I just did. Google is your friend Aussie.

Is it reasonable to assume from how fast you backed away from defending Gandalf that you also find his "mindless collective" justification disturbing?

What about you Karnal? Do you agree with Gandalf that they were a mindless collective?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:


That’s another question, FD. Do you want to answer?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 9:49pm:


Did he say they were?

freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2016 at 10:10pm:


We only have your own quotes here for all to see, FD. "Treacherous, scheming, cunning, mindless Jews."

Not only that, we have "Muslim inbreeding", "Arab/Negroid interbreeding", and the Muslim "wanting to take away the freedom of white people everywhere".

There’s nough here alone to get you an honourary membership of Herbie’s old organisation.

And we haven’t even uncovered the depths of your wacism.

But have no fear, we will.

So the mainstream version is that Muhammed did in fact slaughter them? Is this the version you believe? Or do you prefer the "Jews made it up" version of history?

Gandalf would it be accurate to say that you believe they were treacherous Jews, but refrain from saying so directly, in order to avoid the appearance of racism?

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2016 at 12:47pm:


Yes, G, and would it be fair to say that FD using such terms isn't wacism because FD is just pretending it was you?

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


No, as I've been trying to say, the phrase confers an offensive racist meaning that goes far beyond the literal meaning of the two individual words. It is literally a whole different meaning to saying (for example) 'treacherous people who happened to be of jewish faith'. Not dissimilar to "dirty black person/abo/curry-muncher" etc. Imagine if we were talking about an Aborigine who had fell into animal poo - you would be telling me 'yeah he's an aborigine, which we call Abo for short, and he's clearly dirty - so why not a 'dirty abo?' You of course understand why not in both situations, and is the only way your persistent efforts to shove it in my mouth makes sense.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


Leave you alone long enough to tell your own version of events, and as sure as night comes after day, you will make some porky up. You do it all the time FD. Its good that you retract it, but do you think your credibility in this debate suffers at all?

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


It was part of the negotiations while they were under siege. Muhammad offered to judge them under jewish law, and the Quraysh agreed - but insisted that only on the condition that the judgement was administered by their allies - the Bani Aws. Muhammad agreed. So in fact it was a Quraysh demand, which Muhammad agreed to for the sake of a speedy resolution. You of course would know this, because its cited in the same article you just linked. Funny how you didn't mention this little detail.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


I believe thats in the Ibn Ishaq account - feel free to look it up.