freediver wrote on May 24^th, 2016 at 1:25pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2016 at 7:20am:


freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2016 at 12:10pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2016 at 1:33pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 26^th, 2016 at 4:26pm:


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.

Redmond Neck wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 7:43pm:


What is your obsession over whether someone is Jewish or not?

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 8:57pm:



Yet there appears to be something wrong with being a Muslim...   

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 10:09pm:



Apears to me to be a case of simple-minded collective guilt be attributed to an entire religious group.   Doesn't matter if you're Jewish or Muslim.  If it's bad to attribute guilt to all Jews, it must therefore be bad to attribute guilt to all Muslims...   

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 11:04pm:


I am sure the victims of Jewish Terrorism in Europe will be glad to hear that, Lionel.

A crime is a crime and the perpetrators alone are responsible for their crime.   Doesn't matter if they are Jews or Muslims who pull the trigger, they are still individually criminal.   That is how our justice system works, the last time I checked it.   So, if it is bad that Jews get blamed for murdering Christian babies to bake their Passover bread, it's bad that Muslims get blamed for Terrorist attacks in Iraq...   

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 11:33pm:


It's a Medieval myth that was created to justify anti-Semitism, Lionel.   It was still being perpetuated in the late 20th century in the US.   

Quote:


Until I get bored again. 

Brian do you have any thoughts on Gandalf's words above?

Lionel Edriess wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 8:57pm:




It is coming.

And it will come through Judah [...the Jewish people].

That, is their destiny [the destiny of the Jewish people].



Genesis 49:10
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.


Deuteronomy 32:8
When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.
9  For the LORD'S portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.


Micah 4:2
And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.


Romans 11:26
And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
27  For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
28  As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.



.....and at that time, there will be, no 'moslems', and there will be, no ISLAM.



Isaiah 59:16
And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.
17  For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke.
18  According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay, fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies; to the islands he will repay recompence.
19  So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.
20  And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the LORD.
21  As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.



p.s.
For myself, i am happy to say, that while i do feel an affection towards Israel and towards the Jewish people,
....i am not Jewish, and i have no knowledge of any Jewish heritage in my family.
- Yadda

Brian Ross wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 12:37am:


One stool or two? Miam miam.

freediver wrote on May 30^th, 2016 at 1:13pm:


What don't you understand about my comment, FD?  Do you need it explained to you in smaller words or something?   You've made this battle, you don't appear prepared to fight it for some reason...   

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2016 at 3:30pm:


You do, it seems feel that you need an ally.   Let me state, you made this battle.  Up to you to fight it, alone, FD.   Note that word, "alone'.   

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2016 at 4:47pm:


Nope.

However, I wouldn't reference Islam in my condemnation of the Nazi ideologue, any more than I would reference the Nazi in my condemnation of Islam, if I was to make one.   

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2016 at 5:39pm:


Nope.

Quote:


Nope.

freediver wrote on May 31^st, 2016 at 8:37pm:


Remember L. P. Hartley's famous quote, FD.  Think about it.

Redmond Neck wrote on Jun 1^st, 2016 at 2:39pm:


'The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.'

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 1^st, 2016 at 3:02pm:


Like when the Nazis slaughtered the Jews? All in the past eh?

Brian do you believe Gandalf's version that the Jews slaughtered by Muhammed literally were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews?

freediver wrote on Jun 1^st, 2016 at 5:55pm:


Or better yet:

Brian, do you believe G’s statement that gays who do it Mardi Gras-style should be executed?

Sometimes a question is just a question.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 1^st, 2016 at 10:41pm:


Is our objection to the deliberate slaughter of innocent people some kind of new fad?

Brian do you believe Gandalf's version that the Jews slaughtered by Muhammed literally were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews?

Quote:


Civilised people watch it on TV.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2016 at 3:31pm:


Because muslims hold Muhammad to be the "best of men" and the ultimate example to follow.

It really isn't much help persisting with the tired "why is Muhammad treated differently to all the other savages" argument Brian.

You're just proving FD's point Brian.

Quote:


Because Muslims are the only ones doing it today. They are the ones who made a religion out of it.

Brian do you believe Gandalf's version that the Jews slaughtered by Muhammed literally were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews?

Quote:


I am criticising an ideology Brian - you remember - that thing that you are both unwilling and unable to criticise.

Brian do you believe Gandalf's version that the Jews slaughtered by Muhammed literally were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews?

Why do people feel so compelled to post something in this thread, but at the same time feel so averse to addressing the topic?

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2016 at 9:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2016 at 4:30pm:


What words of wisdom Brian? You seem to think Jesus' teachings of non-violence and turning the other cheek is somehow a valid comparison to the alleged 'rape and pillage' doctrine of Islam. How does that work exactly? FD's not arguing that muslims are unwilling to accept  the 'words of wisdom' from their doctrine (ie rape and pillage), he's saying the exact opposite. So exactly is your point?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 8:33am:


Where?  I've never seen him say anything other than pose questions.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 5:44pm:


Okay.  I've never seen him put it that way as I've never seen him take a firm position other than anti Islam by the sneering tone of his never ending questions.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 6:08pm:


Another favourite FD tactic is to make it all about da joooos, and thereby making a seamless and utterly shameless invocation of Godwin's law.

And doubtless the irony of him simultaneously mocking someone else in another thread (erroneously) for resorting to to pulling out the race card will fly right over his head. 

FD at any time in the past 3 years of flogging this dead horse, did you ever actually grasp the concept that I never once argued in support of slaughtering jews, but rather slaughtering a tribe who broke a treaty and conspired with an enemy who was trying to commit genocide?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 10:23pm:


Who just happened to be Jews?

Who was it that actually committed genocide Gandalf?

Where is the evidence that they were trying to commit genocide?

Or, we could start with the evidence that they were planning genocide.

Were all 800 of them planning genocide? Is that why Muhammed had to slaughter them all, because it was the only way to avoid a genocide?

It changes because Muslims themselves present varying numbers (typically 600 to 1000). I expect Muhammed lost count. Perhaps he saw them as a mindless collective rather than individuals.

Quote:




Those scheming Jews are at it again.

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.

But probably the best evidence against  an "en-masse" execution is in the Quran itself

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

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 11:04am:


Not at all. The figure goes up to 1001 when we include that Jew Mo tortured for his gold.

freediver wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 7:36am:




Google
erdogan denies armenian genocide

sample hits....

Turkey cannot accept Armenian genocide label, says Erdoğan | World ...
www.theguardian.com › World › Turkey
Apr 15, 2015 - Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has said Turkey will ignore any decision by the European parliament qualifying the 1915 killings of Armenians in the first world war as genocide, saying such recognition would go “in one ear and out from the other”.


A Century After Armenian Genocide, Turkey's Denial Only Deepens ...
www.nytimes.com/.../turkeys-century-of-denial-about-an-armenian-genocide.html
Apr 16, 2015 - 100 Years Later, a Genocide Haunts the Armenian Psyche ... Officials stoutly deny there was ever any plan to systematically wipe out the Armenian ... ahead of the centennial anniversary of 1915,” Mr. Erdogan said recently.

gandalf,

Who did commit the Armenian genocide ?

I'm sure that you will assert that moslems would never have committed such an atrocity.

Moslems would be too virtuous to have committed such an atrocity.   Correct ?

.....which is the same argument that is being made by President Erdogan of Turkey ?




IMAGE....





- Mr Yunus


.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 10:59am:

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


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.

Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 2:39pm:


quite right. Good point.

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


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?

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


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

Please explain.

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


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.

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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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:


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:


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

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


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.

Not in the same sentence?

I’m curious.

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?

freediver wrote on Jun 8^th, 2016 at 12:08pm:


So G did not use those terms?

Who did?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:


Yes, but who used such a term? Trecherous , scheming Jew. Mindless collective.

Who said such wacist things?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 8^th, 2016 at 12:19pm:


In a similar vein what I say is true, and it's unfortunate that killings for apostasy, stoning gays, requiring women have four male witnesses for rape, not allowing a woman outside of her house without a male relative, etc, happen to be the hallmarks of Muslim societies, just happen to be true. Does that make me a racist, or simply someone who tells the facts as they are.

As an aside, why is it that the flood of immigration is M E to western countries? Why don't Muslims seek refuge in other Muslim countries, rather than the free, democratic west. To bore down, why did your Muslim family come to Australia, rather than one of the other Islamic paradises?

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 8^th, 2016 at 6:49pm:


Sorry to burst your bubble Nicole, but I'm a lilly white 4 generation anglo. Rather racist of you assuming I'm from a filthy tinted race.

Quote:


And still you justify it. How long have you held this view for Gandalf? is that based on that article you posted that insisted it must be a lie because a Jew said it was true?

@ Gandalf.

You avoided the guts of my post, which is disengenious.

Let me remind you. You wrote:
Quote:


Let me point it out. You're arguing that your post isn't racist, because it happens to be true. Jews are indeed treacherous.

My point way, you can't slice it two ways. You can't argue that making negative comments about jews being treacherous is justified, whilst arguing that the sexist, homophobic, repressive culture that hallmarks Islam, is somehow racist.

To wit I wrote:
Quote:


Caqn you please expand why calling Jews "treacherous" is not racist, whilst pointing out the obvious problems of sexism and homophobia of Muslims is somehow not racist? Thanks in advance.

Quote:


I actually have a lot more sympathy for those born into the sexist, homophobic, caning, stoning Muslim cult that I do for "reverts" who were born in the free west, and have the ability to research these subjects before joining same.

The first I recall seeing it is in this thread. Can you show me where you said it previously?

Is it based on that article you posted that insisted it must be a lie because a Jew said it was true?

I do recall you claiming that two of them got away by 'disowning' their treachery, but you would not elaborate for some reason. Why is that?

If you do not believe it, why do you feel the need to justify it by saying they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews?