I think FD is writing the official textbook.

Recently I asked people whether they considered this statement of moses' was racist:


Quote:

muslims have inbred themselves into a subgroup of low intelligence beings

Always eager to leap to the Islamophobe's defense, FD complained that I was being dishonest in leaving out the rest of the quote, which reads:


Quote:

Is it a coincidence that muslims have inbred themselves into a subgroup of low intelligence beings, who are stupid enough to absolutely worship every piece of filth and perversion in the qur'an as being irrevocably perfect and pure? Or was it planed by evilness?

And made the rather extraordinary claim that:


freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 12:39pm:

I am pretty sure fewer people would have voted racist if you included the rant about the Koran

How so FD? Why exactly would someone who considers the statement "muslims have inbred themselves into a subgroup of low intelligence beings" racist - suddenly change their mind if the statement continued on by saying these "inbred low intelligence beings" are "stupid enough" to worship the Quran? If you find the idea that muslims are a "subgroup of low intelligence beings" racist how exactly does that idea change when you go on to include the "stupid" things such "low intelligence beings" do?

Could marrying you first cousin cause your DNA quality to decrease?

FD hasn't been the same since he joined the Australian Liberty Alliance. He gets this nervous tick every time racism is mentioned.

A bit of a war wound. Don't ask.

Quote:

I am pretty sure fewer people would have voted racist if you included the rant about the Koran

FD are you saying the statement "muslims have inbred themselves into a subgroup of low intelligence beings" on its own actually is racist? But that as soon as you include the sorts of "stupidity" these "low intelligence beings" engage in - it magically stops being racist?

Strange, FD won't say.

How unlike FD.

Apparently by not referring to the stupid things stupid inbred people do...


freediver wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 7:53pm:

it is less likely that people will mistake inbreeding for breeding. And if you include the reference to the Koran people are more likely to realise that Moses is talking about a group defined by religion, not race. Basically, by including the context, the actual meaning becomes far clearer. This is what people mean when they say you deliberately mislead by stripping the context. You are lying in order to further the Islamic victimhood industry.

Did anyone else fall into the trap of thinking that 1400 years of inbreeding has something to do with breeding? I offer my most sincere apologies to anyone who has been affected. I hope my subsequent inclusion of the rest of the quote that explains the stupid things stupid inbred people do - clarifies moses' position, namely that he definitely wasn't talking about muslims breeding for 1400 years.

Gandalf, does it count as spinelessly apologising for racism if you support genocide by saying the entire tribe of Jews had to be wiped out because they literally were a mindless collective?

Don't want to answer the question, eh?

Typical Muslim.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 9^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Quote: I am pretty sure fewer people would have voted racist if you included the rant about the Koran FD are you saying the statement "muslims have inbred themselves into a subgroup of low intelligence beings" on its own actually is racist? But that as soon as you include the sorts of "stupidity" these "low intelligence beings" engage in - it magically stops being racist?

Muslims are not a race therefore criticism of muslims cannot be racist

There are many sahih ahadith that say $Profit Mo was a white man.

The words of a racist:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2013 at 8:26am: If you think these 800 people acted as some kind of mindless collective Thats exactly what they were.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 23^rd, 2016 at 5:52pm:

we call them scheming jews.

Gandalf denying he described them as a mindless collective: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1464336968


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

As I said, there was no real concept of individuality - your personality was literally defined by which tribe you belonged to. And the decisions that govern the tribe are very much decisions that are represented by all the individuals who make up the tribe. Thus there really is no question of collective guilt - no matter how abhorrent we find the term today.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 6^th, 2013 at 2:05pm:

Like I keep saying, it is reasonable to accuse them of collective guilt, since at any time any individual had the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the decisions made on behalf of the tribe.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 6:38am:

They obviously could not be trusted to remain under the treaty of Medina, or be left free to leave and join forces with the enemy like the Banu Nadir. So off with your heads traitors. Boo hoo.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 5^th, 2013 at 10:27am:

freediver wrote on Dec 5th, 2013 at 8:26am: The historical evidence indicates that some of these people actually helped the Muslims, and there were no actual hostilities against them. Supplying weapons while at the same time conspiring with the enemy behind Muhammad's back is even worse. Keeping the pretense that they are "with" Muhammad, in order to conceal their treachery.

This one is about one of the other tribes of Jews that Muhammed dealt with earlier. Apparently Muhammed had "generously" allowed them to get kicked out of their homes, and they responded with more Jewish treachery. The only link between the two tribes in question (and a third that Muhammed got rid of) is that they were Jewish.


