Gandalf recently took a break from telling us how all Islamophobia is based on racism to actually defend something as not being racist. The funny thing was, the comment in question ("Arabia is for Arabs") is about as blatantly racist as you can get. At first Gandalf insisted that Arabs must be a reference to a linguistic group, so therefor it isn't racism. This was questionable logic to begin with. Luckily Aussie followed this up with a clarification, in the form of a Lawrence of Arabia clip to show us what Arabs look like. Still not racist, according to Gandalf.

So why would Gandalf perform such a dramatic backflip from seeing racism where it doesn't exist to denying racism when it is clearly there? It's because Aussie wants to get all the non-Arabs (ie Israelis) out of Israel. Gandalf apparently agrees with this, and Aussie's insistence that Arabia is for Arabs is nothing more than criticising the history of Israel. Suddenly, saying "Arabis is for Arabs" is not actually saying Arabia is for Arabs, it is in fact objecting to forceful evictions (I don't think Aussie ever actually mentions this, he insists the Israelis should leave for their own good, before they get what is coming to them).

See the tapdancing here:


freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 5:39pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 2:17pm: freediver wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 12:40pm: It is true. It is on the wiki. Quote me. No problem. It is on the wiki after all. polite_gandalf wrote on May 7th, 2016 at 4:30pm: freediver wrote on May 7th, 2016 at 1:38pm: You deflected Gandalf. You have not said whether you think it is racist. Kind of hypocritical don't you think given your eagerness to see racism in every criticism of Islam? Short answer then, I don't consider "arabia for arabs" as "blatant racism". Of course it could be racist depending on the  context in which it is used. But the context Aussie used is clearly that of the Israeli annexation and forceful eviction of the inhabitants. Objecting to that is not racist by any stretch. I'll take your refusal to answer where Aussie said "ethnic cleansing is the solution" - as yet another case of you making crap up. The "context" Gandalf refers to includes a video clip from Lawrence of Arabia that Aussie posted so we could tell what Arabs look like. Ironically, from what I could tell, most of the actors were Europeans with a bit of careful selection and a lot of makeup and fancy dress.

when it is not racism

when it's about protecting women's rights .... namely Muslim women.

When it is not racism:

When it takes away the freedoms of decent white people everywhere.

Its not racism if you're muslim and it comes out of your mouth.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 7:47pm:

Gandalf recently took a break from telling us how all Islamophobia is based on racism to actually defend something as not being racist.

I think that we should also ask;

when is Islamophobia not racism ?



Here is Yadda's explanation of what the phenomenon of 'Islamophobia' actually is,
......and an explanation of what is the cause of the phenomenon of 'Islamophobia'.




Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1444366972/261#261

Quote:

QUESTION; WHAT IS AN 'ISLAMOPHOBE' ? 'Islamophobe' is a label which is attributed, by moslems, to anyone who dares to be critical of ISLAM [i.e. dares to be critical of ISLAM's doctrines, and tenets, and laws] or who is critical of some reprehensible behaviour, committed by many moslems, in the name of ISLAM. But what is an 'Islamophobe' ? This is the typical mechanism by which someone becomes characterised as an 'Islamophobe', by moslems; 1/ Somewhere, moslems [IN THE NAME OF ISLAM!] will murder someone [or, moslems will attempt to murder someone, or, moslems will threaten someone with violence, or, moslems will say something in an attempt to intimidate someone who is not a moslem].       [this behaviour occurs because, moslems are being, moslems***]. 2/ Then, somewhere else, someone will express an open criticism of moslems [for being moslems, i.e. they will express a legitimate criticism of some violent or reprehensible behaviour committed in the name of ISLAM, by moslems [see #1]. 3/ Then, moslems will 'accuse' their critics [see #2] of being an 'Islamophobe'.    [as though being an 'Islamophobe' were somehow a legitimate counter-criticism, against the critics of ISLAM.      BUT IT ISN'T.    'Islamophobe' is a empty and 'artificial' label.] That is the truth of it.

When it is not racism:

When you propose the idea that interbreeding between.Arabs and the "Negroid sub-race" causes retardation a "compelling theory".

when it is not racism


when their IQ is 81

Karnal wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 11:02pm:

When it is not racism: When you propose the idea that interbreeding between.Arabs and the "Negroid sub-race" causes retardation a "compelling theory".

Nevertheless fact. It maybe theory to someone with an IQ less than 81 I suppose.

John Smith wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 11:05pm:

when it is not racism when their IQ is 81

How ironic - most muslims have an IQ less than 81.

When it is not racism:

When it's weak genetics caused by generations of inbreeding.

"arabia for arabs" is not "blatant racism". Anyone else agree?

I do however believe it could be racist based on the context it is used - as I pointed out.

The only point I wanted to make in that thread is how hilarious it is watching FD froth at the mouth playing the very caricature that he mocks day in day out - when its about jews. But when its actual blatant racism, involving muslims FD either pretends it doesn't exist, or spinelessly apologises for it.

Jolly Roger wrote on May 9^th, 2016 at 11:08pm:

John Smith wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 11:05pm: when it is not racism when their IQ is 81 How ironic - most muslims have an IQ less than 81.

you should feel right at home with them then

John Smith wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 12:55pm:

Jolly Roger wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 11:08pm: John Smith wrote on May 9th, 2016 at 11:05pm: when it is not racism when their IQ is 81 How ironic - most muslims have an IQ less than 81. you should feel right at home with them then

I do feel right at home with them and you both having an IQ less than 81, why would you think any different. Having a higher IQ I feel quiet confident.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 12:40pm:

"arabia for arabs" is not "blatant racism". Anyone else agree? I do however believe it could be racist based on the context it is used - as I pointed out.

Was it racist as Aussie used it?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 12:40pm:

"arabia for arabs" is not "blatant racism". Anyone else agree? I do however believe it could be racist based on the context it is used - as I pointed out. The only point I wanted to make in that thread is how hilarious it is watching FD froth at the mouth playing the very caricature that he mocks day in day out - when its about jews. But when its actual blatant racism, involving muslims FD either pretends it doesn't exist, or spinelessly apologises for it.

Racism eh!! ?



What about this item gandalf ?

----------- >


Quote:

By Robert Spencer on May 09, 2016 06:15 pm German refugee centers: Muslims threaten Christian refugees for not taking part in Islamic prayers

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/05/german-refugee-centers-muslims-threaten-christian-refugees-for-not-taking-part-in-islamic-prayers


Were those moslems being 'racist' gandalf ?

Or were those moslems, just being 'moslem' ?






Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1462577346/84#84

Quote:

Here is another 'trick' thought..... Every moslem supports the introduction of Sharia law. [.....and Sharia law sanctions the murder of disbelievers, for the crime of their disbelief, .....whenever a persons disbelief publicly demonstrates blasphemy against ISLAM. .....e.g. by publicly displaying/expressing that you are a disbeliever.]

I find it somewhat hypocritical when an Arab/Muslim sand sucker gets on their high horse about racist (religionist) Australians, when in their country of origin, there is no tolerance what so ever, none, zip, nada, nup nothing.

If you dare to mention another religion, you get kilded, deadded and otherwise screwed.

And then they have the hide to come here and call us racists (Religionists)

I think perhaps they should look in the mirror if they want to see what real life racists look like.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2016 at 4:59pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 10th, 2016 at 12:40pm: "arabia for arabs" is not "blatant racism". Anyone else agree? I do however believe it could be racist based on the context it is used - as I pointed out. Was it racist as Aussie used it?

Who knows, you were so busy frothing at the mouth you never did get round to explaining the proper context and why it was supposed to be such horrifically vile racism. I think the closest you got was pointing to a clip from Lawrence of Arabia.

But tell me fd, would you put this "blatant racism" in a similar category to moses describing the entire male muslim population as dirty, murderous inbred retards "all squatting to urinate"? Or let me guess, thats just a fair and legitimate criticism of Islam?

Islam is not a race Gandalf, but there is an element of sexism in there if that makes you feel any better.

