freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2013 at 3:02pm:


One day perhaps you will understand, in the words of Clint Eastwood, 'deserves' got nothing to do with it.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 19^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:


You really are silly Baron. You can't even understand the arguments put forward by your own racist source.

Here you go:
http://www.ishwar.com/judaism/holy_torah/book05/book05_020.html verses 10-18, just like the bible.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 19^th, 2013 at 4:20pm:


Thats correct. Glad that you understand that now. Contrasted with your original claim that Deuteronomy 20:10:18 is only found in the bible, and that it is (in your words) "not the law of the Torah" - which it is.

True Colours wrote on Jul 19^th, 2013 at 12:59am:


True Colours wrote on Jul 19^th, 2013 at 6:54pm:


TC, can you explain this apparent contradiction?

It would be hard to describe it as an attack while still claiming to be honest, especially in the context of war. Do you value honesty?

Do you have more information about these raids? Every time someone makes a claim about what these scheming Jews got up to and I ask for more info, they suddenly they go all silent, like when I asked about how many Muslim soldiers were killed in these so-called "attacks".

Since Muhammed decided it was convenient for him?

If you are going to execute someone for espionage (or rape their female relatives), they should have actually engaged in espionage, not merely been related to the person who committed the crime.

perhaps an analogy will help you see the flaw in your argument FD:

Under US law, treason is considered a serious crime (perhaps even a capital offense).

So lets say, a US citizen starts helping the taliban in their fight against the US. The US launch an attack where this US citizen is hiding. The holdout is overwhelmed by the US forces, and the treasonous US citizen emerges with his hands over his head. He is taken into custody, whereupon he is tried and convicted for treason - and punished for it.

So lets imagine treason is a capital offense (which I think it still is, though rarely carried out). The captured man is convicted at a traitor, and sentenced to death. So if we were to apply your logic, the man should never be sentenced to death by the US because he had previously surrendered to US forces. Just like the men of the Banu Quraysa somehow shouldn't have been convicted and sentenced as traitors by Muhammad because they had previously surrendered to Muhammad.

No FD, your argument was based on the logic that executing POWs is a war crime. You ignored the fact that POWs can subsequently be found guilty of treason, and punished accordingly. Particularly if they are citizens of the same side that captured them.

If you want to now turn this into a discussion about unjustly punishing innocents, fine, but as far as I can see there is no case to be made. There is no reason to suspect that any of the ~600 fighting men had any objection to the treachery their leaders were committing. And as we all know, 'just following orders' is not a defense. Members of the tribe had opportunities to disassociate themselves with the treason by declaring their loyalty to the muslims - and a few did. So when the tribe surrendered, all combatants present there (and no, they didn't go "tracking down" relatives in far off lands), were, by association, guilty of treason. So tough titties.

freediver wrote on Jul 20^th, 2013 at 12:34pm:


I think I'll start boycotting this debate if you insist on bringing up this ridiculous lie every time.