Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
genocide denial (Read 462 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
genocide denial
Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:43pm
 
The Islamic merry-go-round of evasion...

All of these quotes were from the same thread, and all are about Muslims who deny that Muhammad committed genocide. Surprisingly, the circle gets progressively smaller, not larger. It starts off detailed, then gets a bit repetitive, then ends with a singularity in which Gandalf repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the existence of the earlier discussion.

I think this must be why Gandalf objects so strongly to me starting new threads with 'quote bombs'. It's not because he likes to blame non-Muslims for bombs. It's because having the same discussion multiple times in one thread is not good enough for him. He likes to then repeat that across multiple, preferably unrelated threads.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 30th, 2018 at 7:47am:
I'm suggesting its not a genocide because it was an alleged standard run-of-the-mill mass execution of prisoners. It happens literally all the time in just about every war.


freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2018 at 1:09pm:
So all you have to do to avoid a charge of genocide is imprison the whole tribe first?

It seems a little strange to use terms like standard and run-of-the mill to describe the mass execution of prisoners.

How did Muhammad identify the soldiers? By inspecting their genitals?


freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2018 at 7:10pm:
Quote:
freediver wrote on Nov 30th, 2018 at 1:09pm:
It seems a little strange to use terms like standard and run-of-the mill to describe the mass execution of prisoners.


Why? Executing captured enemy soldiers is about as standard and run-of-the-mill as you can get. Which is why its a complete insult to equate it to genocide.


When Muslims talk about slaughtering captured enemy soldiers, is it possible they actually mean a tribe that lives in the same city and surrenders without a fight?

How did Muhammad (tgp) know which ones were soldiers? By inspecting their genitals?


freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2018 at 12:17pm:
Quote:
And I would be surprised if there's a single person other than you who would seriously consider the execution of a few hundred POWs as genocide.


Obviously if you failed to mention that they were also every adult male from the same tribe of a mindless collective of treacherous Jews, and that the war never actually happened, due to them surrendering without a fight, it would never occur to people to think it was a genocide. Particularly if you also omitted that it was part of a broader campaign in which all three large Jewish tribes in Medina ended up dead or repeatedly forced to leave their homes.

But most people would consider those omissions to be deceptive.

But just to humour you, I will add it to your ever growing multiple choice list of genocide apologetics:

* tough titties, off with their heads
* they were literally a mindless collective of treacherous Jews without an individual personality
* only the warriors were executed (Muhammad identified the warriors with a genital inspection) - repeat this three times
* the Jews made it up
* it is perfectly reasonable to deny the genocide happened, or attempt to downplay its extent, at the same time as supporting the genocide
* if wikipedia gives an example of a historian who thinks the treaty was actually a unilateral declaration by Muhammad, and that the copies of the treaty we have today list all the party tribes (the Jewish tribes are omitted), the only reasonable way to interpret this is as wikipedia claiming that not a single other historian in the world reaches the same conclusion
* it's not a proper genocide unless it's a holocaust
* it was just your average, ordinary every slaughter, cruisin' with Mo's Bactrian, to catch a pretty daughter....
* it was merely the mass execution of POWs - move along people, nothing to see here

BTW, can you give an example of a genocide that has happened that was not in the context of war and people being taken prisoner in large numbers? Does your excuse apply equally to every other genocide in the history of genocides, or is this a special excuse that only Muslims can use when promoting genocide?


freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2018 at 2:43pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14th, 2018 at 2:53pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2018 at 12:17pm:
BTW, can you give an example of a genocide that has happened that was not in the context of war and people being taken prisoner in large numbers?


Put it this way, do any of the other countless examples of mass execution of POWs throughout all of history count as 'genocide' in your book, or is this the only one?


Sure, like the ones where they took the whole tribe into custody before slaughtering them. But most people would go with genocide first. I don't see how a Nazi would have any more difficulty than you claiming the holocaust was merely slaughtering POWs.

It really hasn't dawned on you how feeble your excuses for genocide are, has it?


Back to top
 

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #1 - Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Dec 17th, 2018 at 7:30pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 17th, 2018 at 1:44pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 16th, 2018 at 5:59am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 15th, 2018 at 7:56pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 15th, 2018 at 2:43pm:
I don't see how a Nazi would have any more difficulty than you claiming the holocaust was merely slaughtering POWs.


Sorry FD, could you just clarify for us - you are actually saying there is no difference between the holocaust and a 7th century mass execution of a few hundred male POWs?

Do you reckon its just a little bit of an insult to jewish survivors of the holocaust to insist that what their people went through was not really any different to any run-of-the-mill wartime massacre - even ones that targeted only military aged males?


What I am actually saying is in the bit you quoted.


What you also said was that the alleged mass execution of the Banu Qurayza was a genocide. Since then you have been bringing in the nazis at every possible opportunity.

Some people can put two and two together FD.


Yes, but what do they come up with?

There are all sorts of comparisons you can make between Islam and Nazism. Let me know if you would like me to bump the thread.


freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2018 at 12:48pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 24th, 2018 at 10:36am:
freediver wrote on Dec 24th, 2018 at 10:27am:
Quote:
most muslims don't support genocide. Insisting that the proof of this claim is reference to an alleged massacre by Muhammad of an unknown number of military aged males of a tiny tribe in the 7th century who are believed to have violated a treaty and initiated war against him - is the most facile attempt at logic you're likely to ever come across


So you are arguing that a massacre of Jews that even you support does not count as a "base" for an accusation that all Muslims support genocide?


not if you can't provide a coherent explanation for why a standard run-of-the-mill mass execution of POWs is a 'genocide' - that is somehow morally equivalent to the slaughter of 6 million men women and children.

Not when it provides such an obvious platform for you to demonize evern muslim man woman and child as literally the same as genocidal nazis.



Would you also argue that the holocaust was not a genocide because the victims were POWs?


freediver wrote on May 10th, 2019 at 6:46pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on May 10th, 2019 at 3:08pm:
freediver wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 6:44pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 2:49pm:
freediver wrote on May 9th, 2019 at 12:28pm:
Quote:
Not necessarily, because in this case you are talking about a rational cognitive process to arrive at that belief


Are you suggesting my explanation in the OP is not a rational cognitive process?


Absolutely FD. You insist that 20% of the world's population unquestioningly support genocide - and worse, your insistence is not even based on any Islamic view on genocide, nor on any knowledge on your part on how muslims actually view genocide. Merely on the false logic that because you (but no one else) think Muhammad committed genocide, and because muslims must consider Muhammad as the best of men, ipso facto, muslims must support genocide. Where does one even begin at dismantling such flaw in logic? If nothing else, you are ignoring the muslims who don't accept that the massacre even happened, in which case it is clearly not every single muslim on earth, man woman and child as you insist.

As I keep saying, you singularly deny muslims any agency to think for themselves (and then laughably contradict yourself by acknowledging muslims who are morally flexible). You laughably insist 1.5 billion men women and children from all cultures, from all corners of the globe are in lock-step on this one belief - which also just happens to be the most inflamatory smear you could possibly think of (whats worse than supporting genocide?), and which is obviously particularly sensitive in the context of our own western cultural history. That is applying group think in the most blatant and bigoted way - with the express aim of defaming and smearing an entire religious group of people.


We've been over this. Plenty of other people also think Muhammad committed genocide.


Plenty of muslims don't. Some even don't believe it happened at all.

But you singularly deny every one of them any agency to think for themselves, and arrogantly apply a blanket "FD-think" on all of us. *YOU* insist its genocide, therefore muslims must accept it as such, and therefore just like that, you get 20% of the world's population all in perfect lock step, of one mind (dare I say a 'mindless collective'??) in supporting genocide. No questions, no ifs or buts. Apparently without even any of the 'moral flexibility' or hypocricy you just finished explaining is a feature of muslims.

There are two words starting with 'r' that describe this - one is 'ridiculous'.


You tried the denial angle also. But you still maintained that you support the genocide even if it didn't happen.

I am not denying anyone the agency to think for themselves. In fact I credit Muslims with great creativity in coming up with ways to support genocide.
Back to top
 

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #2 - Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:45pm
 
freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:38pm:
Quote:
Will you at least acknowledge that there are some muslims around who don't believe the massacre happened - and who also don't subscribe to the "in any case they were a mindless collective, so genocide is still awesome" narrative that you ascribe to me?