Are you saying that you were still unsure whether it was racist even after Aussie posted that video to show what he meant by Arabs? How much 'context' do you need?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 7:09am:

Islam is not a race Gandalf,

And some of FD’s best friends are swarthy.

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 7:09am:

Are you saying that you were still unsure whether it was racist even after Aussie posted that video to show what he meant by Arabs?

You're right, crudely racially stereotyping arabs is definitely racist against jews.

sorry, I meant "blatantly racist".

Well this discussion is certainly helping people to further accept and understand muslims. Good stuff.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 12:38pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 7:09am: Are you saying that you were still unsure whether it was racist even after Aussie posted that video to show what he meant by Arabs? You're right, crudely racially stereotyping arabs is definitely racist against jews.

Ah, so you would describe Aussie's post as "crudely racially stereoptyping Arabs"?

But not racist?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 4:30pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 12:38pm: freediver wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 7:09am: Are you saying that you were still unsure whether it was racist even after Aussie posted that video to show what he meant by Arabs? You're right, crudely racially stereotyping arabs is definitely racist against jews. Ah, so you would describe Aussie's post as "crudely racially stereoptyping Arabs"? But not racist?

If you're saying he was being racist against arabs, I heartily agree. But I thought your beef was his horrible treatment of the jews - you know 'arabia for arabs', and some unknown reference to ethnic cleansing of non-arabs, that you mysteriously could never find for me. Now you bring up the racial caricaturing of arabs, as if this has something to do with his 'blatant racism' against jews. Does that make sense?

You seem confused FD.

So it is "crude racial stereotyping" if Muslims are the victims, but merely a reference to a linguistic group if non-Muslims are the victims?

And Muslims can even be the victims of an effort to establish who gets to stay in Aussie's "Arabia is for Arabs" program?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 4:54pm:

So it is "crude racial stereotyping" if Muslims are the victims, but merely a reference to a linguistic group if non-Muslims are the victims?

what?

you were the one who brought up the racial caricaturing of arabs as evidence of racism, not me.

You need to work out exactly what your so outraged about FD.

FD can you at least explain to me the link between "arabia for arabs" and racial caricaturing of arabs? Is it "blatant racism" against jews, and why?

You are the only one banging on about outrage. I am just trying to figure out which line you are backflipping over. Am I right that your ability to see racism depends entirely on who you identify as the victim, to the point where you will deny what is fairly obvious racism when you agree with it, and invent racism when you disagree?

FD I'm happy to call out racism against jews where it happens. But you still haven't explained - how is Aussie's caricaturing of arabs related to that? Why won't you answer?

Your attack on Aussie was clearly about his alleged anti-semitism, starting with the "blatantly racist" phrase "arabia for arabs". After asking quite reasonably how such a vague slogan is "blatantly racist" (after acknowledging that it could be racist), you pointed to a) some unknown reference to ethnic cleansing that you never produced despite repeated requests and b) bizarrely, a reference to a racist caricaturing of arabs.

Do you think there's something wrong here FD? Feel free to deflect again.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 6:55pm:

FD I'm happy to call out racism against jews where it happens. But you still haven't explained - how is Aussie's caricaturing of arabs related to that? Why won't you answer? Your attack on Aussie was clearly about his alleged anti-semitism, starting with the "blatantly racist" phrase "arabia for arabs". After asking quite reasonably how such a vague slogan is "blatantly racist" (after acknowledging that it could be racist), you pointed to a) some unknown reference to ethnic cleansing that you never produced despite repeated requests and b) bizarrely, a reference to a racist caricaturing of arabs.

In my reading Aussie was definately calling for some ethnic cleansing. But to be fair, his whole premise is so dopey I haven't given it much attention. 

Quote:

FD I'm happy to call out racism against jews where it happens.

Forget who it is for or against. If I said Australia is only for white people, would you need to identify a victim in order to see racism?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 4:56pm:

freediver wrote on May 11th, 2016 at 4:54pm: So it is "crude racial stereotyping" if Muslims are the victims, but merely a reference to a linguistic group if non-Muslims are the victims? what? you were the one who brought up the racial caricaturing of arabs as evidence of racism, not me. You need to work out exactly what your so outraged about FD.

Islam. FD is outraged about Islam.

Well, that, and Arab interbreeding with the Negroid sub-races.

A plausible theory, no?

freediver wrote on May 11^th, 2016 at 7:53pm:

Quote: FD I'm happy to call out racism against jews where it happens. Forget who it is for or against. If I said Australia is only for white people, would you need to identify a victim in order to see racism?

But you just did identify a victim(s) FD - non-white people. Its implicit in the statement. I don't think racism makes sense without identifying victims. How can it?

OK. So the victims of "Arabia is for Arabs" are non-Arabs.

Are you still confused about whether it is racism?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:28pm:

So the victims of "Arabia is for Arabs" are non-Arabs.

the victims are the white christian folk FD... it's always the white christian folk who are the victims.

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 2:28pm:

OK. So the victims of "Arabia is for Arabs" are non-Arabs. Are you still confused about whether it is racism?

You seriously telling me you don't see a difference between this and 'arabia for arabs'?

The equivalent would be 'Australia for Australians' or 'Europe for Europeans'. Of course it could be racist, depending on the context. But it is not even in the same ball-park - 'Australian only for white people' is explicity racist, since it refers to an actual race (or what we have always perceived to be a race - 'white people', there aren't really any races). Whereas 'arabs' refers to a linguistic/cultural group - and in some contexts, even a nationalist group - thus making it comparable to 'europe for europeans'.

Arabia for arabs is not 'blatant racism' by any stretch. This is just you getting all hot and bothered over a perceived slight against the jews - whom you have become the defacto standard bearer for, and we all know why that is. Frankly I'm surprised you haven't weaved in the Banu Qurayza into the conversation yet. Probably saving that up for yet another spin-off thread.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:28pm: OK. So the victims of "Arabia is for Arabs" are non-Arabs. Are you still confused about whether it is racism? You seriously telling me you don't see a difference between this and 'arabia for arabs'? The equivalent would be 'Australia for Australians' or 'Europe for Europeans'. Of course it could be racist, depending on the context. But it is not even in the same ball-park - 'Australian only for white people' is explicity racist, since it refers to an actual race (or what we have always perceived to be a race - 'white people', there aren't really any races). Whereas 'arabs' refers to a linguistic/cultural group - and in some contexts, even a nationalist group - thus making it comparable to 'europe for europeans'. Arabia for arabs is not 'blatant racism' by any stretch. This is just you getting all hot and bothered over a perceived slight against the jews - whom you have become the defacto standard bearer for, and we all know why that is. Frankly I'm surprised you haven't weaved in the Banu Qurayza into the conversation yet. Probably saving that up for yet another spin-off thread.

Lol what a racist rant, of course it is racist anyone can see that even you.

the title of this thread is;

when it is not racism



When ?

When moslems discriminate against non-moslems,       .....on the basis that the non-moslems are 'white'.




http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463180183/0#0

Quote:

London's transport authority is far too dominated by white men, Labour's mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan said today. There are currently 13 white men on the Transport for London board and just three women. Khan said he would ensure the board better reflected the "diversity" of Londoners if he becomes mayor.

It is not discrimination,       .....when you promote those who better 'represent' the same ethnic group as that of the new 'boss man' !

And isn't that, what new London mayor, Sadiq Khan, has actually said!!!!




It is not discrimination!!

It is all about righting apparent wrongs you see.           :P

And skin colour is an important factor in exposing the 'inequality' among those, who dedicate their lives to the service of the public/community.



This is for the good,       ....OF ALL MANKIND!

Honest!

polite_gandalf wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 3:07pm:

freediver wrote on May 13th, 2016 at 2:28pm: OK. So the victims of "Arabia is for Arabs" are non-Arabs. Are you still confused about whether it is racism? You seriously telling me you don't see a difference between this and 'arabia for arabs'? The equivalent would be 'Australia for Australians' or 'Europe for Europeans'. Of course it could be racist, depending on the context. But it is not even in the same ball-park - 'Australian only for white people' is explicity racist, since it refers to an actual race (or what we have always perceived to be a race - 'white people', there aren't really any races). Whereas 'arabs' refers to a linguistic/cultural group - and in some contexts, even a nationalist group - thus making it comparable to 'europe for europeans'. Arabia for arabs is not 'blatant racism' by any stretch. This is just you getting all hot and bothered over a perceived slight against the jews - whom you have become the defacto standard bearer for, and we all know why that is. Frankly I'm surprised you haven't weaved in the Banu Qurayza into the conversation yet. Probably saving that up for yet another spin-off thread.

Forget the hyperbole Gandalf. Simple question: is it racist?

Did Aussie's video showing what Arabs look like not alert you to the fact he was referring to a racial group rather than a 'linguistic' group? Are you going to stick with 'no such thing as a race' in order to defend this racism?

freediver wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 3:24pm:

Forget the hyperbole Gandalf. Simple question: is it racist? Did Aussie's video showing what Arabs look like not alert you to the fact he was referring to a racial group rather than a 'linguistic' group? Are you going to stick with 'no such thing as a race' in order to defend this racism?

Simple answer: it could be racist depending on the context - but it is not "blatant racism", anymore than "Europe for Europeans" is blatant racism. Hilarious you talking about hyperbole given your hysterics in that thread. By the way, have you found Aussie's call for ethnic cleansing yet?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 3:24pm: Forget the hyperbole Gandalf. Simple question: is it racist? Did Aussie's video showing what Arabs look like not alert you to the fact he was referring to a racial group rather than a 'linguistic' group? Are you going to stick with 'no such thing as a race' in order to defend this racism? Simple answer: it could be racist depending on the context - but it is not "blatant racism", anymore than "Europe for Europeans" is blatant racism. Hilarious you talking about hyperbole given your hysterics in that thread. By the way, have you found Aussie's call for ethnic cleansing yet?

He is not calling for a Europe for Europeans, he is calling for the equivalent of Arabs out of Europe. He wants an expulsion. 

If someone acts and talks like a m0ron and then tries to get a free pass for it on the basis of his race, he is still a m0ron. The only difference is that nobody is scared to call out white supremacists but everyone is supposed to be cowering before a non-white m0ron who declares that any opposition to his views by whites is racism.

As if non-whites were immune to being total nice people - a very unlikely thing if you look at the societies they have created and are existing in, and are trying to escape from in very large numbers to 'racist' societies created by whites.

Have you noticed? - nobody is begging to be settled in non-white countries?  Nobody. Not whites, not non-whites. Nobody.

Is it racists to notice stuff like that?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 14^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

freediver wrote on May 14th, 2016 at 3:24pm: Forget the hyperbole Gandalf. Simple question: is it racist? Did Aussie's video showing what Arabs look like not alert you to the fact he was referring to a racial group rather than a 'linguistic' group? Are you going to stick with 'no such thing as a race' in order to defend this racism? Simple answer: it could be racist depending on the context - but it is not "blatant racism", anymore than "Europe for Europeans" is blatant racism. Hilarious you talking about hyperbole given your hysterics in that thread. By the way, have you found Aussie's call for ethnic cleansing yet?

Is it racist in the context that Aussie used it?

Try giving a straight answer without the hyperbole this time.

You mean your imaginary context that curiously you could never demonstrate?

As I said all along - the context I saw, which was foreign invasion and occupation, no its not racist. But feel free to show me the ethnic cleansing context you assured me it was in.

Do you think its a bit rich banging on for weeks about the vague phrase 'arabia for arabs' and how 'blatantly racist' it is (as well as accusing me of hyperbole LOL) - but claim with a straight face that moses's outrageous statement about 100% of muslim males being dirty inbred psychopaths who all squat to wee isn't racist?

Quote:

As I said all along - the context I saw, which was foreign invasion and occupation, no its not racist.

I don't think Aussie ever mentioned that. You did, in an effort to justify his racism. He did post a video to show us what Arabs look like, after I drew his attention to your "linguistic group" deflection.

Does the historical context make "Arabia is for Arabs" not racist? You never did explain this logic. You appear to be arguing that because you agree with the racism, it is not racist.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 10:15am:

I don't think Aussie ever mentioned that.

Rubbish. The intervention and occupation by the west has been front and centre of his argument, starting with:


Aussie wrote on May 2^nd, 2016 at 11:30am:

The Arabs have been at each others throats for centuries, and after we plonked Israel into the middle of their lands, we added another likely flash point, one which now is nuclear armed and would not have the least compunction in using those weapons.

and ending with...


Aussie wrote on May 7^th, 2016 at 8:46pm:

How many times do I have to tell you that I could not care less about Arabs tearing each other apart.  Nothing new about that.  It's been happening for centuries. I want us out of it permanently, yet we get dragged in because of Israel.  I'll settle for all Western financial and military support for Israel being withdrawn and forever withheld.  Israel can wing it by itself if it wants to stay there.  Wonder how long they will last in those circumstances?

I did note though your constant efforts to put words into his mouth, constantly bringing up skin colour, godwin's law (train rides), and forced eviction (presumably thats where the ethnic cleansing bit comes in) - all of which he denied.

FD if you could pretend you were someone else, looking at all this objectively, do you think you'd find it pretty amusing watching your hysterics over this, as well as shouting down anyone who disagrees with you that its "blatant racism" as an apologist and hypocrite? Especially given how you refuse to acknowledge how labelling 100% of the male muslim population as dirty, intellectually retarded psychopaths who squat to urinate is a case of "blatant racism"?

So me mentioning skin colour was putting words in Aussie's mouth?

Can you explain your logic for why agreeing with Aussie's racism makes it not racism?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 10:50am:

So me mentioning skin colour was putting words in Aussie's mouth?

Indeed it was - well done, you might actually be getting the hang of this.


freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 10:50am:

Can you explain your logic for why agreeing with Aussie's racism makes it not racism?

hmmm, or in other words "can you explain to me why not agreeing with me that its racism makes it not racist"  ;D ;D

Why isn't moses's quote racist FD? Is it because you agree with moses's bigotry?

Do you think Aussie's video showing us what Arabs look like, to clarify what he meant by "Arabia is for Arabs," is different from my references to skin colour?

How does the 'context' you keep going on about make it any less racist?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 11:21am:

How does the 'context' you keep going on about make it any less racist?

Because saying 'arabia for arabs' in the context of saying westerners should stop meddling in arabia for imperialistic purposes (not racist) is very different to your bs version that its all about "ethnic cleansing" people on the basis of their skin colour. (racist)

You literally had to put words into Aussie's mouth to create the racist context that never existed.

He was saying the Israelis should leave - because Arabia is for Arabs. The Arab Israelis can stay.

How does the 'context' make that not racist? Is it by pretending the context means he did not actually say those things?

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 11:46am:

He was saying the Israelis should leave - because Arabia is for Arabs. The Arab Israelis can stay. How does the 'context' make that not racist? Is it by pretending the context means he did not actually say those things?

You asked him what those arabs should do, he said they can stay or go for all he cared. Sliiiighly different to your spin. He also went to great pains to say his stance wasn't racial - that he was talking about 'Israelis', not 'jews'. Moreover he went out of his way to explain how his beef was one about nation states, not individuals.

Admittedly, Aussie was clumsy in his insistence on the phrase 'arabs for arabs' while at the same time making it clear his issue was with the political layout of the region in terms of nation states, rather than the ethno-religious composition of the region. And he certainly became less coherent the more you verballed him and put words in his mouth. But you do excel at that - pushing and pushing someone in a deliberate attempt to get them riled up so they inevitably end up stumbling and contradicting themselves. So rather than get Aussie to properly explain his position - by, for example, asking him about what individual jews could do after the state of Israel was removed (funny how you didn't think of that one, I wonder why?), you simply provoke him to go on the defensive and baricade himself with statements like "arabia is for arabs, and nothing is going to change my view on that". And that, of course, is mission accomplished for you.

When it is racist -

When someone suggests the Muselman should have sovereignty in his own land.

When it is not racist -

When you can’t let them do this because they’re inbred terrorists with an IQ under 81.

