I don't agree with his thoughts on blacks and jews, but why would he make up his little list of things to post. And if you note, I didn't include ALL the things he listed, just the ones that seemed to be hate crimes, which is what he wanted a list of here.
You really think those cases were made up? Well, if they were, then I apologize, I didn't think they would be, why would he make things up, especially if he wanted to make a point that his view is right (even though I disagree about him telling people to shoot blacks, THAT"S not right at all).
There's a more subtle problem with this list, even asusming that everything here is true (an assumption I'm just not willing to make given the source): it doesn't deal with the matter actually being discussed.
The thread started out with discussion of white defendants escaping conviction (or escaping appropriate sentences) for what were clearly hate crimes against minority's supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The discussion then shifted to "what about all the minority defendants who get off for hate crimes against whites?" After a bunch of incredulous replies and back-and-forth, this list was produced as support for the second argument (I haven't followed the thread that closely, so please correct me and fill me in if this isn't an accurate paraphrase). The problem is that the list is of cases where (purportedly) minorities committed hate crimes against white victims that were ignored by the press! Not of cases where the minority defendants escaped prosecution or appropriate sentences (indeed, the list doesn't even address this matter for most of the cases, though it is implied they were caught and convicted in some cases; but the list maintains a single-minded focus on press coverage). Thus the list doesn't even address the issue at hand, but subtly tries to change the subject. In short, it's not relevant.