yemeni treaties occur in?

Did Muhammed make treaties with Jews outside of Medina?


falah wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

Yadda wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:28pm: falah wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 2:06pm: The Jewish Nadir and Quraiza tribes were permitted to stay until they broke their peace treaty and fought against the Muslims, with the Nadir tribe being the main offenders in breaking peace treaties with Muslims initially, after being pressured by the Meccans pagans who were furious at being defeated by Muslims at the Battle of Badr: In the time of Mohammed, Jewish communities in Saudi Arabia were being oppressed and pillaged by moslems. Why? Simply because many of the Jews refused to relinquish Judaism, and adopt ISLAM. This is false Yadda, the Jews had invited Muhammed to come to Madina and be their ruler. The Jews had signed treaties promising to protect the Islamic state. The Jews broke their treaties and attacked the Islamic state. This was grounds for their expulsion. Some of the Jewish tribes had been more treacherous than other. Despite their many crimes, Prophet Muhammed mercifully gave the tribe deemed least treacherous one last chance to stay if they converted to Islam. Some of the Jews dedcided to take up the offer and converted o Islam, others left. This was all done on a case by case basis. Over the years, all the Jewish tribes in Madina proved themselves to be treacherous and broke their treaties with the Muslims. There were other Jews living under the islamic state, like those in Yemen. The Yemeni Jews did not break treaties, and therefore were not expelled from Yemen. In fact most of the Yemeni jews converted to Islam, but many remained Jewish and till this day there are many Yemeni Jews.

Usury  :D

From the Aisha thread:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 26^th, 2014 at 8:27pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 26th, 2014 at 6:59pm: It is not clear at all. You have merely insisted it is the case, while taking 3 contradictory stances. You claim they were constantly trying to annihilate each other, that they had stopped fighting in the interests of self preservation and that one group was maintaining the upper hand and somehow ruling the weaker tribes, while not actually annihilating them. lol - it is not contradictory when they happen in sequence: first the jews ruled over the arabs, second the arabs overthrew them and ruled over the jews, third the arabs fought each other for over a century - only deciding to end the destructive war when it was obvious each side was anhialating itself. If Muhammad ceased hostilities in the interests of self preservation, you would merely cite it as evidence of how sinister he was.

So at the time Muhammed turned up, the tribes were living together in peace, as equals, and Muhammed fixed this by kicking out the first two Jewish tribes and annihilating the third?

If he had actually ceased the (already-ceased) hostilities, that might make him a peacemaker. He was a classic warmonger, and these transparent justifications for Jew-slaughtering would make Goebbels proud.


Quote:

This sequence of events very plainly demonstrates your portrayal of coexisting tribes trading with each other and having a society based on "genuine equality" with no caste system is a complete joke.

Why? Because it had not been that way for all eternity?


Quote:

hilarious. I'm not justifying anything - quote me justifying anything Muhammad did in this thread.

You have justified his slaughter of an entire Jewish tribe, on the grounds that they were all scheming Jews who deserved what they got.

There were about 11 jewish tribes in Medina.

Little is written about the other 8 or so, but we do know they continued to coexist with the muslims. When Umar conquered Jerusalem his army comprised some jews from Medina.

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:32am:

Why? Because it had not been that way for all eternity?

No, you said Muhammad invented a completely alien religious caste system in Medina - he demonstrably did not. Most historians agree that at the time Muhammad entered Medina, the jews were subjects to the Aws and Khazraj - and had been such since the Aws and Khazraj stopped being subjects to the jews, after a violent revolt.


freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:32am:

You have justified his slaughter of an entire Jewish tribe, on the grounds that they were all scheming Jews who deserved what they got.

You invented the strawman in the thread you quote - to try and worm your way out of the fact that you made up BS fairy tales about Muhammad disrupting a utopian society society based on "genuine equality". My simple rebuttal consists only of pointing out that you are speaking out of your arse with a complete ignorance of history - not some red herring about how Muhammad was justified in what he did.

Quote:

There were about 11 jewish tribes in Medina.

3 of those tribes were big enough to be a threat to Muhammed's quest for power. Guess which 3 Muhammed got rid of?


Quote:

You invented the strawman in the thread you quote - to try and worm your way out of the fact that you made up BS fairy tales about Muhammad disrupting a utopian society society based on "genuine equality". My simple rebuttal consists only of pointing out that you are speaking out of your arse with a complete ignorance of history - not some red herring about how Muhammad was justified in what he did.

You challenged me to quote you justifying anything Muhammed did, after you just finished justifying him slaughtering that tribe of Jews.

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 11:38am:

You challenged me to quote you justifying anything Muhammed did

In the context of the topic we were discussing - obviously.

This was the context Gandalf:

You are misrepresenting the conditions in Medina in order to justify the underhandedness and brutality with which Muhammed took control of the city.

How is the slaughtering of an entire Jewish tribe in any way out of context?

ummm yes FD - thats the strawman you created - the very quote  ;D ;D

Did you have a point?

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 12:14pm:

This was the context Gandalf: You are misrepresenting the conditions in Medina in order to justify the underhandedness and brutality with which Muhammed took control of the city. How is the slaughtering of an entire Jewish tribe in any way out of context?

The entire tribe was not slaughtered. Only fighters from the tribe who had committed treachery by attacking the state from within and aiding an invading enemy contrary to an established treaty were punished with death.

The US has death on the statutes for treachery.  The US has executed Jews, including women, for treachery. Have a problem with the US too?

Quote:

Only fighters from the tribe who had committed treachery by attacking the state from within and aiding an invading enemy contrary to an established treaty were punished with death.

Crap. There was no actual fighting until Muhammed laid siege to the Jewish tribe. Nor was there any kind of state for them to attack. It was a city that Muhammed was still trying to gain control of. Muhammed slaughtered about 800 Jewish men that day. How many died in the alleged "fighting"?

Team Murdoch wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 2:28pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 12:14pm: This was the context Gandalf: You are misrepresenting the conditions in Medina in order to justify the underhandedness and brutality with which Muhammed took control of the city. How is the slaughtering of an entire Jewish tribe in any way out of context? The entire tribe was not slaughtered. Only fighters from the tribe who had committed treachery by attacking the state from within and aiding an invading enemy contrary to an established treaty were punished with death. The US has death on the statutes for treachery.  The US has executed Jews, including women, for treachery. Have a problem with the US too?

The women and children were not slaughtered they were sold into slavery so Muhammad could get money for weapons and horses.

So how many muslim deaths were caused by the jews defending Muhammad from 15,000 Meccan soldiers who wanted Muhammad for robbing the trade caravans, was it none zip zilch?

So when was the last execution for treason in the USA?

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 2:48pm:

Crap. There was no actual fighting until Muhammed laid siege to the Jewish tribe.

Umm the city was under attack by the Quraysh. Also the Sealed Nectar, which Baron always used to love to reference, describes specific attacks by the Qurayza against the muslims during the siege.

In any case, all that really matters is that the Qurayza secretly met with the Quraysh to arrange the opening up of a second front, on order for the Quraysh to perform a genocide and destroy the muslim state. The deal only fell through over a disagreement about hostages (each side would take hostages from the other as insurance). That alone is a capital offense in just about everyone's book.

So tough titties traitors  8-)

*SIGH*, here we go again.  FD speaking from ignorance again...   ::)

Quote:

Umm the city was under attack by the Quraysh.

How many died in this attack?


Quote:

In any case, all that really matters is that the Qurayza secretly met with the Quraysh to arrange the opening up of a second front, on order for the Quraysh to perform a genocide and destroy the muslim state. The deal only fell through over a disagreement about hostages (each side would take hostages from the other as insurance). That alone is a capital offense in just about everyone's book. So tough titties traitors

Of course. All 800 of them deserved to die for being scheming Jews and plotting against Muhammed who had treated them with nothing but respect, right? Can you conceive of any modern situation where you would support the execution of 800 people over a single incident?

freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

How many died in this attack?

Not many - completely irrelevant though.


freediver wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 6:22pm:

All 800 of them deserved to die for being scheming Jews

800, 600, 900, 700 - we have a different figure every time.

Each one of them had the opportunity to disown the decision of their leaders and pledge loyalty to the state, some did - we don't know exactly how many. Those who didn't are by default guilty.

Tough titties - off with your heads  8-)

Quote:

Not many - completely irrelevant though.

Can you be more specific? I think it is entirely relevant. You are using this battle to justify Muhammed slaughtering all 800 adult males of the tribe.


Quote:

800, 600, 900, 700 - we have a different figure every time.

I acknowledge that this number is approximate, as they obviously lost count. After all, they were only Jews, no need to get all anal about the details or you might look like a Nazi. But it was a large pile of heads.

What is the uncertainty in the number of people killed in the battle you use to justify this act of mercy by Muhammed?


Quote:

Each one of them had the opportunity to disown the decision of their leaders and pledge loyalty to the state, some did - we don't know exactly how many. Those who didn't are by default guilty.

Ah, so you pledge your allegiance to the Islamic state, or get your head chopped of. Does this pledge include conversion to Islam? BTW, I recall reading somewhere that it was two people who did this, and they apparently escaped before the Jews were rounded up. Are you sure they were given this opportunity?

Are all Jews guilty by default?


Quote:

Tough titties - off with your heads

Islam is peace. Innit?

freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

I think it is entirely relevant.

It is not. An attempted genocide is an attempted genocide - irrespective of how incompetent they were.


freediver wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

Ah, so you pledge your allegiance to the Islamic state, or get your head chopped of.

For people who had just joined in an attempted genocide - in a complete betrayal of the state they pledged loyalty to - that is entirely reasonable.

What's with the past-tense in the thread title ?

Quote:

It is not. An attempted genocide is an attempted genocide - irrespective of how incompetent they were

Even if they are incompetent to the point of not actually attempting genocide? And since when is talking about taking sides in a war automatically considered an act of genocide by a whole tribe of people, many of whom were not even involved? What Muhammed did was genocide. What the Jews did is completely reasonable, given Muhammed's previous hostility towards them and the other two tribes he had already gotten rid of.

Muhammed was a genocidal maniac. Islam compels you to support that. And you wonder why groups like ISIS are so popular among Muslims. It is not poverty. It is no socio-economic factors. It is not alienation. It is following Muhammed's example.


Quote:

For people who had just joined in an attempted genocide - in a complete betrayal of the state they pledged loyalty to - that is entirely reasonable.

This is no different to a Nazi complaining about Jews betraying some kind of oath of loyalty to Nazi Germany. You cannot seriously expect people to believe the Jews owed any loyalty to what Muhammed had become.

freediver wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 7:47pm:

Quote: It is not. An attempted genocide is an attempted genocide - irrespective of how incompetent they were Even if they are incompetent to the point of not actually attempting genocide? And since when is talking about taking sides in a war automatically considered an act of genocide by a whole tribe of people, many of whom were not even involved? What Muhammed did was genocide. What the Jews did is completely reasonable, given Muhammed's previous hostility towards them and the other two tribes he had already gotten rid of. Muhammed was a genocidal maniac. Islam compels you to support that. And you wonder why groups like ISIS are so popular among Muslims. It is not poverty. It is no socio-economic factors. It is not alienation. It is following Muhammed's example..

Here’s FD trying to talk a Muslim into becoming a genocidal maniac.

Keep at him, FD. He’ll crack in the end.

Karnal wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:07am:

Here’s FD trying to talk a Muslim into becoming a genocidal maniac. Keep at him, FD. He’ll crack in the end.

I think I get it, I was baffled by karnals  11 or so posts a day of repetitive static and a seemingly 24/7 presence and now I know, she is the voice over guy. 

Datalife wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:35am:

Karnal wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:07am: Here’s FD trying to talk a Muslim into becoming a genocidal maniac. Keep at him, FD. He’ll crack in the end. I think I get it, I was baffled by karnals  11 or so posts a day of repetitive static and a seemingly 24/7 presence and now I know, she is the voice over guy.

No no, I’m Richard Mercer on Love Song Dedications.

So good to have you here.

Karnal wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 12:53am:

Datalife wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:35am: Karnal wrote on Oct 2nd, 2014 at 12:07am: Here’s FD trying to talk a Muslim into becoming a genocidal maniac. Keep at him, FD. He’ll crack in the end. I think I get it, I was baffled by karnals  11 or so posts a day of repetitive static and a seemingly 24/7 presence and now I know, she is the voice over guy.  No no, I’m Richard Mercer on Love Song Dedications. So good to have you here.

Why thank you but at one in the morning i am off to bed. 
Keep up the patrols and maintain the borders. Islam must be defended. 

freediver wrote on Oct 1^st, 2014 at 7:47pm:

And you wonder why groups like ISIS are so popular among Muslims.