Karnal wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 12:25pm:

When it is racist - When someone suggests the Muselman should have sovereignty in his own land. When it is not racist - When you can’t let them do this because they’re inbred terrorists with an IQ under 81.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463277300

FD has excelled himself to a whole new level by accusing me of being the hypocrite and resorting to hyperbole.  ;D

Karnal wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 12:25pm:

When it is racist - When someone suggests the Muselman should have sovereignty in his own land. When it is not racist - When you can’t let them do this because they’re inbred terrorists with an IQ under 81.

Is it racist when white people want sovereignty over  their lands sweet cheeks??

Mr Hammer wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

Karnal wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 12:25pm: When it is racist - When someone suggests the Muselman should have sovereignty in his own land. When it is not racist - When you can’t let them do this because they’re inbred terrorists with an IQ under 81. Is it racist when white people want sovereignty over  their lands sweet cheeks??

I don’t think.so, Homo. Is Uncle invading any of Whitey’s lands?

Quote:

You asked him what those arabs should do, he said they can stay or go for all he cared. Sliiiighly different to your spin. He also went to great pains to say his stance wasn't racial - that he was talking about 'Israelis', not 'jews'. Moreover he went out of his way to explain how his beef was one about nation states, not individuals.

Yes. The non-Arabs must go. The Arabs can stay, or do as they please, because Arabia is for Arabs. So, not racist, because of the context?


Quote:

Admittedly, Aussie was clumsy in his insistence on the phrase 'arabs for arabs' while at the same time making it clear his issue was with the political layout of the region in terms of nation states, rather than the ethno-religious composition of the region.

This is what he fell back on when it was pointed out that non of his other arguments made sense - Arabia is for Arabs. The non-Arabs must go. It was all he had left - racism.


Quote:

And he certainly became less coherent the more you verballed him and put words in his mouth.

"Arabia is for Arabs" is pretty coherent to me Gandalf. He even posted a video to show what Arabs look like after you attempted to put words in his mouth about "linguistic groups".


Quote:

But you do excel at that - pushing and pushing someone in a deliberate attempt to get them riled up so they inevitably end up stumbling and contradicting themselves.

But he did not contradict himself. None of the "context" you have cited contradicts his insistence that Arabia is for Arabs. You have merely attempted to rebuild his argument without the racist bits (and a few extra bits of your own) and pretend it is context that disproves the racism.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 12:54pm:

But he did not contradict himself.

Of course he did. He is clearly inadvertently conflating a nationalist/political identity with ethnicity when using the term 'arab'. The term has always been vague and ambiguous anyway. But his non-racist position is set out pretty clearly here:


Quote:

There are 1.4M Arabs living in Israel making them Israelis on my eyes.  I am specifically not coming into your religious, divisive crap freediver.  I have always referred to Israelis and you know it.

Asking him specifically where he thought individual jews would fit in with his scheme would have cleared it all up. Since elsewhere he had clearly inferred that his beef was not against any religious/ethnic or racial group. Just because he contradicted himself doesn't make him a racist.

Gandalf are you now arguing it is not racism because he did not mean what he said - I somehow tricked him into saying it?


Quote:

Of course he did. He is clearly inadvertently conflating a nationalist/political identity with ethnicity when using the term 'arab'.

Ah. So that is why he posted a video to show us what Arabs look like? Nationalism? What nation or political affiliation are you putting into Aussie's mouth here Gandalf?


Quote:

The term has always been vague and ambiguous anyway.

I keep forgetting. There is no such thing as race.


Quote:

But his non-racist position is set out pretty clearly here:

So his refusal to discuss religion proves it is not about race? Crystal clear Gandalf.


Quote:

Asking him specifically where he thought individual jews would fit in with his scheme would have cleared it all up.

I think the video cleared it all up. You were putting words into his mouth about linguistic groups. But no, here is a video showing what Arabs look like. Now you are inventing nationalism and political affiliation on Aussie's behalf - all so you can go on denying racism where it does not suit your agenda.

How fascinating!  How come no-one bothered to ask me?  Gandalf has it right.  FD is creating windmills for his mate Sancho.

Why bother delving into what I say about a simple historical fact, looking for some sinister motive?  We plonked Israel into a hive of already intrinsically hostile territory and expected there to be peace in our times!   (Even after doing so, Israel decided to muscle into its neighbour's lands.)

Absurd.

I say it is not too late to fix that, goodwill prevailing, and make Arabia less of a flash point to the possible destruction of the entire Planet.

What is wrong with Tasmania, which would welcome the economic boost?  FD's response to that is ~ "Oh, how could we possibly safely migrate those Isrealis who were willing to get to Tasmania"

I say ~ a decent logistician and a willing migrant would make it work.

If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter.  Guess that would say I am a Jew Hater, which is totally absurd.  I'm not.  I am a strong sympathiser.

My mind works on the basis that it made sense Gandhi's India be partitioned.

Same common sense principle.

(The Lawrence of Arabia video was symbolic of many of my thoughts about square pegs and round holes,)

Quote:

If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter.

Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 8:45pm:

Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie.

Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on.

Aussie wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on.

Dont worry about it Aussie.  The left have overused and abused the term racist to the point where it has lost any impact.

Just your standard luvvie 'argument' rolled out for any occasion, relevance not required.  8-)

Secret Wars wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 9:08pm:

The left have overused and abused the term racist to the point where it has lost any impact.

And thats always been FD's line - he spends most of his time here mocking those who pull the "wacist" card. Which is why I was so astonished he became that very caricature he devotes so much time in mocking. And over such an innocuous term as "arabia for arabs" for goodness sake. Its insane. And then he'll tell you with a straight face that while 'arabia for arabs' is the most heinous of racist statements, the statement that 100% of the muslim population are dirty inbred intellectually disabled psychopaths who squat to urinate - is a-ok.

Aussie wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 7:28pm:

How fascinating!  How come no-one bothered to ask me?  Gandalf has it right.  FD is creating windmills for his mate Sancho. Why bother delving into what I say about a simple historical fact, looking for some sinister motive?  We plonked Israel into a hive of already intrinsically hostile territory and expected there to be peace in our times!   (Even after doing so, Israel decided to muscle into its neighbour's lands.) Absurd. I say it is not too late to fix that, goodwill prevailing, and make Arabia less of a flash point to the possible destruction of the entire Planet. What is wrong with Tasmania, which would welcome the economic boost?  FD's response to that is ~ "Oh, how could we possibly safely migrate those Isrealis who were willing to get to Tasmania" I say ~ a decent logistician and a willing migrant would make it work. If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter.  Guess that would say I am a Jew Hater, which is totally absurd.  I'm not.  I am a strong sympathiser. My mind works on the basis that it made sense Gandhi's India be partitioned. Same common sense principle. (The Lawrence of Arabia video was symbolic of many of my thoughts about square pegs and round holes,)

Aussie, in your proposal, what happens to individual jews who decide not to follow the 'exodus' and join the new Israeli state in Tasmania? Should they be free to stay in arabia?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 7:47am:

Secret Wars wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:08pm: The left have overused and abused the term racist to the point where it has lost any impact. And thats always been FD's line - he spends most of his time here mocking those who pull the "wacist" card. Which is why I was so astonished he became that very caricature he devotes so much time in mocking. And over such an innocuous term as "arabia for arabs" for goodness sake. Its insane. And then he'll tell you with a straight face that while 'arabia for arabs' is the most heinous of racist statements, the statement that 100% of the muslim population are dirty inbred intellectually disabled psychopaths who squat to urinate - is a-ok.

Exactly. That’s not racist. Dirty inbred subhumans are not a race.