You eventually got around to denying the massacre happened, once you realised supporting genocide was not a good look. But you still maintained your support for genocide.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 1:06pm:
freediver wrote on May 25th, 2019 at 8:44am:
Quote:
I pointed out the existence of muslims who reject the alleged massacre even happened - a fact that you didn't even bother to try and refute.
You have done this several times, and I have responded several times.


You haven't - apart from your usual verbling of such muslims and insisting that they don't believe what they say they believe, and  in fact they believe what FD deems them fit to believe. (aka 'mindless collective').

If you had actually addressed it, you would literally have had no option but to acknowledge that there are muslims out there who don't think what you insist they think - thus at a stroke disproving the logic that forms your silly claim about 100% of muslims.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 8:40am:
Oh look, FD can't address my points so resorts back to his favourite 'reply by zinger' mode.

freediver wrote on May 28th, 2019 at 5:27pm:
Quote:
You haven't - apart from your usual verbling of such muslims and insisting that they don't believe what they say they believe, and  in fact they believe what FD deems them fit to believe. (aka 'mindless collective').


Yes I have. Every time I make the same point, and every time you ignore it.


Can you at least show me where?


freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 8:51am:
Here is the most recent example, from the previous page of this thread:

freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:38pm:
Quote:
Will you at least acknowledge that there are some muslims around who don't believe the massacre happened - and who also don't subscribe to the "in any case they were a mindless collective, so genocide is still awesome" narrative that you ascribe to me?


You eventually got around to denying the massacre happened, once you realised supporting genocide was not a good look. But you still maintained your support for genocide.


And here you are, two days later, in your second post in this thread after I made that one, insisting I never addressed it:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 24th, 2019 at 10:13am:
I pointed out the existence of muslims who reject the alleged massacre even happened - a fact that you didn't even bother to try and refute. And so by that measure alone, your claim is at a stroke disproven, as is the flawed logical steps that led to the claim.

For some reason you never actually addressed that point. I expect your response would have been of the "they don't really mean what they say" variety, which of course, naturally is *NOT* doing any such thing as denying them agency to think for themselves, heaven forbid.



freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 10:00am:
polite_gandalf wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 9:45am:
As I thought FD - your 'answer' is to project what I allegedly think on to other muslims. We all have one big hive mind, no individual agency. Pathetic.

This is actually worse than not addressing it.


My answer was to highlight yet another logical fallacy on your part. Denying genocide is not the same as opposing genocide. I doubt you would claim that a Nazi who goes round denying the holocaust opposes genocide, and you are a convenient example that the same applies to Muslims.

But thanks for giving up the pretense that I haven't responded.

Gandalf you are going to extraordinary lengths to establish some kind of theoretical possibility that Muslims can oppose genocide. But you have not provided one single example. It is a blatant double standard. You demand I do the impossible by proving a negative, and insert a mind boggling logical error that failure to do so leads to the conclusion that I am wrong. But when you fail to provide any evidence at all for something you claim exists, the standard does not apply.

Or are you not actually claiming that Muslims exist who oppose genocide? Are you trying to counter my argument with the mere theoretical possibility that they could exist?


Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 17th, 2019 at 10:14pm by freediver »  

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #3 - Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:45pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 11:19am:
freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 10:00am:
Denying genocide is not the same as opposing genocide.


Quite right FD. Yet from that you come up with something even more ridiculous - that "denying" therefore must equal "supporting".

Also I'm not necessarily talking about muslims who deny the massacre. My reference is to a particular strand of belief in Islam that undeniably (least by you) exists, that rejects the idea that muslims are obligated to "support" everything the prophet did in his life. They believe either that the Quranic verse that Muhammad is a 'good example' refers only to his role as passing on the message of the Quran, or that it refers only to his contemporaries, and not all of mankind.

Presuming you accept the existence of such muslims (you never said otherwise), you have never addressed the fact that this, at a stroke, dismantles your entire logic about why muslims must support genocide - because they reject the assumptions that make your logic. Simply pointing to me and what I allegedly believe as somehow 'proof' that such muslims still support genocide is frankly laughable on so many levels - not least because of the offensive notion that all muslims who are not me have no agency to think for themselves.