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:

Muhammad had been burnt before by granting another traitorous tribe free passage to leave the city - upon which they immediately started plotting against Medina and instigating hostilities.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 4:08pm:

Muhammad learned his lesson when he let the other tribe who attacked him leave in good will

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 4^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

Lets see what your beloved Sealed Nectar says about these "innocent" jews

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 2:04am:

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 9:13pm: Does this count as antisemitic propaganda from Muhammed? http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=41&translator=2&number=6980 6981 Ibn 'Umar reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: You will fight against the Jews and you will kill them until even a stone would say: Come here, Muslim, there is a Jew (hiding himself behind me) ; kill him. Its a prophecy - not anti-semitic propaganda.

Apparently it is OK because Muhammed slaughtered them for political power, not racism, which is completely different to modern anti-semites like Hitler:


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2013 at 11:05am:

The consistent charge laid at Muhammad was that he hated jews for being jews - making him akin to your more orthodox "anti-semite". ... In that case, the whole doctrinal case of "Muhammad the anti-semite" gets thrown out the window. At that point we might even start to look at the conflict with some semblance of rationality - acknowledging that it was, more than anything else, a conflict over power-politics, not racism or (horror of horrors) anti-semitism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 4:08pm:

The leaders conspired - yes. The rest of them had the opportunity to disown their treachery. They declined. So tough titties- off with their heads.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 24^th, 2016 at 7:38pm:

What do you reckon is more absurd - to claim its not racist, or that it could actually be true?

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

freediver wrote on May 25th, 2016 at 12:10pm: So it is OK to use racist propaganda to justify the slaughter of Jews, No that would indeed be racist.

polite_gandalf wrote on May 25^th, 2016 at 7:45pm:

freediver wrote on May 25th, 2016 at 6:32pm: What about insisting they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews. Would that be racist? Yes it would FD.

poll added

Just a minor point.  How is killing 800 (and that figure is very rubbery as has already been debated) 'genocide?'  Isn't it self evident that it was not?

He's got you there, G. Anytime FD wants to avoid a tricky question, he can reference those 200/400/600/800/1000 Jews Moh Killed in a day.

Or there's always that Jew Moh killed for his gold. FD?

You haven't raised him for a while.

Aussie wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 8:50pm:

Just a minor point.  How is killing 800 (and that figure is very rubbery as has already been debated) 'genocide?'  Isn't it self evident that it was not?

I would of thought that if you wiped out a tribe back then,  that would equate to genocide.

Aussie wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 8:50pm:

Just a minor point.  How is killing 800 (and that figure is very rubbery as has already been debated) 'genocide?'  Isn't it self evident that it was not?

Muhammed killed every male in the tribe.

How many do you have to kill before it becomes genocide Aussie?

FD is trully the master deflector.


freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2017 at 7:50pm:

gandalf wrote on May 23rd, 2016 at 5:52pm: we call them scheming jews.

Oh you really are a piece of work FD. Have you no shame at all?

The people have spoken Gandalf.

Simple question for you. Were they scheming Jews?

That was your term FD, remember? And you requoted me mocking the blatantly racist term that *YOU* used. How low can you get?

Ah, so it is racist to use the term scheming Jews, but it is not racist to justify genocide by arguing they literally were a mindless collective of traitors?

Let's try again. Were they scheming Jews?

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 8:05am:

Were they scheming Jews?

Shoving these words down my mouth didn't work the first 100 times you tried it, its not going to work now.

There's only one person here who peddles that racist term, and it aint me.

And I'm not going to repeat myself yet again on this tired subject. Dig up some more quotes.

It's a question Gandalf. Feel free to say no if you don't think they were.

Were they scheming Jews?


polite_gandalf wrote on May 23^rd, 2016 at 5:52pm:

we call them scheming jews.

Do you think it makes your abhorrent views any less racist if you refrain from using the more familiar racist terms? As a Muslim, do you think the spin is more important than the substance?

ooh look there goes FD again - pretending 'scheming jew' is my term.

Keep asking me FD. But I've learned from the first 100 times I answered that same question - which you ignored every time - that answering you again is a complete waste of time.

Go dig up some more quotes - I promise you the question has been answered to death.

All 800 of them deserved to die for being treacherous. They were a mindless collective. They had no individuality. Their personality was literally defined by the tribe they belonged to.

But don't mention the fact that they were Jews, because then it suddenly become racist.

This is what Islam is Gandalf. Muslims slaughtering Jews at the same time as claiming victimhood status. Muhammed did it and his followers have been doing it ever since. Not out of a particular devotion to racism but, as you say yourself, because racism is another convenient tool in the bloody quest for political power (completely different to Hitler, right?). This is your religion. You chose this. You are one of the lucky few who is genuinely free to choose, but this is the choice you make.