FD calls them a "sub-race" - a most jolly classification as I’m sure you’ll agree.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 7:51am:

Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 7:28pm: How fascinating!  How come no-one bothered to ask me?  Gandalf has it right.  FD is creating windmills for his mate Sancho. Why bother delving into what I say about a simple historical fact, looking for some sinister motive?  We plonked Israel into a hive of already intrinsically hostile territory and expected there to be peace in our times!   (Even after doing so, Israel decided to muscle into its neighbour's lands.) Absurd. I say it is not too late to fix that, goodwill prevailing, and make Arabia less of a flash point to the possible destruction of the entire Planet. What is wrong with Tasmania, which would welcome the economic boost?  FD's response to that is ~ "Oh, how could we possibly safely migrate those Isrealis who were willing to get to Tasmania" I say ~ a decent logistician and a willing migrant would make it work. If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter.  Guess that would say I am a Jew Hater, which is totally absurd.  I'm not.  I am a strong sympathiser. My mind works on the basis that it made sense Gandhi's India be partitioned. Same common sense principle. (The Lawrence of Arabia video was symbolic of many of my thoughts about square pegs and round holes,) Aussie, in your proposal, what happens to individual jews who decide not to follow the 'exodus' and join the new Israeli state in Tasmania? Should they be free to stay in arabia?

Their decision, but the State of Israel will have moved to Tasmania.

Aussie wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 10:39am:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 7:51am: Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 7:28pm: How fascinating!  How come no-one bothered to ask me?  Gandalf has it right.  FD is creating windmills for his mate Sancho. Why bother delving into what I say about a simple historical fact, looking for some sinister motive?  We plonked Israel into a hive of already intrinsically hostile territory and expected there to be peace in our times!   (Even after doing so, Israel decided to muscle into its neighbour's lands.) Absurd. I say it is not too late to fix that, goodwill prevailing, and make Arabia less of a flash point to the possible destruction of the entire Planet. What is wrong with Tasmania, which would welcome the economic boost?  FD's response to that is ~ "Oh, how could we possibly safely migrate those Isrealis who were willing to get to Tasmania" I say ~ a decent logistician and a willing migrant would make it work. If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter.  Guess that would say I am a Jew Hater, which is totally absurd.  I'm not.  I am a strong sympathiser. My mind works on the basis that it made sense Gandhi's India be partitioned. Same common sense principle. (The Lawrence of Arabia video was symbolic of many of my thoughts about square pegs and round holes,) Aussie, in your proposal, what happens to individual jews who decide not to follow the 'exodus' and join the new Israeli state in Tasmania? Should they be free to stay in arabia? Their decision, but the State of Israel will have moved to Tasmania.

Ah, but is Tasmania not for Tasmanians?

Most wacist, I know. Sorry about that.

Karnal wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 10:22am:

polite_gandalf wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 7:47am: Secret Wars wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:08pm: The left have overused and abused the term racist to the point where it has lost any impact. And thats always been FD's line - he spends most of his time here mocking those who pull the "wacist" card. Which is why I was so astonished he became that very caricature he devotes so much time in mocking. And over such an innocuous term as "arabia for arabs" for goodness sake. Its insane. And then he'll tell you with a straight face that while 'arabia for arabs' is the most heinous of racist statements, the statement that 100% of the muslim population are dirty inbred intellectually disabled psychopaths who squat to urinate - is a-ok. Exactly. That’s not racist. Dirty inbred subhumans are not a race. FD calls them a "sub-race" - a most jolly classification as I’m sure you’ll agree.

Nice to see FD being right yet again eats you two up like this. I enjoy reading your hissy fits.

Karnal wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 1:02pm:

Aussie wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 10:39am: polite_gandalf wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 7:51am: Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 7:28pm: How fascinating!  How come no-one bothered to ask me?  Gandalf has it right.  FD is creating windmills for his mate Sancho. Why bother delving into what I say about a simple historical fact, looking for some sinister motive?  We plonked Israel into a hive of already intrinsically hostile territory and expected there to be peace in our times!   (Even after doing so, Israel decided to muscle into its neighbour's lands.) Absurd. I say it is not too late to fix that, goodwill prevailing, and make Arabia less of a flash point to the possible destruction of the entire Planet. What is wrong with Tasmania, which would welcome the economic boost?  FD's response to that is ~ "Oh, how could we possibly safely migrate those Isrealis who were willing to get to Tasmania" I say ~ a decent logistician and a willing migrant would make it work. If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter.  Guess that would say I am a Jew Hater, which is totally absurd.  I'm not.  I am a strong sympathiser. My mind works on the basis that it made sense Gandhi's India be partitioned. Same common sense principle. (The Lawrence of Arabia video was symbolic of many of my thoughts about square pegs and round holes,) Aussie, in your proposal, what happens to individual jews who decide not to follow the 'exodus' and join the new Israeli state in Tasmania? Should they be free to stay in arabia? Their decision, but the State of Israel will have moved to Tasmania. Ah, but is Tasmania not for Tasmanians? Most wacist, I know. Sorry about that.

Oh, Tasmanians would have to be consulted I agree, but there is no way they'd knock back the wealth, prosperity, military muscle and peace the Israelis would bring to their State.

Heavens, they may even get to take over the mainland States as revenge for the number of times they have been left off the map of Australia!

(Making an exception with:)

:)

"When is it not racism?"

Good question.

Answer: When it's reverse racism.

That is, when Whites lose places at universities because Negroes, Muslims, Orientals, and subcontinental Abos from India are given priority over those places for reasons based upon race.

link

British universities will be named-and-shamed if they don't practice racism in their selection processes.

This is Marla's 'Socialism' in action.

Lord Herbert wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 3:44pm:

"When is it not racism?" Good question. Answer: When it's reverse racism. That is, when Whites lose places at universities because Negroes, Muslims, Orientals, and subcontinental Abos from India are given priority over those places for reasons based upon race..

That’s right, Herbie. Their race makes them get better marks, eh?

Typical.

Karnal wrote on May 16^th, 2016 at 4:05pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on May 16th, 2016 at 3:44pm: "When is it not racism?" Good question. Answer: When it's reverse racism. That is, when Whites lose places at universities because Negroes, Muslims, Orientals, and subcontinental Abos from India are given priority over those places for reasons based upon race.. That’s right, Herbie. Their race makes them get better marks, eh? Typical.

That's why they are all so bright, especially muslims with an average IQ < 81 . ;D

Aussie wrote on May 15^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on.

Ah, so you'll wear the tag, but not accept what is written on it?

When you said Arabia is for Arabs, would you describe 'Arabs' as a racial group?

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:01pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on. Ah, so you'll wear the tag, but not accept what is written on it? When you said Arabia is for Arabs, would you describe 'Arabs' as a racial group?

Of course I would as that term 'race' is presently used, which now takes into much more than just genes.  It's a tag which can be thrown any time.  Many would reckon 'Jews' are a race, yet they are not in my eyes.  But, I accept that is the popular catch all tag.

What's your point?

How about we discuss "Duckland is for Ducks?"

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:01pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on. Ah, so you'll wear the tag, but not accept what is written on it? When you said Arabia is for Arabs, would you describe 'Arabs' as a racial group?

When you described Arab/Negroid interbreeding causing  supposedly low intelligence as a "plausible theory", would you describe Arabs and Negroids  as a racial group?

The third wheel needs some attention stat. ::)

Waddayareckon is going to happen FD if you toss a wary, highly skilled killer mongoose into a snake pit?

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:11pm:

Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:01pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on. Ah, so you'll wear the tag, but not accept what is written on it? When you said Arabia is for Arabs, would you describe 'Arabs' as a racial group?

Tell me FD why all the pandering to gandalf being a GMOD abusing forum members ?

Do you actually manage GMOD's or are they free to ban people for jack shyte and you don't give a stuff ?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463459736/15

This dickhead gandalf has been running around calling everyone matty. Allows trolls to piss people off and bans the person that tells the troll off.

Do you do anything about this piss poor behavior at all ?
I realize it takes some spine to actually get them to act like real moderators ?.

Mothra runs around trolling threads along with karnals nonsense yet they are here free reign trashing threads.

Any comments ?

Aussie wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:21pm:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:01pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on. Ah, so you'll wear the tag, but not accept what is written on it? When you said Arabia is for Arabs, would you describe 'Arabs' as a racial group? Of course I would as that term 'race' is presently used, which now takes into much more than just genes.  It's a tag which can be thrown any time.  Many would reckon 'Jews' are a race, yet they are not in my eyes.  But, I accept that is the popular catch all tag. What's your point? How about we discuss "Duckland is for Ducks?"