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 10:00am:
Gandalf you are going to extraordinary lengths to establish some kind of theoretical possibility that Muslims can oppose genocide.


Whereas you tried to establish some theoretical possibility that all muslims do support genocide - and presented it as fact.

When presented with that, my only task is to establish the theoretical flaw in that. Which I have, by destroying the assumptions that makes up your logic. Your only counter to that is to point at a single muslim and say "look what he thinks!" Its beyond pathetic.

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 10:00am:
You demand I do the impossible by proving a negative, and insert a mind boggling logical error that failure to do so leads to the conclusion that I am wrong. But when you fail to provide any evidence at all for something you claim exists, the standard does not apply.


Amazing you still don't get it. You were wrong by default the moment you came out and stated as fact that all muslims support genocide. You were still wrong when you thought all you needed to support that was a bit of deductive reasoning (that has proven to be flawed) as well as a single anecdote of one muslim's alleged beliefs. You were still wrong when you lied by trying to deny it was a statement of fact and all along were open to the possibility you were wrong (and then flatly rejecting it was wrong immediately after!). And finally you were still wrong when you came up with the idiotic idea that it is up to me to disprove your completely baseless claim, by coming up with an example of my own.

All you had to do to avoid all this was simply say what we both know you meant all along: that it is logical that muslims support genocide - not necessarily that they all do in reality.



freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 11:33am:
Quote:
Quite right FD. Yet from that you come up with something even more ridiculous - that "denying" therefore must equal "supporting".


Can you quote me?


polite_gandalf wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 3:43pm:
freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 1:31pm:
I did not claim that no Muslims deny particular genocides. My claim is that all Muslims support genocide. As you demonstrate, these are not the same thing.


You are still not addressing the point.

I have repeatedly explained to you how the assumptions you express in the OP do not apply to all muslims. Muslims who reject the idea that being told Muhammad is a 'good example' means supporting his every move and action as a flawed human. You have been given ample opportunity to dispute the existence of such muslims, but you haven't. You have also singularly failed to refute the logic that such muslims are not beholden to the logical assumptions you ascribe to them in the OP. Instead you 'address it' by ranting on about how I've found a way to both deny genocide and support it - presumably thinking this is somehow relevant to how all those muslims think. If this is not insinuating that other muslims must think the same as me (without having a clue what they actually think), then your reference to me is completely irrelevant.

So, FD you are either applying the mindless collective argument, or you are not saying anything at all coherent. Which is it?


polite_gandalf wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 10:03am:
freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 9:03pm:
our point was irrelevant. Denying genocide is not the same thing as opposing it.


And my point wasn't even about denying genocide. Quite the opposite actually. I guess that explains your bizarre incredulity that you were not addressing my point. lol

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 17th, 2019 at 10:11pm by freediver »  

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #4 - Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:46pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 2:37pm:
freediver wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 1:04pm:
And yet, that is what you said.


No it wasn't. When I point to the belief that the "Muhammad good example" verse doesn't require 'supporting' Muhammad's every move and action - either because they consider it only applies to his role as revealer of the Quran, or that it only applies to his immediate contemporaries - how is that anything to do with denying the genocide? Quite the opposite - my point was they can accept the genocide happened, but not feel any obligation to support it - and could even condemn it. It is this point you have never addressed.
otherwise.


freediver wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 4:23pm:
You are confused Gandalf. This is what you said:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 24th, 2019 at 10:13am:
I pointed out the existence of muslims who reject the alleged massacre even happened - a fact that you didn't even bother to try and refute. And so by that measure alone, your claim is at a stroke disproven, as is the flawed logical steps that led to the claim.

For some reason you never actually addressed that point. I expect your response would have been of the "they don't really mean what they say" variety, which of course, naturally is *NOT* doing any such thing as denying them agency to think for themselves, heaven forbid.


How else am I supposed to interpret this but being about genocide denial?


polite_gandalf wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 6:03pm:
well you didn't address that one either - apart from the trusty old "every muslim must think like gandalf" insult.

Would you care to have a go now?