Why?

What can I say FD? I just love slaughtering jews. Who doesn't? Thats just the kinda guy I am.

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 9:24am:

This is what Islam is Gandalf. Muslims slaughtering Jews at the same time as claiming victimhood status. Muhammed did it and his followers have been doing it ever since. Not out of a particular devotion to racism but, as you say yourself, because racism is another convenient tool in the bloody quest for political power (completely different to Hitler, right?). This is your religion. You chose this. You are one of the lucky few who is genuinely free to choose, but this is the choice you make. Why?

You mean, he's not retarded?

Impossible, FD. Your Muselman has Negroid sub-blood and the highest rate of subnormal deviancy in the world. A plausible theory.

Scientific, innit.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 9:38am:

What can I say FD? I just love slaughtering jews. Who doesn't? Thats just the kinda guy I am.

You've got him, FD. Finally, a confession.

Now put this one in the Wiki and we can all go back to discussing fishing again.

freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 6:45am:

Aussie wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 8:50pm: Just a minor point.  How is killing 800 (and that figure is very rubbery as has already been debated) 'genocide?'  Isn't it self evident that it was not? Muhammed killed every male in the tribe. How many do you have to kill before it becomes genocide Aussie?

Every 'Jew.'

Meeeanwhile, back at Netflix .... we have a 'situation' brewing, folks.

link

;D

Aussie wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 6:45am: Aussie wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 8:50pm: Just a minor point.  How is killing 800 (and that figure is very rubbery as has already been debated) 'genocide?'  Isn't it self evident that it was not? Muhammed killed every male in the tribe. How many do you have to kill before it becomes genocide Aussie? Every 'Jew.'

The women and children of the Banu Qurayza were sold into slavery or married to muslims.

It didn't stop there that was the first major attack by muslims.

FD, I think we should have sustainable fishing again, don't you?

No more Boongs or tinted races stealing decent white people's din dins.

Do you concur?

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 2:04pm: freediver wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 6:45am: Aussie wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 8:50pm: Just a minor point.  How is killing 800 (and that figure is very rubbery as has already been debated) 'genocide?'  Isn't it self evident that it was not? Muhammed killed every male in the tribe. How many do you have to kill before it becomes genocide Aussie? Every 'Jew.' The women and children of the Banu Qurayza were sold into slavery or married to muslims. It didn't stop there that was the first major attack by muslims.

There were initially three large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammed had already kicked the other two out before he slaughtered the third. It was all the Jews' fault of course. Muslims were the victims.

Aussie, are you asking me whether Muhammed wiped out the Jews 1400 years ago?

Apparently...

"Muhammad was once a refugee taken in by the Jewish City of Medina. Within 5-years, he had driven out, executed, or enslaved every jew there."

And in India...

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/


Quote:

Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/29320


Quote:

The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

That can't be right. Gandalf and the other Muslims like to use India as an example of Muslims living in peace with the pagans, proving that Muhammed's predilection to slaughtering them is not an inherent part of the religion.

So bwian what do your Indonesian Muslim friends think of what's going on in Indonesia eh?
What do you think of the Ahok/Agus situation and the elections there?
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/02/11/dont-vote-for-the-wrong-candidate-or-else-agus.html
Wasn't there a woman brutally whipped in public there recently for an alleged crime under Sharia law? 
Weren't some guys crucified by ISIS in Mosul recently for smuggling cigarettes or something?

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 7:38am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 5:56pm: Aussie wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 2:04pm: freediver wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 6:45am: Aussie wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 8:50pm: Just a minor point.  How is killing 800 (and that figure is very rubbery as has already been debated) 'genocide?'  Isn't it self evident that it was not? Muhammed killed every male in the tribe. How many do you have to kill before it becomes genocide Aussie? Every 'Jew.' The women and children of the Banu Qurayza were sold into slavery or married to muslims. It didn't stop there that was the first major attack by muslims. There were initially three large Jewish tribes in Medina. Muhammed had already kicked the other two out before he slaughtered the third. It was all the Jews' fault of course. Muslims were the victims. Aussie, are you asking me whether Muhammed wiped out the Jews 1400 years ago?

No, my question was not that.  It was:


Quote:

How is killing 800 (and that figure is very rubbery as has already been debated) 'genocide?'  Isn't it self evident that it was not?

You didn't respond other than with a further question to which I answered with, 'Every Jew.'

