The modern-day ’House Slaves’

Rehmat wrote: fezziwig wrote: Quick searches on Google suggest that these books are merely about blacks and muslims in the Americas before Colombus. Nothing about Native genocide. Do you know the definition of 'Native'? Based on this dumb logic - only the white and non-Muslims could be 'Natives'! And what your Google said about'Deeper Roots'? Doesn't it mention in the first chapter the same figures I quoted in the first place? Are you saying the HNN article is written by Mosad? And what does that have to do with WMDs and Iraq? Is the US court accept a proven liar as a genuine witness? It could be in Israel, but I am not sure about that.

Proponents of eugenics have boasted that they have murdered 600,000,000 members of the dark nations, and they plan to reduce the worlds population to 3 billion using famine, disease and war.

Historically, the colonizers murdered 100,000,000 blacks just during the middle passage through the Atlantic ocean from 1555 through the 1800's. The  Native Indian population is only a remnant of what it once was. Blacks and Indians were hunted for sport for 300 years in America. But the main cause of the genocide of these people was being worked to death and no resistance to the diseases of the Europeans, which caused mass plauges to infect them.

The colonizer also possess a knowledge of how to SCIENTIFICALLY divide the ranks of the people they enslave. They have had centuries to master this technique and it is in full effect today. We can see it manifested every time we attempt to unite.

Thank you.

fezziwig wrote: Yusuf. wrote: fez, I followed that link and the page lists a blog by daniel pipes as one of its featured links. you yourself know what kind of reputation pipes has among muslims. what other reaction would you expect? Guilt by association, Yusuf? I expected better. The same website has links to Matt Yglesias, Juan Cole, Josh Marshall, etc., but maybe they're poison to muslims, too. You tell me. Pipes is a severe critic of muslims, just as the others are (often) severe critics of US policy, but all of them are articulate and informative and it's common in US websites to group disparate views together for contrast and fairness. If Pipes is poison and every website that links to Pipes is poison and every website that links to them is poison, then pretty soon the whole internet is offlimits. Censorship doesn't work. F

yes, I understand your point; on the internet everything leads to everything else. but a site that lists pipes as a featured link is quite different than a site from which you can eventually reach pipes. you know that as well as I do.

would you try to persuade a jewish audience by citing an article that lists louis farrakhan as one of its featured links? the fact is the entire Islamic world considers daniel pipes one of its main enemies. maybe you don't agree. fine. and maybe the islamic world is wrong to see pipes in this light. fine again. and maybe the point the article you cite is valid. fine too. but no muslim is going to go to that site and bother to read the article once they see pipes' name. I won't; pipes listed me as a sympathiser with terrorists because I criticized his "campus watch" site. maybe he's articulate, but he's a whack job. for that matter, farrakhan can be articulate too.

I'm not trying to censor anything, just point out to you that if you wish to persuade muslims, find an article that's not from such a site. maybe you have a point, I don't know. but you're not going to make it by citing an article from that source.

I'm not trying to really argue with you, fez; on non-muslim web boards I've had the same thing happen: someone told me that because the site I quoted had links to rabidly anti-US sites, they refused to believe what I posted. So I found the same material from sources that couldn't be so easily impeached in their eyes.

as for me, I'm going back to the arts forum and post some more pictures of pretty mosques!

Rehmat wrote: Do you know the definition of 'Native'? Based on this dumb logic - only the white and non-Muslims could be 'Natives'!

Non sequitor.

And what your Google said about'Deeper Roots'? Doesn't it mention in the first chapter the same figures I quoted in the first place?

fezziwig wrote: Quick searches on Google suggest that these books are merely about blacks and muslims in the Americas before Colombus. Nothing about Native genocide.

Do you know the definition of 'Native'? Based on this dumb logic - only the white and non-Muslims could be 'Natives'!

And what your Google said about'Deeper Roots'? Doesn't it mention in the first chapter the same figures I quoted in the first place?

Are you saying the HNN article is written by Mosad? And what does that have to do with WMDs and Iraq?

Is the US court accept a proven liar as a genuine witness? It could be in Israel, but I am not sure about that.