Quote:


It is a race if you define it as one. I assume it means Arab, but it does not matter. The existence of 'actual' races is not necessary for racism to exist. For example, you criticised me for presumably mentioning 'Asian' as a race. I do not actually recall saying this, but whatever. If you define Asian as someone whose ancestors are from Asia, then you have defined a race adequately for the purpose of racism. Some other racist may use the term to refer to east asians only. No matter how flimsy or ill defined the group, it is still a race for the purpose of racism.

Quote:


No. Like I said, sand negro is a race if you define it as one (which is the only meaning I have seen attached to it). Inbred is not. It works because children of sand negroes are sand negroes. Children of inbred people can be either inbred or not, depending on whether their parents are related. Inbred is not a race because having sex with your cousin is not a race. Take your time with this. Inbreeding is closer than you other efforts as "racial identifiers" like clothing, because the person does not have a choice how he is concieved, but neither does someone who is disabled for some other reason.

Quote:


You are still not making sense Gandalf. Let me get this straight:

Muslims are stupid because Islam is stupid - not racist
Muslims are stupid because you have to be to believe Islam - racist

Is this what you are trying to say?

I don't see any distinction here that can be linked to race.

Quote:


I noticed you slipped in the words "from a specific region" there Gandalf. That is the only link to race in there. Do you realise that inbred people can have non-inbred kids with each other? I notice you claimed earlier that none of your ancestors were inbred, then dropped the issue when I accused you of lying about this. Do you know how inbreeding works? Or are you just making another giant leap of 'interpreting' Moses' words?

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2017 at 12:37pm:


Another excellent answer, but one I disagree with. Your inbreeding map shows the spread of the Arab and Persian races throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. A region of inbred families who share a culture of inbreeding can't be seen as anything other than a race. Your inbreeding map highlights the biological aspect of race perfectly.

Your argument that this biological aspect influences thinking, culture and religion is not racist in itself. What makes it racist is you ascribing inferior intelligence and values to your own culture and suggesting that such people should be excluded. Such exclusivity is the very essence of racism, and you have argued this message, piece by piece, since your conversion to anti-Islamism some time around 2007.

You have not only argued that such cultural and biological "markers" should be banned from Australia, you've also argued that they should be attacked overseas. Your support for the invasion of Iraq and other Middle Eastern incursions is based on your exclusivity and sense of European superiority. Your belief that Western thought is superior to all other value systems is implicit. You trace this back to superiority of the Roman Empire over the Ottomans - arguing "inclusiveness", without any proof at all.

So yes, while races are arbitrary - what people identify at any given time - it is indeed possible to be racist. You argue cultural and biological superiority over the Muselman based on his inbreeding and lack of political "inclusiveness". You have agreed that he comes from a group of murderous, subnormal inbreds who squat down to piss and play with their dicks afterwards.

I can't see how anyone could think this is anything other than racism, FD, but I respect your thoughtful, well-rounded response.

Why would I need to quote you, FD? You know what you think. You disagreed with the invasion of Iraq then - and you agree with it now: the reversal of most people's opinion, but there you have it.

I'm impressed with the fact that you're prepared to flesh out your views and engage in discussion. Reverting back to the evasive one-liners is a bit of a disappointment.

There's no need to cover up your opinions. The purpose of your board is to share them.

Here's one for you FD:

Frank wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2017 at 8:47pm:


It seems as though Frank is saying that the more barbaric (authentic) a muslim is, depends on their level of tintedness. Do you consider this racist?

Would you agree that Frank is 'defining' "authentic muslims" - as a tinted, shaggy, hirsute race?

Gandalf, you keep leaping into, then running away from the subject of inbreeding, without it ever actually going anywhere. Why can't you follow through?

Quote:


I still don't think we should have invaded Iraq.

Quote:


Because words have meaning Gandalf. If you refer to a different method of categorisation, you are not refering to a race. To do so cheapens the experience of the victims of genuine racism.

Quote:


My definition of a sand negro necessarily involves someone whose parents are a sand negro. Your definition of a Muslim does not involve someone whose parents are a Muslim. Hence, one is a race, the other is not.

Quote:


You would like that to be the case, because then you could broaden racism to include mocking Muslims. But we must still fall back to the actual meaning of the word.

Quote:


I was trying to make sense of your statement, quoted above that comment. Hence the paraphrasing. I was trying to get to the bottom of the distinction you are trying to make between racist and non-racist criticism of Muslims. But every time I look at it, the distinction disappears. You can only dance around it with longwinded descriptions, but there is nothing of substance there.

Quote:


Sure.

-----and of course the Armenian genocide or the grand mufti of Jerusalems' support for the holocaust weren't racist

this source tells us

The Grand Mufti also helped organize a Muslim Waffen SS Battalion, known as the Hanjars, that slaughtered ninety percent of Bosnia’s Jews, and were dispatched to Croatia and Hungary. The Mufti also made broadcasts to the Middle East urging Arabs and Muslims to honor Allah by implementing their own Final Solution.

The Grand Mufti will be remembered as one the twentieth century’s most virulent Jew haters and a key cheerleader for Hitler’s genocidal Final Solution.

from grand  mufti own memoirs
Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish people in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: "The Jews are yours." (Ami Isseroff and Peter FitzGerald-Morris, "The Iraq Coup Attempt of 1941, the Mufti, and the Farhud")

this site says in part
In 1915, leaders of the Turkish government set in motion a plan to expel and massacre Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. Though reports vary, most sources agree that there were about 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire at the time of the massacre. By the early 1920s, when the massacres and deportations finally ended, some 1.5 million of Turkey’s Armenians were dead, with many more forcibly removed from the country.

freediver wrote on Jan 4^th, 2017 at 4:41pm:


Ee-gad, what's happened? You're answering questions - and on wacism of all things.

I think we may have a new FD.