You tried to equate "Arabia is for Arabs" with "America is for Americans". But I don't think anyone would call Americans a race. It's more like saying England is for white people, don't you think?

Ashley wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:26pm:

freediver wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:01pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on. Ah, so you'll wear the tag, but not accept what is written on it? When you said Arabia is for Arabs, would you describe 'Arabs' as a racial group? Tell me FD why all the pandering to gandalf being a GMOD abusing forum members ? Do you actually manage GMOD's or are they free to ban people for jack shyte and you don't give a stuff ? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463459736/15 This dickhead gandalf has been running around calling everyone matty. Allows trolls to piss people off and bans the person that tells the troll off. Do you do anything about this piss poor behavior at all ? I realize it takes some spine to actually get them to act like real moderators ?. Mothra runs around trolling threads along with karnals nonsense yet they are here free reign trashing threads. Any comments ?

I agree, FD. One of Matty’s socks got banned for no reason, most unfair. Could you please say how this is allowed on a board that promotes the Freeeeeedom to criticize the Arab/Negroid sub-race?

Please explain.

Karnal wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 8:55pm:

Ashley wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:26pm: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:01pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on. Ah, so you'll wear the tag, but not accept what is written on it? When you said Arabia is for Arabs, would you describe 'Arabs' as a racial group? Tell me FD why all the pandering to gandalf being a GMOD abusing forum members ? Do you actually manage GMOD's or are they free to ban people for jack shyte and you don't give a stuff ? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463459736/15 This dickhead gandalf has been running around calling everyone matty. Allows trolls to piss people off and bans the person that tells the troll off. Do you do anything about this piss poor behavior at all ? I realize it takes some spine to actually get them to act like real moderators ?. Mothra runs around trolling threads along with karnals nonsense yet they are here free reign trashing threads. Any comments ? I agree, FD. One of Matty’s socks got banned for no reason, most unfair. Could you please say how this is allowed on a board that promotes the Freeeeeedom to criticize the Arab/Negroid sub-race? Please explain.

Yet we have to put up with this simpleton troll calling everyone matty every day. Why is that. Pet muslim perhaps ?

Ashley wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:02pm:

Karnal wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:55pm: Ashley wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:26pm: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:01pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on. Ah, so you'll wear the tag, but not accept what is written on it? When you said Arabia is for Arabs, would you describe 'Arabs' as a racial group? Tell me FD why all the pandering to gandalf being a GMOD abusing forum members ? Do you actually manage GMOD's or are they free to ban people for jack shyte and you don't give a stuff ? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463459736/15 This dickhead gandalf has been running around calling everyone matty. Allows trolls to piss people off and bans the person that tells the troll off. Do you do anything about this piss poor behavior at all ? I realize it takes some spine to actually get them to act like real moderators ?. Mothra runs around trolling threads along with karnals nonsense yet they are here free reign trashing threads. Any comments ? I agree, FD. One of Matty’s socks got banned for no reason, most unfair. Could you please say how this is allowed on a board that promotes the Freeeeeedom to criticize the Arab/Negroid sub-race? Please explain. Yet we have to put up with this simpleton troll calling everyone matty every day. Why is that. Pet muslim perhaps ?

Yes, FD, please explain.why Matty has to put up.with such name-calling and bullying. If no one has the right to not be offended, as you say, why is Matty treated in.such a fashion?

We demand an.explanation.

Karnal wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:05pm:

Ashley wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 9:02pm: Karnal wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:55pm: Ashley wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:26pm: freediver wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 8:11pm: Aussie wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 9:01pm: freediver wrote on May 15th, 2016 at 8:45pm: Quote: If what I say is 'racist,' I'll wear that tag on this matter. Ah, so Gandalf was right all along eh? Thanks for clearing that up Aussie. Indeed he was.  I do not accept that what I post on any subject is racist, because that is not in my DNA.  But, I could not give a twopenny flying ferk if the best you can come up with to counter a proposal is pathetically cry ~ 'racist.'  If that's what you reckon is an 'argument' I don't care.  Carry on. Ah, so you'll wear the tag, but not accept what is written on it? When you said Arabia is for Arabs, would you describe 'Arabs' as a racial group? Tell me FD why all the pandering to gandalf being a GMOD abusing forum members ? Do you actually manage GMOD's or are they free to ban people for jack shyte and you don't give a stuff ? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1463459736/15 This dickhead gandalf has been running around calling everyone matty. Allows trolls to piss people off and bans the person that tells the troll off. Do you do anything about this piss poor behavior at all ? I realize it takes some spine to actually get them to act like real moderators ?. Mothra runs around trolling threads along with karnals nonsense yet they are here free reign trashing threads. Any comments ? I agree, FD. One of Matty’s socks got banned for no reason, most unfair. Could you please say how this is allowed on a board that promotes the Freeeeeedom to criticize the Arab/Negroid sub-race? Please explain. Yet we have to put up with this simpleton troll calling everyone matty every day. Why is that. Pet muslim perhaps ? Yes, FD, please explain.why Matty has to put up.with such name-calling and bullying. If no one has the right to not be offended, as you say, why is Matty treated in.such a fashion? We demand an.explanation.

Yes FD any spine to reply ? Why you allow this simpleton muslim troll ?

Quote:

You tried to equate "Arabia is for Arabs" with "America is for Americans". But I don't think anyone would call Americans a race. It's more like saying England is for white people, don't you think?

No I don't.  Think mongoose/snake.

So it's not racist because Arabs are crazy?

Any spine to reply to my questions FD ?

freediver wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:36pm:

So it's not racist because Arabs are crazy?

When will you accept that I am not interested in race or bigotry or anything of that kind.  It's plain common sense that it is dumb to put a mongoose and snake in the same box, and if you reckon your silly attempts to put some label up as a trump has some impact, then I'll be sticking with common sense, and you can uselessly rant slogans.

I Guess not.

So it is not racist because it is common sense?

In your last animal analogy the Jews were the snakes. Does that mean the Arabs are the mongoose?

Ashley wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:

Any spine to reply to my questions FD ?

;D ;D ;D

Ashley wrote on May 17^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

I Guess not.

He's locked himself in the bedroom. He can't stay in there forever. We'll just wait until he gets hungry or needs a piss or something. There's a pack of cards in the lounge room.

Come out and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, FD!

(By the way, what were the questions? - I've forgotten)

GIT OUTTA THERE, FD!

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 6:43am:

So it is not racist because it is common sense? In your last animal analogy the Jews were the snakes. Does that mean the Arabs are the mongoose?

Choose your poison, no skin off my nose.

Do you accept the racist tag now, as well as what is written on it?

Lord Herbert wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 6:58am:

Ashley wrote on May 17th, 2016 at 9:56pm: I Guess not. He's locked himself in the bedroom. He can't stay in there forever. We'll just wait until he gets hungry or needs a piss or something. There's a pack of cards in the lounge room. Come out and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, FD! (By the way, what were the questions? - I've forgotten) GIT OUTTA THERE, FD!

You sure its not a closet ? ;D

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 12:10pm:

Do you accept the racist tag now, as well as what is written on it?

I have explained my position quite clearly and I feel zero need to worry about what pigeon hole others want to put it in.  I outright reject any suggestion of any racist element in my posts.  Call it elephantine if you like.  No skin off my nose.  It is simply irrelevant.

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 12:10pm:

Do you accept the racist tag now, as well as what is written on it?

This is a question for you, FD. Do you accept the racist tag, particularly after your biological explanations of Islam?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Mohammed wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 2:41pm:

Why are you interacting with the Kafir dog. Do you not understand how you should act ?

quran.com/5/51

Aussie wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 12:51pm:

freediver wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 12:10pm: Do you accept the racist tag now, as well as what is written on it? I have explained my position quite clearly and I feel zero need to worry about what pigeon hole others want to put it in.  I outright reject any suggestion of any racist element in my posts.  Call it elephantine if you like.  No skin off my nose.  It is simply irrelevant.

Are you rejecting the tag now?

freediver wrote on May 19^th, 2016 at 10:32am:

Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 12:51pm: freediver wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 12:10pm: Do you accept the racist tag now, as well as what is written on it? I have explained my position quite clearly and I feel zero need to worry about what pigeon hole others want to put it in.  I outright reject any suggestion of any racist element in my posts.  Call it elephantine if you like.  No skin off my nose.  It is simply irrelevant. Are you rejecting the tag now?

Are you?

Ashley wrote on May 18^th, 2016 at 12:14pm:

You sure its not a closet ? ;D

I'm not going to touch that ...  ::)

Karnal wrote on May 19^th, 2016 at 10:38am:

freediver wrote on May 19th, 2016 at 10:32am: Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 12:51pm: freediver wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 12:10pm: Do you accept the racist tag now, as well as what is written on it? I have explained my position quite clearly and I feel zero need to worry about what pigeon hole others want to put it in.  I outright reject any suggestion of any racist element in my posts.  Call it elephantine if you like.  No skin off my nose.  It is simply irrelevant. Are you rejecting the tag now? Are you?

FD?

Karnal wrote on May 19^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

Karnal wrote on May 19th, 2016 at 10:38am: freediver wrote on May 19th, 2016 at 10:32am: Aussie wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 12:51pm: freediver wrote on May 18th, 2016 at 12:10pm: Do you accept the racist tag now, as well as what is written on it? I have explained my position quite clearly and I feel zero need to worry about what pigeon hole others want to put it in.  I outright reject any suggestion of any racist element in my posts.  Call it elephantine if you like.  No skin off my nose.  It is simply irrelevant. Are you rejecting the tag now? Are you? FD?

What's the matter, FD? Cat got your tongue?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 5:38pm: Where have I equated a religion (Islam) to a "race",  FD? You haven't. And he should be able to see that in the post you quoted - where you mentioned "Jugoslavs" and "Asians" - which are obviously not a race either, but a groups consisting of many "races" (read: ethnicities). And this was perfectly comparable to the context in which you referred to muslims. But FD has a habit of constructing these sorts of strawmen. He once accused me of saying that all criticism of Islam is racist. I think he's finally got over that one, but it took a while.

;D

what race are "Asians" FD?

Its obviously terribly funny.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 6:23pm:

what race are "Asians" FD? Its obviously terribly funny.

I will walk up and down my street butt naked if he answers that.

What is the racial make-up of Jews, FD?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 6:23pm:

what race are "Asians" FD? Its obviously terribly funny.

Asian.

Now it is kind of sad.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 6:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 6:23pm: what race are "Asians" FD? Its obviously terribly funny. Asian. Now it is kind of sad.

So, Indians are identical to Han Chinese and Han Chinese are identical to Turks in your mind, FD?   Afterall, all are "Asians", are they not?    ::)

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 6:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 6:23pm: what race are "Asians" FD? Its obviously terribly funny. Asian. Now it is kind of sad.

You can hate Asians, FD. Asians are not a race.

They're just squinty Muslims, really.

How much of the 'only whites are racist' apologism stems from the western world's ignorance of world languages? The wide spread nature of the English language means practically  even nation on Earth is sensitive to the mildest slight by a westerner. How much do we know of the Indian's abject hatred of the Pakistani? The Chinese  hatred of the Nippon? The Turkish hatred of the Armenian?  I could be fluent in 100 dialects  of provincial Arabic;  i still wouldn't  be able to prove how tolerant Australians are compared to, say,  the Jordanese. Especially to apparatchiks  like Bwian and Pecker.

Quote:

You can hate Asians, FD. Asians are not a race.

Is this also what you think Gandalf? If someone was on here saying they hate Asians, would you defend them from accusations of racism?

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:

Quote: You can hate Asians, FD. Asians are not a race. Is this also what you think Gandalf? If someone was on here saying they hate Asians, would you defend them from accusations of racism?

If someone was on here saying they hate Jews, would you defend them from accusations of racism?

I think he would Aussie, so long as they provided a rational explanation for wanting to slaughter them.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 8:47pm:

I think he would Aussie, so long as they provided a rational explanation for wanting to slaughter them.

Would you defend them from accusations of racism?

Possibly, if they limited their criticism to ideology. I don't recall ever seeing that happen though. Normally it is some nonsense about them owning the media, or why it was a righteous act to slaughter them to establish an Islamic State.

Quote:

Possibly, if they limited their criticism to ideology.

In what other way can you be critical of  "Jew" if it is not ideology?  Isn't ideology the very DNA of what makes one a Jew?

We have been over this before Aussie. People identify as Jewish for different reasons - religious, ethnic, racial. Few religions are like this. For some it is little different to self-identifying as Scottish. Most people who rant about Jews don't care about the distinction.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:15pm:

We have been over this before Aussie. People identify as Jewish for different reasons - religious, ethnic, racial. Few religions are like this. For some it is little different to self-identifying as Scottish. Most people who rant about Jews don't care about the distinction.

Who would know what 'we've been over before,' given the scatter gun question time, quote bombing which goes on here.

How do you identify Jews, freediver.  I'm not asking people, I'm asking you.

I know Aussie, because I don't forget what I posted 5 minutes after I hit post.

I don't identify Jews Aussie.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:22pm:

I know Aussie, because I don't forget what I posted 5 minutes after I hit post. I don't identify Jews Aussie.

Because you can't, or won't because you have now realised the primrose path I have cunningly set you on?

I would never accuse you of being cunning Aussie.

I am happy to let them self-identify.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:29pm:

I would never accuse you of being cunning Aussie. I am happy to let them self-identify.

Oh I know and that is to my advantage.

What is anti-semitism freediver?

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:29pm:

I would never accuse you of being cunning Aussie. I am happy to let them self-identify.

Can I be a Jew, FD?

Aussie wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 9:29pm: I would never accuse you of being cunning Aussie. I am happy to let them self-identify. Oh I know and that is to my advantage. What is anti-semitism freediver?

Oh, one thing we know for sure:

It's certainly not racism.

Karnal wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:39pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 9:29pm: I would never accuse you of being cunning Aussie. I am happy to let them self-identify. Can I be a Jew, FD?

I think you'll have to check with someone (maybe a Rabbi) other than freediver first.

I'm pretty sure that if I start yelling out my window, really loudly, "I am a Jew," that will make me one. 

Karnal wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 9:31pm: freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 9:29pm: I would never accuse you of being cunning Aussie. I am happy to let them self-identify. Oh I know and that is to my advantage. What is anti-semitism freediver? Oh, one thing we know for sure: It's certainly not racism.

Bastard!  That's what I wanted him to say!

Aussie wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 9:39pm: freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 9:29pm: I would never accuse you of being cunning Aussie. I am happy to let them self-identify. Can I be a Jew, FD? I think you'll have to check with someone (maybe a Rabbi) other than freediver first. I'm pretty sure that if I start yelling out my window, really loudly, "I am a Jew," that will make me one.

That's what FD's saying.

The rabbi, however, would beg to differ. He'd say being a Jew comes from your mother's DNA.

FD or the rabbi? The rabbi or FD?

Questions questions.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 6:52pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 6:23pm: what race are "Asians" FD? Its obviously terribly funny. Asian. Now it is kind of sad.

Ah of course - Indians and Chinese and Malays are the same "race". Thanks for clearing that up FD.

FD - "The Asian race"...

get a load of this guy  ;D ;D

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 8:54pm:

Possibly, if they limited their criticism to ideology. I don't recall ever seeing that happen though. Normally it is some nonsense about them owning the media, or why it was a righteous act to slaughter them to establish an Islamic State.

What if someone said they were all inbred retarded murderous psychopaths?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 6:52pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 6:23pm: what race are "Asians" FD? Its obviously terribly funny. Asian. Now it is kind of sad. Ah of course - Indians and Chinese and Malays are the same "race". Thanks for clearing that up FD.

Now now, G, you know as well as I do. They're all tinted.