Also why on earth would muslims be doctrinally obliged to 'support' something they don't even believe happened under Islam?


polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 9:08am:
freediver wrote on May 30th, 2019 at 7:31pm:
Have you seriously forgotten already?


I certainly haven't forgotton your 'because gandalf said it' non-response.

Did you have an actual response that is actually relevant?

Also why on earth would muslims be doctrinally obliged to 'support' something they don't even believe happened under Islam?


freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 10:03am:
Here is the last time, only two days ago, where you demanded I repeat myself:

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 8:51am:
Here is the most recent example, from the previous page of this thread:

freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:38pm:
Quote:
Will you at least acknowledge that there are some muslims around who don't believe the massacre happened - and who also don't subscribe to the "in any case they were a mindless collective, so genocide is still awesome" narrative that you ascribe to me?


You eventually got around to denying the massacre happened, once you realised supporting genocide was not a good look. But you still maintained your support for genocide.


And here you are, two days later, in your second post in this thread after I made that one, insisting I never addressed it:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 24th, 2019 at 10:13am:
I pointed out the existence of muslims who reject the alleged massacre even happened - a fact that you didn't even bother to try and refute. And so by that measure alone, your claim is at a stroke disproven, as is the flawed logical steps that led to the claim.

For some reason you never actually addressed that point. I expect your response would have been of the "they don't really mean what they say" variety, which of course, naturally is *NOT* doing any such thing as denying them agency to think for themselves, heaven forbid.




polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 12:00pm:
freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 11:48am:
polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 10:53am:
Thanks FD, I think thats the third time you've proved to me that your answer to what other muslims besides me might or not think is to say "look at gandalf".

Do you have anything else? You know, something that doesn't involve projecting my alleged thoughts on to other musilms?

why on earth would muslims be doctrinally obliged to 'support' something they don't even believe happened under Islam? Is your only answer really "cause you did it"?


You are missing the point Gandalf. Denying genocide is not the same as opposing it. As to why Muslims do this, can you think of any Muslims who might be able to explain it to you?


You are missing the point that there is absolutely no logic in saying that all muslims who deny Muhammad committed genocide must still be doctrinally compelled to support genocide - for some mysterious reason that you won't explain other than the inane "look at gandalf".
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 17th, 2019 at 10:08pm by freediver »  

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #5 - Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:47pm
 
freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 2:00pm:
Because it is a question of historical fact Gandalf. If Muslims maintain that genocide is evil and that Muhammad would have been evil if he had committed genocide, then the only barrier to concluding Muhammad is evil is establishing a fact that nearly every Muslim on earth already considers to be established. This is probably why you still maintain support for genocide at the same time as denying it.

That, and a lot of the genocide denial, such as yours, merely boils down to playing down the number of Jews slaughtered by Muhammad, in which case the difference between Muhammad and evil is merely an arbitrary distinction on how many Jews you have to slaughter before it becomes genocide.

Muslims, even the Quran-only variety, can never be completely aloof from Muhammad, by virtue of the fact that Muhammad wrote the Quran. None of them want to invite the conclusion that the Quran was merely another tool for Muhammad's evil.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 2:50pm:
freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 2:00pm:
Because it is a question of historical fact Gandalf.


Right, so now your answer has changed to "because it definitely happened" - which presumably comes with an implied assumption that no muslim seriously denies it, even when they say they do.

Can you confirm this where you stand FD - that the genocide by Muhammad is really a universally accepted fact amongst all muslims, even when they say otherwise? You do accept that there are plenty of muslims who do say otherwise right?

Quote:
If Muslims maintain that genocide is evil and that Muhammad would have been evil if he had committed genocide, then the only barrier to concluding Muhammad is evil is establishing a fact that nearly every Muslim on earth already considers to be established. This is probably why you still maintain support for genocide at the same time as denying it.


Lets just skim over the heroic number of "IFs" here that your claim depends upon, and focus on the most obvious logical fallacy: that committing an evil act necessarily makes one evil. This is such an obvious point that it shouldn't need elaborating. I'll therefore jump straight to your very predictable response which will probably goes along the lines of "there are limits to how much evil a good man could do before he must become evil himself - and genocide is surely one such limit". And so this is where your dishonesty about what actually happened serves its purpose. When we are talking about taking away innocent men, women and children to the gas chambers in their millions, for no other reason than belonging to a particular ethnicity or culture or religion, then yes, that is an actual genocide that could not be committed by anyone other than an evil person. But we both know that is nothing like what Muhammad is alleged to do. It was the most mundane, run-of-the-mill mass execution of a group of soldiers, that literally happens all the time in war. When you view in these terms, for what it actually was, instead of dishonestly using the deliberately emotive term "genocide" - you see how absurd and dishonest is the idea that anyone who tries to justify such an act is a "genocide supporter".


freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 2:56pm:
Quote:
Right, so now your answer has changed to "because it definitely happened"


How do you go from "a question of historical fact" to "definitely happened"?


freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 4:59pm:
Quote:
Because you are not even bothering to consider those who don't believe it happened


That's what the entire post was about.


polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 5:52pm:
This is the part of the thread where FD just gives up but still feels compelled to post something. Anything.


freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:44pm:
Gandalf are you seriously arguing that this post is not about Muslims who deny the genocide?

freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 2:00pm:
Because it is a question of historical fact Gandalf. If Muslims maintain that genocide is evil and that Muhammad would have been evil if he had committed genocide, then the only barrier to concluding Muhammad is evil is establishing a fact that nearly every Muslim on earth already considers to be established. This is probably why you still maintain support for genocide at the same time as denying it.

That, and a lot of the genocide denial, such as yours, merely boils down to playing down the number of Jews slaughtered by Muhammad, in which case the difference between Muhammad and evil is merely an arbitrary distinction on how many Jews you have to slaughter before it becomes genocide.

Muslims, even the Quran-only variety, can never be completely aloof from Muhammad, by virtue of the fact that Muhammad wrote the Quran. None of them want to invite the conclusion that the Quran was merely another tool for Muhammad's evil.



freediver wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 1:25pm:
Quote:
Sure it is FD - a whole bunch of heroic assumptions and logical leaps about what muslim genocide-deniers must believe - because FD said so.


So because you didn't like my answer, you close your eyes and complain instead that I did not answer?

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:58pm by freediver »  

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #6 - Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:48pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2019 at 12:24pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 3:35pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 2:02pm:
FD is there anything in that answer that is something other than

a) assumptions of what muslims must think based not on what actual muslims say, but on how FD interprets Islam
b) because gandalf said it

?

Is it not true that when you hear a muslim say "I don't support genocide" your response must necessarily involve telling that muslim that he does not mean what he says? Its either that or concede that your threat title is complete BS. No?



Are you conceding that I considered those who don't believe it happened?


You "considered" that they must be either thinking what gandalf thinks, or the thoughts that FD imposes on them. And any muslim you encounter who declares they do not support genocide, you will insist that they don't mean what they say.

Since you are not disputing this, I'll "concede" this as a statement of fact.

And I think K's question is valid and very relevant too. But by all means keep deflecting.


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2019 at 12:28pm:
So when are you going to stop complaining that I haven't answered your questions after posting several paragraphs in direct response?


freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2019 at 5:26pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2019 at 12:48pm:
So final answer, is that muslims who deny the genocide really do support genocide because 'gandalf', and they definitely don't mean what they say?

If your "answer" is nothing more than saying that genocide denying muslims have no agency to think for themselves and only "think" either what gandalf thinks, or whatever thoughts FD imposes on them - then I'm more than happy to "concede" that I greatly overestimated your ability to answer with something other than bigoted and offensive tropes that reduce the muslim population to a mindless collective.

Or did you have something else?



Yes I have something else. How long are you going to keep playing this game of pretending I don't answer your questions whenever you don't like the response, then pretending it didn't happen? It's getting a little tedious don't you think?


freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2019 at 1:49pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7th, 2019 at 10:24pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2019 at 5:40pm:
How long are you going to keep playing this game of pretending I don't answer your questions whenever you don't like the response, then pretending it didn't happen? It's getting a little tedious don't you think?


Depends FD, how long are you going to keep pretending you gave an answer that was something other than 'because gandalf' and 'they think what I deem fit for them to think'?