Its not, and thats the whole point.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:22pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:47pm: And you wonder why groups like ISIS are so popular among Muslims. Its not, and thats the whole point.

It is, and FD has the words of Abu, Falah, Malik, Lestat and yourself to prove it. That's five Muslims.

They might not have said they support ISIL in so many words, but we know what they think.

They're Muslims.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:22pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:47pm: And you wonder why groups like ISIS are so popular among Muslims. Its not, and thats the whole point.

Good job your not Moroccan Gandalf, they don't seem to agree with you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjyXKRL-aNY

That's right. Abu, Falah, Malik, Lestat, Gandalf - and Morocco.

ISIS is supported by all Muslims. It has to be.

Mo tortured that Jew for his gold. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 1:22pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 1st, 2014 at 7:47pm: And you wonder why groups like ISIS are so popular among Muslims. Its not, and thats the whole point.

How many Islamic causes are you aware of that are drawing more Australian Muslims to travel (or attempt to travel) half way round the world to give their direct support? Now name a single one that Muslims risk their lives in any number to support.

ISIS is at the top of the list when it comes to Muslims demonstrating where they stand.


Quote:

They might not have said they support ISIL in so many words, but we know what they think.

Actually I expect that there is much to ISIS' behaviour that they would object to. Either that or blame it on western propaganda and refuse to believe it. After all, they are mainstream Muslims. They support a slightly less barbaric version of Islam (unless the Islamic state is under threat, of course).

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 1:10pm:

ISIS is at the top of the list when it comes to Muslims demonstrating where they stand.

What a load of crap. There are a gazillion times more muslims fighting ISIS than there are joining them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 2:42pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 1:10pm: ISIS is at the top of the list when it comes to Muslims demonstrating where they stand. What a load of crap. There are a gazillion times more muslims fighting ISIS than there are joining them.

How many Australian Muslims are fighting on each side?

If so many more Muslims are fighting against than for them, on top of all the assistance from non-Muslims, why does ISIS still exist?

Are there any Muslims fighting against ISIS as purely a matter of principle rather than out of self defense?

How does the actions of ISIS differ from the actions of Muhammed in defending his Islamic state against treacherous people who assist or talk about assisting outside forces in attacking?

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 6:51pm:

How many Australian Muslims are fighting on each side? If so many more Muslims are fighting against than for them, on top of all the assistance from non-Muslims, why does ISIS still exist? Are there any Muslims fighting against ISIS as purely a matter of principle rather than out of self defense? How does the actions of ISIS differ from the actions of Muhammed in defending his Islamic state against treacherous people who assist or talk about assisting outside forces in attacking?

A very round about way of saying "yes, my statement that 'ISIS is at the top of the list when it comes to Muslims demonstrating where they stand' - was full of crap", but I'll accept it nonetheless.

Have you been taking debating lessons from Baron?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 2:42pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 1:10pm: ISIS is at the top of the list when it comes to Muslims demonstrating where they stand. What a load of crap. There are a gazillion times more muslims fighting ISIS than there are joining them.

With the help of the western dictator nations who hate the muslim and only want their oil for free. Eh Gandalf!!!!!!!!!!!

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 8:05pm:

freediver wrote on Oct 3rd, 2014 at 6:51pm: How many Australian Muslims are fighting on each side? If so many more Muslims are fighting against than for them, on top of all the assistance from non-Muslims, why does ISIS still exist? Are there any Muslims fighting against ISIS as purely a matter of principle rather than out of self defense? How does the actions of ISIS differ from the actions of Muhammed in defending his Islamic state against treacherous people who assist or talk about assisting outside forces in attacking? A very round about way of saying "yes, my statement that 'ISIS is at the top of the list when it comes to Muslims demonstrating where they stand' - was full of crap", but I'll accept it nonetheless. Have you been taking debating lessons from Baron?

Many Muslims supporting ISIS have flown half way round the world to literally stare death in the face, in support of ISIS. Even more have tried. On the other hand we have some press releases and a BBQ where Muslims stared kafir sycophants in the face.

You are the one who brought up the issue of Muslims demonstrating where they stand. When it comes to that, ISIS is on top of the list. When the extremists see 'good' Muslims such as yourself justifying the genocide of those Jews because some of them merely talked about fighting against the original Islamic state, how do you think they interpret those weasel words?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Crap. There was no actual fighting until Muhammed laid siege to the Jewish tribe. Umm the city was under attack by the Quraysh. Also the Sealed Nectar, which Baron always used to love to reference, describes specific attacks by the Qurayza against the muslims during the siege. In any case, all that really matters is that the Qurayza secretly met with the Quraysh to arrange the opening up of a second front, on order for the Quraysh to perform a genocide and destroy the muslim state. The deal only fell through over a disagreement about hostages (each side would take hostages from the other as insurance). That alone is a capital offense in just about everyone's book. So tough titties traitors  8-)

Does this sound like treachery, if yes from which side?


Quote:

Umar expelled the jews and christians from Hijaz. When Allah's messenger conquered Khaibar, he wanted to expel the jews from it as its land had become the property of Allah,his apostle and the muslims. Allah's messenger intended to expel the jews but they requested to let them stay there on the condition that they would do the labor and get half of the fruits. Allah's messenger told them,we will let you stay on thus condition,as long as we wish. So the jews kept living there until Umar forced them to piss off. sunnah.com/bukhari/41/19

Thank you Baron for demonstrating again the great mercy of Muhammed.

freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 8:28pm:

Many Muslims supporting ISIS have flown half way round the world to literally stare death in the face, in support of ISIS. Even more have tried. On the other hand we have some press releases and a BBQ where Muslims stared kafir sycophants in the face.

Whats this FD? - muslims must make the same illegal trip overseas to engage in the same head hacking against ISIS to prove how loyal they are to our freeedoms?

I think the BBQ - in addition to mosques all over the country opening their doors to non-muslims and showing their charity and goodwill during this Eid festival is a nice touch.

But of course theres no pleasing some people.


freediver wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 8:28pm:

You are the one who brought up the issue of Muslims demonstrating where they stand. When it comes to that, ISIS is on top of the list.

No they are not - unless you think the only demonstration that counts is travelling overseas to join a fight. There are close to half a million muslims who "demonstrate" where they stand by living peaceful, coexisting and law abiding lives - just like every other Australian that you don't scrutinise over how they are 'demonstrating where they stand'.

Quote:

Whats this FD? - muslims must make the same illegal trip overseas to engage in the same head hacking against ISIS to prove how loyal they are to our freeedoms?

I congratulate you on another superb effort of reinterpretation Gandalf.


Quote:

No they are not - unless you think the only demonstration that counts is travelling overseas to join a fight.

I did not say it is the only thing on the list. I said it was at the top. What speaks louder than flying half way round the world to risk your life in a minor war that has nothing to do with you, other than the religious link? A BBQ? A carefully worded press release? Eating corn flakes for breakfast?


Quote:

There are close to half a million muslims who "demonstrate" where they stand by living peaceful, coexisting and law abiding lives

What does that actually demonstrate Gandalf? That most Muslims don't want to seek out death?


Quote:

just like every other Australian that you don't scrutinise over how they are 'demonstrating where they stand'

Most Australians do not stand in ideological support of genocide. Most Australians do not speak the words freedom of speech like it is having your teeth pulled. Being a majority in a democracy, we demonstrate where we stand on a regular basis, and we are not shy about arguing over our differences in public, just in case anyone isn't sure. It is the demonstration by many Muslims in many different ways that they oppose Australian values that makes us scrutinise them. This is entirely justified. Insisting you are a 'normal' person or group of people, while refusing to talk about all the ways in which you are not normal, is not going to reassure anyone.

Credit where credit’s due, FD. I can see that you admire G’s reinterpreting.

Don’t worry though. I’m sure that if you work hard and apply yourself, you too can be an excellent reinterpreter.

Gud is great!

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

I congratulate you on another superb effort of reinterpretation Gandalf.

It really can't be interpreted any other way. But please help me - give me a few examples of what would "speak louder" as a demonstration of people's rejection of intolerance and violence. Apparently things like successfully integrating as peaceful and law abiding citizens doesn't count. Even though this is no more and no less that what mainstream non-muslims do - and who we don't criticise for "not doing enough" to display their freedom loving credentials.


freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

What does that actually demonstrate Gandalf? That most Muslims don't want to seek out death?

It demonstrates they are just like everyone else - and therefore there is no logical justification for demanding they constantly jump up and down proving their loyalty.


freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 1:32pm:

Most Australians do not stand in ideological support of genocide.