You didn't hear that from FD, okay?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Possibly, if they limited their criticism to ideology. I don't recall ever seeing that happen though. Normally it is some nonsense about them owning the media, or why it was a righteous act to slaughter them to establish an Islamic State. What if someone said they were all inbred retarded murderous psychopaths?

A plausible theory.

The Sufrati Jews don't  accept the Kabbalah Jews as 'real' Jews. They even wanted to cut the Ashkenazi Jews out of their claim to the holocaust  restitution. Now, you have to admit: that is hilarious.

freediver, is there a Jewish nation?

Cabbie's never heard of the Balfour Declaration!

Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:15am:

Cabbie's never heard of the Balfour Declaration!

He chooses to ignore history that doesn't agree with his bigotry.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:17am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:15am: Cabbie's never heard of the Balfour Declaration! He chooses to ignore history that doesn't agree with his bigotry.

Now now, being bigoted against Jews is not racism. Jews are not a race.

Say something mean about Whitey, on the other hand, and you’re a frightful racist.

Karnal wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:24am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:17am: Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:15am: Cabbie's never heard of the Balfour Declaration! He chooses to ignore history that doesn't agree with his bigotry. Now now, being bigoted against Jews is not racism. Jews are not a race. Say something mean about Whitey, on the other hand, and you’re a frightful racist.

I didn't say he was racist, I said he was a bigot. Just like you.

We can always depend on you to miss the point, Karnal.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 6:59pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 6:52pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 6:23pm: what race are "Asians" FD? Its obviously terribly funny. Asian. Now it is kind of sad. So, Indians are identical to Han Chinese and Han Chinese are identical to Turks in your mind, FD?   Afterall, all are "Asians", are they not?    ::)

*BUMP*  Just in case you missed these questions, FD...   ::)

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:26am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:24am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:17am: Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:15am: Cabbie's never heard of the Balfour Declaration! He chooses to ignore history that doesn't agree with his bigotry. Now now, being bigoted against Jews is not racism. Jews are not a race. Say something mean about Whitey, on the other hand, and you’re a frightful racist. I didn't say he was racist, I said he was a bigot. Just like you.

Yes, but we’re perfectly free to be bigots, Matty. FD started this board to give us a bit of a leg up.

It’s much harder to be a racist. Hardly anything qualifies as a race, you see.

Karnal wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:30am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:26am: Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:24am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:17am: Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:15am: Cabbie's never heard of the Balfour Declaration! He chooses to ignore history that doesn't agree with his bigotry. Now now, being bigoted against Jews is not racism. Jews are not a race. Say something mean about Whitey, on the other hand, and you’re a frightful racist. I didn't say he was racist, I said he was a bigot. Just like you. Yes, but we’re perfectly free to be bigots, Matty. FD started this board to give us a bit of a leg up. It’s much harder to be a racist. Hardly anything qualifies as a race, you see.

Many things qualify as race, just not the things you would prefer because you are a bigot.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:27am:

We can always depend on you to miss the point, Karnal.

I know, Homo, but your posts are getting so technical these days. Balfour, Ashkenazis, Sefarties...

Can’t you just go back to blaming Islam and trying to get into my burqa?

Ask Karnal which race s/he hates and of course s/he will say "none". That is until his/her daughter comes home with an Aussie.
;D ;D ;D

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:32am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:30am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:26am: Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:24am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:17am: Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:15am: Cabbie's never heard of the Balfour Declaration! He chooses to ignore history that doesn't agree with his bigotry. Now now, being bigoted against Jews is not racism. Jews are not a race. Say something mean about Whitey, on the other hand, and you’re a frightful racist. I didn't say he was racist, I said he was a bigot. Just like you. Yes, but we’re perfectly free to be bigots, Matty. FD started this board to give us a bit of a leg up. It’s much harder to be a racist. Hardly anything qualifies as a race, you see. Many things qualify as race, just not the things you would prefer because you are a bigot.

Some of us are just built this way, Matty, some say it’s a gift from Gud. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, nothing wrong at all.

Karnal wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:39am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:32am: Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:30am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:26am: Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:24am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:17am: Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:15am: Cabbie's never heard of the Balfour Declaration! He chooses to ignore history that doesn't agree with his bigotry. Now now, being bigoted against Jews is not racism. Jews are not a race. Say something mean about Whitey, on the other hand, and you’re a frightful racist. I didn't say he was racist, I said he was a bigot. Just like you. Yes, but we’re perfectly free to be bigots, Matty. FD started this board to give us a bit of a leg up. It’s much harder to be a racist. Hardly anything qualifies as a race, you see. Many things qualify as race, just not the things you would prefer because you are a bigot. Some of us are just built this way, Matty, some say it’s a gift from Gud. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, nothing wrong at all.

I agree that you are a bigot.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:47am:

Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:39am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:32am: Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:30am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:26am: Karnal wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:24am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:17am: Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 12:15am: Cabbie's never heard of the Balfour Declaration! He chooses to ignore history that doesn't agree with his bigotry. Now now, being bigoted against Jews is not racism. Jews are not a race. Say something mean about Whitey, on the other hand, and you’re a frightful racist. I didn't say he was racist, I said he was a bigot. Just like you. Yes, but we’re perfectly free to be bigots, Matty. FD started this board to give us a bit of a leg up. It’s much harder to be a racist. Hardly anything qualifies as a race, you see. Many things qualify as race, just not the things you would prefer because you are a bigot. Some of us are just built this way, Matty, some say it’s a gift from Gud. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it, nothing wrong at all. I agree that you are a bigot.

We all agree in the end, Matty.

You’re new here, but remember. We might be a little bit crazy at times, but we’re all friends here.

Mr Hammer wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 12:37am:

Ask Karnal which race s/he hates and of course s/he will say "none".

Why don’t you ask me, Homo?

How is Karnal a bigot?

mothra wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 1:19am:

How is Karnal a bigot?

How is she not?

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 1:31am:

mothra wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:19am: How is Karnal a bigot? How is she not?

You made the claim. I can't see it supported anywhere.

Perhaps you could support your claim?

mothra wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 1:46am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:31am: mothra wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:19am: How is Karnal a bigot? How is she not? You made the claim. I can't see it supported anywhere. Perhaps you could support your claim?

She doesn't like Australians.

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 1:55am:

mothra wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:46am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:31am: mothra wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:19am: How is Karnal a bigot? How is she not? You made the claim. I can't see it supported anywhere. Perhaps you could support your claim? She doesn't like Australians.

Link?

mothra wrote on Jun 5^th, 2016 at 2:01am:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:55am: mothra wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:46am: Aussie, wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:31am: mothra wrote on Jun 5th, 2016 at 1:19am: How is Karnal a bigot? How is she not? You made the claim. I can't see it supported anywhere. Perhaps you could support your claim? She doesn't like Australians. Link?

I can't post links. You'll just have to investigate yourself.
Try it. It will be something new for you to learn all by yourself.

I have seen no evidence that Karnal is a bigot or that he hates Australians.

Perhaps you'd like to give an example?

Aussie wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:43pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 9:41pm: Aussie wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 9:31pm: freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 9:29pm: I would never accuse you of being cunning Aussie. I am happy to let them self-identify. Oh I know and that is to my advantage. What is anti-semitism freediver? Oh, one thing we know for sure: It's certainly not racism. Bastard!  That's what I wanted him to say!

Perhaps you should just get to the point Aussie. We have been over this many times before, including very recently. You could always try searching for the last time we went over it. That might jog your memory.


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 9:51pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 6:52pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2016 at 6:23pm: what race are "Asians" FD? Its obviously terribly funny. Asian. Now it is kind of sad. Ah of course - Indians and Chinese and Malays are the same "race". Thanks for clearing that up FD.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:

Quote: You can hate Asians, FD. Asians are not a race. Is this also what you think Gandalf? If someone was on here saying they hate Asians, would you defend them from accusations of racism?

The Sufrati in Israel take it that a 'proper' Jew can trace his or her ancestry back to the tribe of Judah on the mother's side. Have'Haven't  Mothra/Karnal/Aussie ever heard this?