Australian Politics Forum - a mindless collective of treacherous Jews

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews Reply #75 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 3:55pm Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 2:39pm: Impossible. Muslims saw them as scheming, not mindless. quite right. Good point.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50607
At my desk.

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #76 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:38pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 1:14pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 12:24pm:

Quote:

It matters because the lower end estimate could represent only leaders/actual conspirators were put to death while the rank and file were let off.

Are you suggesting there were 600 leaders in a tribe with 800 men? Sounds like you are clutching at straws. Are you abandoning the "mindless colelctive of treacherous Jews" argument?

Quote:

"Some you killed and some you took captive" (33:26)

Almost none of the women were killed. What is this verse in reference to?

Quote:

Gosh, it couldn't possibly mean the account is a little unreliable could it?

It could mean that the Muslims saw them as a mindless collective rather than as individuals. Do you accept the argument from NeoNazis that variations in the estimate of the number of casualties of the holocaust is evidence it did not happen?

You have cited 2 (I think) individuals from this tribe who were spared for somehow disowning the treachery. I would expect the Muslims to be able to count to 2 fairly accurately, even if they didn't bother documenting how large the tribe was. Can you clarify if it is 2, and how exactly they disowned the treachery?

600 is not the lowest estimate FD.

My questioning of the historical accuracy of this incident is nothing new, I've been saying it all along if you bothered to notice. Nevertheless, the philosophical debate about the moral justification of this sort of mass execution, and more relevant here - whether such an event is necessarily anti-semitic just because jews are involved - is perhaps worth having. Its certainly revealing to see how eager you are to jump on the wacist bandwagon - even to the point of shoving words into people's mouth like "treacherous jews" - whenever da joooos are involved - but sneer and jeer at anyone who dares suggests muslims might be victims of racism. To such absurd lengths as attempting to spin the description of 100% of the male muslim population as inbred, retarded psychopaths as nothing but a bit of sexism. So I've been happy to play along.

What is the lowest estimate Gandalf? 1? The Jews invented the entire thing? Do you agree with the article you presented that the claims must be wrong because their historical transmission was tainted by the hands of Jews? Why did Muslims only recently think to challenge this version of history?

Are you abandoning your claim that they were treacherous Jews? If not, why accuse me of putting words in your mouth?

I sneer at you when you come out with slogans like all Islamophobia is based on racism.

Quote:

On its own - quite possibly. Sloppy historical research always raises questions FD, and we know now that many of the estimates that were accepted for years were inflated. This is not a good look, and exposing, for example, the old 4 million at Auschwitz myth certainly didn't hurt the neo-nazi cause did it? Fortunately though, there is a tonne of rock-solid historical evidence to put any doubts about the holocaust to rest. Which is in stark contrast to the alleged Banu Qurayza massacre - which relies on a single proven unreliable source, and is directly contradicted by other sources.

So you keep saying. But you have not presented a source that directly contradicts it. Nor have you clarified how the two Jews recanted their "treachery" in order to avoid being murdered by Muhammed.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #77 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:22am

freediver wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:38pm:

Are you abandoning your claim that they were treacherous Jews? If not, why accuse me of putting words in your mouth?

You came up with the term "treacherous jews", how many times do I have to say this before it sinks in?

If my own words make me such a dastardly wacist, why the need to use a term that I never used and pretend I said it? Would you agree that "treacherous jew" has far stronger racist connotations than anything I actually said?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50607
At my desk.

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #78 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 12:26pm

I acknowledge that you went to significant effort to avoid appearing racist in your efforts to justify Jew slaughtering. But you did use both terms (treacherous, jews) to describe them. You also frequently used the term traitorous.

Do you object to any of these descriptors - treacherous, Jewish, traitorous, mindless collective etc to describe them? Or do you only object to using two or more in the same sentence? As far as I can tell you only object to the spin, not the substance.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 98452

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #79 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 12:50pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 12:26pm:

I acknowledge that you went to significant effort to avoid appearing racist in your efforts to justify Jew slaughtering. But you did use both terms (treacherous, jews) to describe them. You also frequently used the term traitorous.

