Australian Politics Forum - a mindless collective of treacherous Jews

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97442

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #345 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:48pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:28am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

But of course. Everybody knows your Muslim is unreliable. Google: taqiyya.

Did you know? He's also cunning and evasive. He never answers questions.

FD's onto him. He's cornered him in the Wiki. Because the Muselman won't answer, FD has to explain the answer for us.

Don't forget, the Muselman is the biggest threat to white people everywhere - before the tinted races.

You should watch videos of Muslims being questioned about the establishment of a Sharia state. Their answers are always confusing: "Oh, I would have to hear what the scholars say..." or "I would support death for adultery but the burden of proof is so high that it would happen...."

They never unequivocally denounce the sharia state or the laws prescribed in a sharia state.

Well, FD won't even say whether he'd ban the burqa.

Freeedom, innit.

Back to top

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #346 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:08pm

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:48pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:28am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

But of course. Everybody knows your Muslim is unreliable. Google: taqiyya.

Did you know? He's also cunning and evasive. He never answers questions.

FD's onto him. He's cornered him in the Wiki. Because the Muselman won't answer, FD has to explain the answer for us.

Don't forget, the Muselman is the biggest threat to white people everywhere - before the tinted races.

You should watch videos of Muslims being questioned about the establishment of a Sharia state. Their answers are always confusing: "Oh, I would have to hear what the scholars say..." or "I would support death for adultery but the burden of proof is so high that it would happen...."

They never unequivocally denounce the sharia state or the laws prescribed in a sharia state.

Well, FD won't even say whether he'd ban the burqa.

Freeedom, innit.

So, what's your point?

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #347 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:09pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:28am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

But of course. Everybody knows your Muslim is unreliable. Google: taqiyya.

Did you know? He's also cunning and evasive. He never answers questions.

FD's onto him. He's cornered him in the Wiki. Because the Muselman won't answer, FD has to explain the answer for us.

Don't forget, the Muselman is the biggest threat to white people everywhere - before the tinted races.

You should watch videos of Muslims being questioned about the establishment of a Sharia state. Their answers are always confusing: "Oh, I would have to hear what the scholars say..." or "I would support death for adultery but the burden of proof is so high that it would happen...."

They never unequivocally denounce the sharia state or the laws prescribed in a sharia state.

I agree - those are stupid answers and I cringe whenever I hear them.

But you are wrong to suggest that every muslim answers this way.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Auggie

Gold Member

Offline

The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #348 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:18pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:09pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:28am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

But of course. Everybody knows your Muslim is unreliable. Google: taqiyya.

Did you know? He's also cunning and evasive. He never answers questions.

FD's onto him. He's cornered him in the Wiki. Because the Muselman won't answer, FD has to explain the answer for us.

Don't forget, the Muselman is the biggest threat to white people everywhere - before the tinted races.

You should watch videos of Muslims being questioned about the establishment of a Sharia state. Their answers are always confusing: "Oh, I would have to hear what the scholars say..." or "I would support death for adultery but the burden of proof is so high that it would happen...."

They never unequivocally denounce the sharia state or the laws prescribed in a sharia state.

I agree - those are stupid answers and I cringe whenever I hear them.

But you are wrong to suggest that every muslim answers this way.

I never said that 'every' Muslim answers this way. I said that when Muslims have been questioned, I have never seen a Muslim vocally condemn Sharia law publicly; not terrorism or killing, but sharia law or the establishment of a Caliphate.

Here's a question for you: "In the ideal sharia state, all conditions being equal, and the burden of proof being met, what is the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Islamic religion)?"

Back to top

The Progressive President

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #349 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:13pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:18pm:

Here's a question for you: "In the ideal sharia state, all conditions being equal, and the burden of proof being met, what is the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Islamic religion)?"

nothing.

there is no compulsion in religion (Quran- 2:256)

"The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (Quran - 18:29)

Prescribing any punishment for apostasy is clearly against Sharia Law.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97442

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #350 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:28pm

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:48pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:28am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

But of course. Everybody knows your Muslim is unreliable. Google: taqiyya.

Did you know? He's also cunning and evasive. He never answers questions.

FD's onto him. He's cornered him in the Wiki. Because the Muselman won't answer, FD has to explain the answer for us.

Don't forget, the Muselman is the biggest threat to white people everywhere - before the tinted races.

You should watch videos of Muslims being questioned about the establishment of a Sharia state. Their answers are always confusing: "Oh, I would have to hear what the scholars say..." or "I would support death for adultery but the burden of proof is so high that it would happen...."

They never unequivocally denounce the sharia state or the laws prescribed in a sharia state.

Well, FD won't even say whether he'd ban the burqa.

Freeedom, innit.

So, what's your point?

What sound does a jellyfish make?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 49342
Gender: male

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #351 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:44pm

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:28pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:48pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 12:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:28am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

But of course. Everybody knows your Muslim is unreliable. Google: taqiyya.

Did you know? He's also cunning and evasive. He never answers questions.

FD's onto him. He's cornered him in the Wiki. Because the Muselman won't answer, FD has to explain the answer for us.

Don't forget, the Muselman is the biggest threat to white people everywhere - before the tinted races.

You should watch videos of Muslims being questioned about the establishment of a Sharia state. Their answers are always confusing: "Oh, I would have to hear what the scholars say..." or "I would support death for adultery but the burden of proof is so high that it would happen...."

They never unequivocally denounce the sharia state or the laws prescribed in a sharia state.

Well, FD won't even say whether he'd ban the burqa.

Freeedom, innit.

So, what's your point?

What sound does a jellyfish make?

Oh gawd!!!! you are not going to start sucking Bwian's jellyfish again, are you...??? Cheeses!!!!

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49806
At my desk.

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #352 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:54pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:13pm:

Auggie wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 1:18pm:

Here's a question for you: "In the ideal sharia state, all conditions being equal, and the burden of proof being met, what is the punishment for apostasy (leaving the Islamic religion)?"

nothing.

there is no compulsion in religion (Quran- 2:256)

"The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve." (Quran - 18:29)

Prescribing any punishment for apostasy is clearly against Sharia Law.

Gandalf does it count as compulsion in religion if the Quran instructs you to fight people until religion is only for Allah?

Or do you just "reinterpret" the verse as saying it means fighting is only permitted in self defence?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49806
At my desk.

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #353 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:58pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

Also, FD are you saying it was ok for the Qurayza to conspire in secret to launch a surprise attack against your own city - on the basis that there was no treaty saying they wouldn't?

You are lying again Gandalf. What exactly is "widely accepted by historians"?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97442

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #354 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 12:00am

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

Also, FD are you saying it was ok for the Qurayza to conspire in secret to launch a surprise attack against your own city - on the basis that there was no treaty saying they wouldn't?

You are lying again Gandalf. What exactly is "widely accepted by historians"?

You do know he'll reference actual historians, don't you? What's the plan then?

No speaka da English?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #355 - Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 2:02pm

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

Also, FD are you saying it was ok for the Qurayza to conspire in secret to launch a surprise attack against your own city - on the basis that there was no treaty saying they wouldn't?

You are lying again Gandalf. What exactly is "widely accepted by historians"?

So for arguments sake, if it didn't exist - are you saying it was therefore ok for the QUrayza to conspire in secret to launch a surprise attack against your own city?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #356 - Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 2:18pm

Karnal wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 12:00am:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

Also, FD are you saying it was ok for the Qurayza to conspire in secret to launch a surprise attack against your own city - on the basis that there was no treaty saying they wouldn't?

You are lying again Gandalf. What exactly is "widely accepted by historians"?

You do know he'll reference actual historians, don't you? What's the plan then?

No speaka da English?

What does FD's favourite (read 'only') source for all things Islamic history say:

Quote:

Aside from the general agreements, the chronicles by Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi contain a report that after his arrival, Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad. Ibn Ishaq gives no sources, while al-Waqidi refers to Ka’b ibn Malik of Salima, a clan hostile to the Jews, and Mummad ibn Ka’b, the son of a Qurayza boy who was sold into slavery in the aftermath of the siege and subsequently became a Muslim. The sources are suspect of being against the Qurayza and therefore the historicity of this agreement between Muhammad and the Banu Qurayza is open to grave doubt. Among modern historians, R. B. Serjeant supports the historicity of this document and suggests that the Jews knew "of the penalty for breaking faith with Muhammad".[27] On the other hand, Norman Stillman argues that the Muslim historians had invented this agreement in order to justify the subsequent treatment of the Qurayza.[28] Watt also rejects the existence of such a special agreement but notes that the Jews were bound by the aforementioned general agreement and by their alliance to the two Arab tribes not to support an enemy against Muhammad.[1] Serjeant agrees with this and opines that the Qurayza were aware of the two parts of a pact made between Muhammad and the Jewish tribes in the confederation according to which "Jews having their religion and the Muslims having their religion excepting anyone who acts wrongfully and commits crime/acts treacherously/breaks an agreement[clarification needed], for he but slays himself and the people of his house."[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza#Arrival_of_Muhammad

Clearly, historians "widely" agree (apart from Stillman) that they were at the very least part of a general agreement to assist each other in war, (and obviously not attack each other) - if not a specific treaty between the two.

One thing I find interesting from that quote...

he chronicles by Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi contain a report that after his arrival, Muhammad signed a special treaty with the Qurayza chief Ka'b ibn Asad.

Interesting because Ibn Ishaq is the sole source for the mass execution account. FD as we know accepts the mass execution as gospel truth. Yet, this same source, that FD accepts without question in one of his accounts, also chronicles a specific treaty between Muhammad and the chief of the Qurayza. So what does FD do in light of this? Say that Ibn Ishaq can be trusted without question on one account, but not be trusted on another?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 97442	Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews Reply #357 - Mar 3^rd, 2018 at 7:24pm FD started this thread nearly 2 years ago, G. Have you come to a consensus yet?
Back to top	IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97442

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #358 - Mar 3^rd, 2018 at 7:56pm

freediver wrote on May 27^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Gandalf, as far as I can tell you are arguing that the Jews slaughtered by Muhammed were in fact a mindless collective of treacherous, traiterous Jews. However, if someone throws your own words back at you, they suddenly acquire "obvious racist connotations". Instead of actually owning your position, you leak these phrases one by one, going to great lengths to make the argument that they were a mindless collective of treacherous Jews without using more than one of these descriptors in the same post. You are not only arguing that it is not racist because it is true, you are also trying to argue that because it is true, it is not even what you think.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49806
At my desk.

Re: a mindless collective of treacherous Jews
Reply #359 - Mar 4^th, 2018 at 10:27am

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2018 at 2:02pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:57am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 11:25pm:

And don't forget the transcripts of the trial of the 200 Jews Moh killed in a day, G.

There you go. Couldn't have put it better myself. FD has no problem whatsoever taking as gospel truth the account of a single secondary source who was regarded by his peers as unreliable at best. Yet mention a treaty that is widely accepted by historians - he's all "oooh, no evidence!"

Also, FD are you saying it was ok for the Qurayza to conspire in secret to launch a surprise attack against your own city - on the basis that there was no treaty saying they wouldn't?

You are lying again Gandalf. What exactly is "widely accepted by historians"?

So for arguments sake, if it didn't exist - are you saying it was therefore ok for the QUrayza to conspire in secret to launch a surprise attack against your own city?

Actually yes. Muhammad was a piece of crap and should have been killed, even if that meant killing his henchmen to get to him. He was making a lucrative career out of murdering innocent people and stealing their goods. He was making life hell for the Jews. He had already kicked 2 of the 3 large tribes of Jews out of Medina. It was a clear policy of divide and conquer. And he had made his intentions quite clear by publicly announcing to the Jews that he would slaughter them if they did not convert to Islam. This was back when all 3 tribes were still there. So we have a political leader murdering and stealing. We have a politically leader openly threatening the Jews with genocide if they did not convert. And we have a political leader following through with those threats. There was a clear moral justification to kill Muhammad, just as there was with Hitler, and it is one of the greatest shames of history that they failed.

But that is of course beside the original point. You lied about the treaty. And now you will not say what exactly is "widely accepted" by historians. Your excuses for Muhammad's genocide are one lie after another, and you chop and change your lies as you get called out on them.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged