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 30
th, 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 30
th, 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 30
th, 2018 at 7:10pm:
Quote:freediver wrote on Nov 30
th, 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 14
th, 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 15
th, 2018 at 2:43pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14
th, 2018 at 2:53pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 14
th, 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?