Do you object to any of these descriptors - treacherous, Jewish, traitorous, mindless collective etc to describe them? Or do you only object to using two or more in the same sentence? As far as I can tell you only object to the spin, not the substance.

A valid point, G. Did you object to FD's description of said Jews as traitorous, treacherous and mindless?

Please explain.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #80 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 1:23pm

traitorous is just a statement of fact. You just get all hung up because you are constantly invoking Godwin's law. Treachery and jews = Nazis and gas chambers, therefore it must never be mentioned. You can think of them as the most noble people in the world fighting against the most horrific regime the world has every seen - but it doesn't change the fact that they broke a treaty they had signed. If you like you can think of them as like von Staufenberg heroically attempting to kill Hitler and overthrow the Nazis. A just cause no doubt, but undeniably he broke the allegiance he pledged to Hitler - thus making him a traitor.

You're determined that there can be no rational discussion on this. You're no better than the Israeli victim industry that demands that no one be allowed to criticise the oppression of the Palestinians - otherwise you're a wacist and nazi who wants to bring back the gas chambers.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #81 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 1:28pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 12:26pm:

Do you object to any of these descriptors - treacherous, Jewish, traitorous, mindless collective etc to describe them?

As I've said about a thousand times, 'treacherous jews' - as in the two words together, is a notorious phrase with clear racist connotations. It clearly has a far more sinister meaning than say 'traitors who happened to be jewish'. Which is why I deliberately avoid the term. Obviously you know this which is why you are so desperate to keep shoving it in my mouth. Their treachery was a function of their actions, not their ethnicity or religion.

Also the "mindless collective" was not a reference to that particular tribe, but a reference to *ALL* tribes in Arabia during that time. Its all their in the quote you posted in the OP.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 98452	Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews Reply #82 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 3:10pm Ee-gad, you avoid those terms? So who came up with such wacist descriptions?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50607
At my desk.

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #83 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 6:59pm

Gandalf am I correct that you agree with the substance and only disagree with the spin?

From my opening posts:

Gandalf, as far as I can tell you are arguing that the Jews slaughtered by Muhammed were in fact a mindless collective of treacherous, traiterous Jews. However, if someone throws your own words back at you, they suddenly acquire "obvious racist connotations". Instead of actually owning your position, you leak these phrases one by one, going to great lengths to make the argument that they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews without using more than one of these descriptors in the same post. You are not only arguing that it is not racist because it is true, you are also trying to argue that because it is true, it is not even what you think.

Is this correct Gandalf?

Quote:

traitorous is just a statement of fact. You just get all hung up because you are constantly invoking Godwin's law. Treachery and jews = Nazis and gas chambers, therefore it must never be mentioned

No Gandalf. You are the only one getting hung up on it. You insist that they were both treacherous and Jewish, but they cannot possibly be treacherous because that would make you sound bad.

Quote:

You can think of them as the most noble people in the world fighting against the most horrific regime the world has every seen - but it doesn't change the fact that they broke a treaty they had signed. If you like you can think of them as like von Staufenberg heroically attempting to kill Hitler and overthrow the Nazis. A just cause no doubt, but undeniably he broke the allegiance he pledged to Hitler - thus making him a traitor.

The problem arises when you use it as a justification for collective punishment. And before you go off on another wild tangent, I know you think they were punished collectively, but this cannot possibly be collective punishment, because that would make you sound bad.

Quote:

You're determined that there can be no rational discussion on this.

Tell me Gandalf, how rational is it to insist they were both treacherous and Jewish, but not treacherous Jews? Here, I have already written an article about why you are irrational:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#argumentum%20ad%20conse...

Quote:

As I've said about a thousand times, 'treacherous jews' - as in the two words together, is a notorious phrase with clear racist connotations.

This is a logical fallacy. The "connotations" do not change the fact of whether you consider them to be treacherous Jews. The fact that you don't want it to be your opinion does not mean it isn't your opinion.