Ah. So the holocaust was not genocide because some got away?

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 3:05pm:

Ah. So the holocaust was not genocide because some got away?

In terms of my definition of 'genocide,' which is:  "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" ~ correct.

Gandalf also prefers to use his own definition of words, like with racism. It is so much easier than giving a straight answer. He does have trouble explaining what that definition is though. Apparently racism is when you racialise people.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Gandalf also prefers to use his own definition of words, like with racism. It is so much easier than giving a straight answer. He does have trouble explaining what that definition is though. Apparently racism is when you racialise people.

Those words were not mine, as should have been obvious given the ".."s.  I adopted them from a Dictionary source.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Gandalf also prefers to use his own definition of words, like with racism. It is so much easier than giving a straight answer. He does have trouble explaining what that definition is though. Apparently racism is when you racialise people.

Ye who lives in a glass house/stones.  You are yet to tell us after a zillion requests what your definition of 'freedom of speech' is.

Quote:

Those words were not mine, as should have been obvious given the ".."s.

Yes Aussie, it would have been obvious if they were in your post at the time I responded.

Did the cultural group in question survive Muhammed's extermination?

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 3:55pm:

Quote: Those words were not mine, as should have been obvious given the ".."s. Yes Aussie, it would have been obvious if they were in your post at the time I responded. Did the cultural group in question survive Muhammed's extermination?

They were always there FD.  You can check for yourself in the Logs.  You will see that the Post has never been edited to add the quotation marks.  Stop making up nasty allegations.

And, yes, that cultural group (Jews) obviously survived the massacre, assuming it ever happened 1300 years ago.

So it was not genocide because Muhammed did not kill every Jew on the planet?

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 4:04pm:

So it was not genocide because Muhammed did not kill every Jew on the planet?

In terms of 'my' definition, yes.

Here is an edit:

If it happened, it was a massacre.

Your definition does not say killing every Jew on the planet.

When Custer's mob were annihilated by Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, was it genocide of white 'civilisation' in that Indian Territory.  No, it was a massacre of Custer and his Men.

What about when Muhammed wiped out a whole tribe in one day?

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 4:55pm:

What about when Muhammed wiped out a whole tribe in one day?

If it happened....massacre.

Because you found a definition that said it is only genocide if every single Jew on the planet is wiped out?

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 5:03pm:

Because you found a definition that said it is only genocide if every single Jew on the planet is wiped out?

I found this definition.  Cease trying to verbal me, FD.


Quote:

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group"

It means what it says.

Aussie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 5:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 5:03pm: Because you found a definition that said it is only genocide if every single Jew on the planet is wiped out? I found this definition.  Cease trying to verbal me, FD. Quote: "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" It means what it says.

Yes well hate to tell you Aussie but a tribe is a cultural group.

Jews are Jews.  It matters not to me which Tribe they are from, even if they have Tribes.  What are the Jewish Tribes these days, Grendel?  What does it matter?

Aussie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 5:30pm:

Jews are Jews.  It matters not to me which Tribe they are from, even if they have Tribes.  What are the Jewish Tribes these days, Grendel?  What does it matter?

Sorry....  but you were wrong. ::)

Aussie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 5:11pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 5:03pm: Because you found a definition that said it is only genocide if every single Jew on the planet is wiped out? I found this definition.  Cease trying to verbal me, FD. Quote: "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" It means what it says.

You said it means "every Jew".

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 5:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 5:11pm: freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 5:03pm: Because you found a definition that said it is only genocide if every single Jew on the planet is wiped out? I found this definition.  Cease trying to verbal me, FD. Quote: "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group" It means what it says. You said it means "every Jew".

Yes, I did.  You asked, and while I know it is a concept totally foreign to you, I answered a question, in this case, yours.

Genocide of Jews means they are all exterminated.  It is self evident that is not the case.

So you merely meant Muhammed did not genocide all the Jews? You were not trying to argue he committed no genocide?

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 5:56pm:

So you merely meant Muhammed did not genocide all the Jews? You were not trying to argue he committed no genocide?

I didn't merely mean anything other than what I said.  Mo did not manage genocide of the Jews as is self evident.

I know you want to talk it up, but the honest term to use to describe what you reckon happened 1300 years ago, was a massacre of some Jews.

Aussie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 6:24pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 5:56pm: So you merely meant Muhammed did not genocide all the Jews? You were not trying to argue he committed no genocide? I didn't merely mean anything other than what I said.  Mo did not manage genocide of the Jews as is self evident. I know you want to talk it up, but the honest term to use to describe what you reckon happened 1300 years ago, was a massacre of some Jews.

Makes notes for the next time a self loathing luvvie is banging on about genocide of the aboriginals.  8-)

Aussie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 6:24pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 5:56pm: So you merely meant Muhammed did not genocide all the Jews? You were not trying to argue he committed no genocide? I didn't merely mean anything other than what I said.  Mo did not manage genocide of the Jews as is self evident.

Your words Aussie - genocide means killing every Jew.


Aussie wrote on Feb 11^th, 2017 at 2:04pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 11th, 2017 at 6:45am: Aussie wrote on Feb 10th, 2017 at 8:50pm: Just a minor point.  How is killing 800 (and that figure is very rubbery as has already been debated) 'genocide?'  Isn't it self evident that it was not? Muhammed killed every male in the tribe. How many do you have to kill before it becomes genocide Aussie? Every 'Jew.'

Quote:

genocide means killing every Jew.

That's what I said.  Do you now agree?

So this:


Quote:

a national, racial, political, or cultural group

Can only possibly be interpreted to mean "every Jew"?

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 6:55pm:

So this: Quote: a national, racial, political, or cultural group Can only possibly be interpreted to mean "every Jew"?

Don't try to disconnect what I so obviously said.  Members here have been asked not to do that.  You left out half of what I posted which was:


Quote:

"the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group"

Exterminate means all of that group.  Do you know the difference between the meaning of a massacre and genocide?

What is the point of this discussion other than to demonstrate you were trying to talk up something which was (if it even happened 1300 years ago) a massacre as being genocide, because that is what you do so often and so patently.

It is pathetic and exposes yet again your willingness to exaggerate anything in the cause of a good old Muslim bash.

Grendel wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 9:32am:

Apparently... "Muhammad was once a refugee taken in by the Jewish City of Medina. Within 5-years, he had driven out, executed, or enslaved every jew there." And in India... https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/ Quote: Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million. http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/29320 [quote]The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.

[/quote]

Tell me, freediver, was what occurred at My Lai in 1968 genocide of South Vietnamese people, or a massacre of the citizens of that Village at the hands of Christians?

Aussie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 9:05pm:

Tell me, freediver, was what occurred at My Lai in 1968 genocide of South Vietnamese people, or a massacre of the citizens of that Village at the hands of Christians?

Gooks are not a race, Aussie.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 3:47pm:

Gandalf also prefers to use his own definition of words, like with racism. It is so much easier than giving a straight answer.

Ah.

Quote:

No, Effende, I made no such leap.

Here you go Aussie, one more time:


Aussie wrote on Feb 12^th, 2017 at 4:06pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 4:04pm: So it was not genocide because Muhammed did not kill every Jew on the planet? In terms of 'my' definition, yes.

How does your definition give you "every Jew"?


Quote:

As I said, I dunno who was innocent.  Effende, can you name an innocent person Mo killed in that alleged event?

The ones who were not proven guilty.


Quote:

Of course you can't because you know just as much as I do about it, which is SFA.

I know which incident we are talking about, which is a lot more than you.

Maybe you could ask him here, Aussie. It looks like FD's left the other thread.

Cunning, no?

freediver wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 10:50am:

Quote: No, Effende, I made no such leap.  Here you go Aussie, one more time: Aussie wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 4:06pm: freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2017 at 4:04pm: So it was not genocide because Muhammed did not kill every Jew on the planet? In terms of 'my' definition, yes. How does your definition give you "every Jew"? Genocide > extermination > every Jew.  It did not happen. [quote]As I said, I dunno who was innocent.  Effende, can you name an innocent person Mo killed in that alleged event?

The ones who were not proven guilty.

Are we talking about the same fable?  There were Trials after the alleged massacre??  Who was proven not guilty?  How?


Quote:

Of course you can't because you know just as much as I do about it, which is SFA.

I know which incident we are talking about, which is a lot more than you.

You might be right there, Effende.
[/quote]

Karnal wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 11:49am:

Maybe you could ask him here, Aussie. It looks like FD's left the other thread. Cunning, no?

I think we are all just gonna have to suck it up like good little buttercups.  Only the questions posed by Effende get answered here.

:(

Aussie wrote on Feb 15^th, 2017 at 12:14pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 11:49am: Maybe you could ask him here, Aussie. It looks like FD's left the other thread. Cunning, no? I think we are all just gonna have to suck it up like good little buttercups.  Only the questions posed by Effende get answered here. :(

Yes, but FD'S gone back to the other thread to ask you more questions - the same ones he's already asked.

Maybe you could ask FD if the cat has his tongue.

That could work.