Most muslims don't either.

Quote:

It really can't be interpreted any other way. But please help me - give me a few examples of what would "speak louder" as a demonstration of people's rejection of intolerance and violence.

Going over there to fight against them would speak just as loud, but this is not suggesting I think Muslims must do this. It is interesting though that more Australian Muslims are fighting for ISIS than are in our defense force. I have suggested what I think is lacking. It is the basics - like Muslims embracing freedom of speech instead of pretending to, but then siding against freedom of speech at every opportunity. It is working with the police instead of against them in rounding up would-be jihadis here in Australia and those funding them. It is admitting that what Muhammed did was a ghastly act of genocide, rather than proclaiming to the extremists that slaughtering people en-masse if they refuse to support your Islamic state is a noble example to follow. This is what they must do. Of course, this is not going to happen, because Islam is in the way.


Quote:

Apparently things like successfully integrating as peaceful and law abiding citizens doesn't count.

It doesn't demonstrate anything, and I would hardly call it successful if they are busy chipping away at the core values of the host society.


Quote:

It demonstrates they are just like everyone else

Up until they are challenged in any significant way. Abu spun the same BS. He 'fitted in'. He ate corn flakes for breakfast. But he also wants shariah law and would destroy our freedom and democracy if ever given a chance.


Quote:

Most muslims don't either.

You support Muhammed's genocide. How do you think the 'bad' Muslims interpret your support for Jew slaughtering?

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

It is interesting though that more Australian Muslims are fighting for ISIS than are in our defense force.

Wrong.

There are 98 muslims in the ADF, and an estimated 60 fighting for jihadists in Syria (most of them not even with ISIS)

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

siding against freedom of speech at every opportunity

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

working with the police instead of against them

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

busy chipping away at the core values of the host society.

blah blah blah....

get back to me when you have some actual facts for this crap

Do you agree with the genocide comment, or did you omit it by accident from the list?

Actually I was thinking of starting a new thread on that - as it raises an interesting point.

But please don't be distracted in finding your evidence for all those sinister doings by Australian muslims.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 7:49pm:

Actually I was thinking of starting a new thread on that - as it raises an interesting point. But please don't be distracted in finding your evidence for all those sinister doings by Australian muslims.

Evidence? But, G, FD has Abu.

Why on earth would he need evidence?

I have Gandalf himself, speaking out in defense of genocide, because the Jews involved were treacherous plotters trying to undermine Muhammed's new Islamic state, even if they did not individually do anything at all. Refusing to convert to Islam proves they are guilty by default, according to Gandalf. Did I mention that Islam is peace? ISIS is bringing Muhammed's peace to the middle east as we speak, and Gandalf is apologising for them in advance.

Go ahead Gandalf, start a new thread. Or bring it up here. I thought this was an appropriate one to stick it in. Don't be shy.

I have made it crystal clear, repeatedly that I would never condone any terrorism, massacres or genocides by muslims today.

Next.

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:23pm:

I have Gandalf himself, speaking out in defense of genocide, because the Jews involved were treacherous plotters trying to undermine Muhammed's new Islamic state, even if they did not individually do anything at all. Refusing to convert to Islam proves they are guilty by default, according to Gandalf. Did I mention that Islam is peace? ISIS is bringing Muhammed's peace to the middle east as we speak, and Gandalf is apologising for them in advance. Go ahead Gandalf, start a new thread. Or bring it up here. I thought this was an appropriate one to stick it in. Don't be shy.

You quote him, FD. I want to see this despicable Muslim’s words with my own eyes.

How dare he say things like that. Is it in the Wiki?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

I have made it crystal clear, repeatedly that I would never condone any terrorism, massacres or genocides by muslims today. Next.

What if the identical situation arose at some time in the future?

Karnal:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Crap. There was no actual fighting until Muhammed laid siege to the Jewish tribe. Umm the city was under attack by the Quraysh. Also the Sealed Nectar, which Baron always used to love to reference, describes specific attacks by the Qurayza against the muslims during the siege. In any case, all that really matters is that the Qurayza secretly met with the Quraysh to arrange the opening up of a second front, on order for the Quraysh to perform a genocide and destroy the muslim state. The deal only fell through over a disagreement about hostages (each side would take hostages from the other as insurance). That alone is a capital offense in just about everyone's book. So tough titties traitors  8-)

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

I have made it crystal clear, repeatedly that I would never condone any terrorism, massacres or genocides by muslims today. Next.