Quote:

It clearly has a far more sinister meaning than say 'traitors who happened to be jewish'. Which is why I deliberately avoid the term. Obviously you know this which is why you are so desperate to keep shoving it in my mouth.

You are being irrational Gandalf. That is why I keep bringing it up.

Quote:

Their treachery was a function of their actions, not their ethnicity or religion.

I did not claim otherwise Gandalf. Similar to my previous example that went straight over your head, stupid blond women do exist. The existence of the cliche does not mean they cease to exist. The fact that "treacherous Jews" has connotations does not change the fact that this is exactly what you think they are.

Quote:

Also the "mindless collective" was not a reference to that particular tribe, but a reference to *ALL* tribes in Arabia during that time.

You were using it to justify the slaughter of one particular tribe. Only one tribe deserved to be wiped out for being a mindless collective of treacherous Jews, right? Or do you think Muhammed erred in not slaughtering more Jews?

Quote:

Ee-gad, you avoid those terms?
So who came up with such wacist descriptions?

Gandalf did. He is just upset that I used them in the wrong order.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews Reply #84 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:05pm go away please.
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #85 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:24pm

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

I did not claim otherwise Gandalf. Similar to my previous example that went straight over your head, stupid blond women do exist. The existence of the cliche does not mean they cease to exist. The fact that "treacherous Jews" has connotations does not change the fact that this is exactly what you think they are.

The nonsense never stops.

If I saw a negro who hadn't washed for days, I could theoretically call him a "dirty negro".

I would get away with using such a phrase for about 5 seconds before I was shouted down - and quite rightly so. And yet the connotations would be so much different if I said instead "an African American who hasn't bathed for some time". But according to your logic, there is no difference between the two, and that if I said the latter, I must really mean the former.

Now skimming over your nonsense filled post, I noted you said I "insisted" they be called jews. I have no idea where you got that from - probably the same place as where you found me saying gays must be killed for doing it mardi gras style. To me the only relevant point is that they were a tribe who broke a treaty, and were allegedly executed for it. Actually I never made anything about their being jewish, you did. I will of course won't deny they were jewish because thats just historical fact. But I never "insisted" that they be called jews. But of course I should never be surprised anymore that you just go around making crap up and shoving words into people's mouth.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50607
At my desk.

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #86 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 8:54pm

Quote:

I would get away with using such a phrase for about 5 seconds before I was shouted down - and quite rightly so. And yet the connotations would be so much different if I said instead "an African American who hasn't bathed for some time". But according to your logic, there is no difference between the two, and that if I said the latter, I must really mean the former.

What if you said a negro who is dirty? Back to your treacherous Jew argument, you used both words to describe them. You also used words like traitorous, mindless collective etc.

Throw in an excuse for slaughtering 800 of them, and it starts to look bad, no matter how you spin it.

Quote:

Now skimming over your nonsense filled post, I noted you said I "insisted" they be called jews.

You insisted they were both treacherous and Jewish.

Quote:

I will of course won't deny they were jewish because thats just historical fact.

So why get hung up on it? Was it also a historical fact that they were treacherous?

Quote:

But I never "insisted" that they be called jews.

And I never claimed you did. You did however insist they were Jews. Historical fact, innit? Treacherous, Jewish, but not both at the same time. Or perhaps, not both in the same sentence.

And dead, of course.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 98452	Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews Reply #87 - Jun 7^th, 2016 at 9:37pm Not in the same sentence? I’m curious.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 50607 At my desk.	Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews Reply #88 - Jun 8^th, 2016 at 12:08pm Gandalf was very careful to avoid the appearance of using racist propaganda to justify the slaughter of Jews.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews Reply #89 - Jun 8^th, 2016 at 12:19pm I'm curious FD, is your argument that I'm a filthy wacist who is lying about it - or that what I say is true - but its just unfortunate that jews, traitors and mass execution exist in the same story - and must therefore be dismissed as racist anyway?
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged