Back to the word games, I see. Quite strange for somebody who only days ago was insisting that "Asiatic" was a racial term roughly equal to oriental. Now when it's conventient to your argument it becomes expansively geographical, including the distinctly non-oriental Middle East.
Either way though, you've proven my point that you don't know what you're talking about. If "Asiatic" includes arabs, then the term is geographical - meaning your original claim about it being "racial" is bunk. If "Asiatic" means an East Asian or Oriental hereditary characteristic, then arabs are missing from the definition - meaning your original claim about it applying to arabs is bunk. The choice is yours
Of course, I insisted on no such thing. I tried to explain to you that "Asiatic" in the early 20th century was used as a racial term -- similar to the contemporary use of "Asian" as a racial term despite its geographic implications. And as you suggest, yes, "Asiatic" was a racial term that was often understood to be distinct from "Oriental". You can consult the rulings of Ex parte Shahid (1913) and Ex parte Dow (1914) on the use of "Asiatic" as a racial category to describe Arabs.