And how could you come up with any answer that doesn't involve concluding that muslims don't mean what they say? For example how do you explain when a muslim says "I don't support genocide" - without even bothering to try and understand him other than the inane "cause gandalf"?

FD do you agree you have some hide attacking me as the one that insists muslims don't mean what they say?


I gave at least two simple answers I can think of that you are either ignoring or misrepresenting.

You said you do not support genocide. Then you went on to support genocide. Seeing as you have not come up with any other examples of Muslims who oppose genocide, and so have not asked the question, I cannot guess what my answer might be. Except of course for your example of the 3 year old 'Muslim', and you know what my response was there, and it was not what you suggest.


freediver wrote on Jun 8th, 2019 at 3:50pm:
How soon till you next insist I did not answer a question because you don't like my response Gandalf?



freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:47pm:
Before we go round the circle once more Gandalf, will you concede you were wrong the last time you did this?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 3:16pm:
Because you are not even bothering to consider those who don't believe it happened



polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:50pm:
No I was not wrong FD - you "considered" them by explaining that they do nothing but think exactly like gandalf - which is not really considering them at all (as real humans with agency). Its why I call it the "mindless collective" argument - or in other words a non-argument.

Do you still consider a two line quip a "lengthy response"? Or did you not actually mean the actual last time I asked you?

Its late FD, get some sleep and put some more thought into your posts tomorrow.

You don't have to reply just for the sake of replying - while saying nothing at all.


freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:53pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 3:16pm:
Because you are not even bothering to consider those who don't believe it happened


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:50pm:
No I was not wrong FD - you "considered" them


Which of these statements is true Gandalf?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:56pm by freediver »  

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #7 - Jun 17th, 2019 at 9:49pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:54pm:
Try quoting full sentences FD if you are going to honestly depict what I actually say.

I'll give you a hint: when I say "considered" in inverted commas, its a bit of a giveaway that its not really "considering" at all. Or you could just quote the words in the sentence that you ommitted straight after - that literally say exactly that.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:59pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:56pm:
And here are some rpevious examples of you making the same idiotic complaint about the same point:

freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 10:03am:
Here is the last time, only two days ago, where you demanded I repeat myself:

freediver wrote on May 29th, 2019 at 8:51am:
Here is the most recent example, from the previous page of this thread:

freediver wrote on May 22nd, 2019 at 7:38pm:
Quote:
Will you at least acknowledge that there are some muslims around who don't believe the massacre happened - and who also don't subscribe to the "in any case they were a mindless collective, so genocide is still awesome" narrative that you ascribe to me?


You eventually got around to denying the massacre happened, once you realised supporting genocide was not a good look. But you still maintained your support for genocide.


And here you are, two days later, in your second post in this thread after I made that one, insisting I never addressed it:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 24th, 2019 at 10:13am:
I pointed out the existence of muslims who reject the alleged massacre even happened - a fact that you didn't even bother to try and refute. And so by that measure alone, your claim is at a stroke disproven, as is the flawed logical steps that led to the claim.

For some reason you never actually addressed that point. I expect your response would have been of the "they don't really mean what they say" variety, which of course, naturally is *NOT* doing any such thing as denying them agency to think for themselves, heaven forbid.





FD is this your way of conceding that you didn't actually provide a "lengthy response" to the last time I asked you about the inconsistency of being morally flexible about the quran but not about hearsay about Muhammad?

Or are you just flailing about as usual?

Why not go one step further and concede that you didn't respond to it at all?

Or you can just keep deflecting, whatever suits.



polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17th, 2019 at 12:08am:
freediver wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:57pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 16th, 2019 at 11:54pm:
Try quoting full sentences FD if you are going to honestly depict what I actually say.

I'll give you a hint: when I say "considered" in inverted commas, its a bit of a giveaway that its not really "considering" at all. Or you could just quote the words in the sentence that you ommitted straight after - that literally say exactly that.


And here is the last time I explained to you that I have already explained it to you:

freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 8:44pm:
Gandalf are you seriously arguing that this post is not about Muslims who deny the genocide?

freediver wrote on May 31st, 2019 at 2:00pm:
Because it is a question of historical fact Gandalf. If Muslims maintain that genocide is evil and that Muhammad would have been evil if he had committed genocide, then the only barrier to concluding Muhammad is evil is establishing a fact that nearly every Muslim on earth already considers to be established. This is probably why you still maintain support for genocide at the same time as denying it.

That, and a lot of the genocide denial, such as yours, merely boils down to playing down the number of Jews slaughtered by Muhammad, in which case the difference between Muhammad and evil is merely an arbitrary distinction on how many Jews you have to slaughter before it becomes genocide.

Muslims, even the Quran-only variety, can never be completely aloof from Muhammad, by virtue of the fact that Muhammad wrote the Quran. None of them want to invite the conclusion that the Quran was merely another tool for Muhammad's evil.




umm.. thats nothing to do with my question about your inconsistency about morally flexible muslims FD.

You came up with the idea that muslims can be morally flexible about a clear (in your opinion) Quranic command that is directly related to Islamic law - yet still maintain that no muslim on earth could possibly have any moral flexibility on a matter of hearsay that isn't even related to Islamic law.

But by all means keep "answering" by referencing a completely irrelevant 3 week old discussion on the thought processes of muslim genocide deniers.

Or you could answer the actual question - which incidentally could easily involve genocide believers.

Quote:
Muslims, even the Quran-only variety, can never be completely aloof from Muhammad


So are you saying they could be partly aloof from Muhammad - say, on a matter of hearsay about an aspect of his political rule that is not even part of actual Islamic law?
Back to top
 

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Faruk
New Member
*
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 28
Re: genocide denial
Reply #8 - Jun 21st, 2019 at 7:35am
 
As said before, if it was genocide in your books then the Jews got orders for genocide in their book and then the argument that the Bible is less violent than the Quran is ruined.

Muhammad (sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) was illiterate. He didn't write the Quran. He recited it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #9 - Jun 21st, 2019 at 12:14pm
 
I think you got the wrong thread Faruk.
Back to top
 

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 70185
Gender: female
Re: genocide denial
Reply #10 - Jun 21st, 2019 at 12:23pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 12:14pm:
I think you got the wrong thread Faruk.


I know, FD, but just for fun, why don't you address Faruk's point?

Sometimes a question is just a question, you know.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #11 - Jun 21st, 2019 at 6:41pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 1:33pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 12:12pm:
Not only does Gandalf deny that Muhammad committed genocide, he repeatedly, and despite pages of discussion, denied that I had even addressed the topic of genocide denial among Muslims.


You didn't, you haven't.


So the 40000 odd words of discussion of this topic above are not me addressing Muslims who deny genocide?
Back to top
 

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 70185
Gender: female
Re: genocide denial
Reply #12 - Jun 22nd, 2019 at 1:28am
 
You're not much fun, FD. We thought you'd be tickled pink with the idea of a real millennial-old genocide.

Has something made you go all cranky and sulky?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 19224
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: genocide denial
Reply #13 - Jun 24th, 2019 at 11:20pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 6:41pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 1:33pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 12:12pm:
Not only does Gandalf deny that Muhammad committed genocide, he repeatedly, and despite pages of discussion, denied that I had even addressed the topic of genocide denial among Muslims.


You didn't, you haven't.


So the 40000 odd words of discussion of this topic above are not me addressing Muslims who deny genocide?


Difficult to believe isn't it?

I think only you could sustain a ~40000 word "discussion" with completely nonsensical jibberish.
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: 36281
At my desk.
Re: genocide denial
Reply #14 - Jun 25th, 2019 at 9:05am
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24th, 2019 at 11:20pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 6:41pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 1:33pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 21st, 2019 at 12:12pm:
Not only does Gandalf deny that Muhammad committed genocide, he repeatedly, and despite pages of discussion, denied that I had even addressed the topic of genocide denial among Muslims.


You didn't, you haven't.


So the 40000 odd words of discussion of this topic above are not me addressing Muslims who deny genocide?


Difficult to believe isn't it?

I think only you could sustain a ~40000 word "discussion" with completely nonsensical jibberish.


You managed to respond as though you understood exactly what I was saying. You just conveniently forgot soon after.
Back to top
 

Ayers rock - the first casualty of climb-it change.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print