What nonsense. FD just said he has proof.

You show us what G said, FD. Show us once and for all how despicable these Muslims are.

Don’t worry, G. You’ll keep.

He also has an odd Freudian association between lopping Jews' heads off and breasts, that I'm sure you'll appreciate.


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 8:04am:

freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 6:22pm: How many died in this attack? Not many - completely irrelevant though. freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 6:22pm: All 800 of them deserved to die for being scheming Jews 800, 600, 900, 700 - we have a different figure every time. Each one of them had the opportunity to disown the decision of their leaders and pledge loyalty to the state, some did - we don't know exactly how many. Those who didn't are by default guilty. Tough titties - off with your heads  8-)

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:34pm:

Karnal: polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 4:43pm: freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Crap. There was no actual fighting until Muhammed laid siege to the Jewish tribe. Umm the city was under attack by the Quraysh. Also the Sealed Nectar, which Baron always used to love to reference, describes specific attacks by the Qurayza against the muslims during the siege. In any case, all that really matters is that the Qurayza secretly met with the Quraysh to arrange the opening up of a second front, on order for the Quraysh to perform a genocide and destroy the muslim state. The deal only fell through over a disagreement about hostages (each side would take hostages from the other as insurance). That alone is a capital offense in just about everyone's book. So tough titties traitors  8-)

Yes, but where does G justify genocide for refusing to convert to Islam?

I’ve read this one - I want to see the one where G promotes genocide thanks, FD.

You wait, G. You’re about to be exposed.

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:38pm:

He also has an odd Freudian association between lopping Jews' heads off and breasts, that I'm sure you'll appreciate. polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 30th, 2014 at 8:04am: freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 6:22pm: How many died in this attack? Not many - completely irrelevant though. freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 6:22pm: All 800 of them deserved to die for being scheming Jews 800, 600, 900, 700 - we have a different figure every time. Each one of them had the opportunity to disown the decision of their leaders and pledge loyalty to the state, some did - we don't know exactly how many. Those who didn't are by default guilty. Tough titties - off with your heads  8-)

G, that’s appalling.

Did you really use the word, titties?

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

I have made it crystal clear, repeatedly that I would never condone any terrorism, massacres or genocides by muslims today. Next.

Er, today?

Karnal wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:50pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4th, 2014 at 9:30pm: I have made it crystal clear, repeatedly that I would never condone any terrorism, massacres or genocides by muslims today. Next. Er, today?

Cunning, no?

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 10:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 4th, 2014 at 9:50pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4th, 2014 at 9:30pm: I have made it crystal clear, repeatedly that I would never condone any terrorism, massacres or genocides by muslims today. Next. Er, today? Cunning, no?

Good heavens, could G be practicing taqiyya?

Tough titties, off with their heads, and now this.

What could he possibly mean by "next"?

Perhaps that means he would never condone a Muslim having more than four wives today. Not counting slaves, of course.

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 10:28pm:

Perhaps that means he would never condone a Muslim having more than four wives today. Not counting slaves, of course.

Good point. Or maybe he wouldn’t torture a Jew for his gold, but order one of his henchmen to do it.

You need to confess, G. We’ve got you now.

Thats right folks:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 4:43pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:48pm: Crap. There was no actual fighting until Muhammed laid siege to the Jewish tribe. Umm the city was under attack by the Quraysh. Also the Sealed Nectar, which Baron always used to love to reference, describes specific attacks by the Qurayza against the muslims during the siege. In any case, all that really matters is that the Qurayza secretly met with the Quraysh to arrange the opening up of a second front, on order for the Quraysh to perform a genocide and destroy the muslim state. The deal only fell through over a disagreement about hostages (each side would take hostages from the other as insurance). That alone is a capital offense in just about everyone's book. So tough titties traitors  8-)

means mainstream muslims are:

1.

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

siding against freedom of speech at every opportunity

2.

freediver wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 5:01pm:

busy chipping away at the core values of the host society.

Well, yes, but FD is just making the obvious conclusion - based on the views of Abu.

Own up, G. You people can’t get away with your taqiyya here, you know.

What did you mean by "next"? Are you planning something?

You left out "today" Karnal.