Which will it be Iran? Off the Map/back to

[Carrera]

"Christians were persecuted for two centuries under the Romans - but Christianity assimilated itself in to western society.
Judaism did not manage to assimilate itself in to western society."

Edward Gibbon the famous historian blames Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire. I agree with him entirely and studied these events carefully.
Christians refused to serve in the Roman army and were responsible for the destruction of humanist/philosophical thought and literature within the Empire. Philosophers were often hounded out of society and religious dogma replaced Plato and Aristotle.
Even Michael Grant points out the army declined as Christianity taught people not to support the state by joining up.
Christians also persecuted Jews or believers in other faiths. Judaism never presented a very serious problem to the Romans since it was regional faith whereas Christianity was described by the writer Suetonius Tranquillus in these pretty strong terms:
"afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae."
"Christians, men linked to a new and evil superstition were censured."
Not necessarily my own views but you can see the Romans hated them around the first century A.D.

You're going down the revisionism route again.

I don't recall DB or Fred stating that they had a problem with a Jewish State.
What they object to (as do many other people) is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in situ in 1948 on territory now occupied by the Zionists.

You lie (again) when you state that anyone here advocated the imposition of Islam on Jews.



Jews are entitled to their identity.
No one is denying them their identity.

What is at issue is the premise that the Jews were entitled to ethnically cleanse a region and populate that region with Jews from Europe/Russia/USA.
People who had no cultural connection to that territory up to that point in time.




No here is discussing Latvia or Turkey.
Nor is anyone trying to defend the political system in those countries.

On the other hand, you're trying to defend Zionism.
That's why we're discussing Zionism.




The Jews have throughout time managed to incur the wrath of many different powers, cultures and tribes.
Practically throughout their entire history they manage to antagonise others.
Why is that?

I don't believe that black people have managed to do so on the same scale.





Christians were persecuted for two centuries under the Romans - but Christianity assimilated itself in to western society.
Judaism did not manage to assimilate itself in to western society.

 

[Carrera]

"People who had no cultural connection to that territory up to that point in time."

They speak Hebrew. This is just one cultural connection. Hebrew is the only surviving truly ancient language that has survived in the region and not Arabic.
People will always be drawn towards their onw land and roots which is what Muhammad Ali pointed out with regard to black Africans in the U.S.
Jews have roots in the Middle East. So do the Palestinian Arabs but Palestinian Arabs had already displaced people throughout history.
Now they too have been displaced but we all agree some compromise is in order. My own view is simply that Palestinians should govern themselves according to their preference and religion and apart.

You're going down the revisionism route again.

I don't recall DB or Fred stating that they had a problem with a Jewish State.
What they object to (as do many other people) is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in situ in 1948 on territory now occupied by the Zionists.

You lie (again) when you state that anyone here advocated the imposition of Islam on Jews.



Jews are entitled to their identity.
No one is denying them their identity.

What is at issue is the premise that the Jews were entitled to ethnically cleanse a region and populate that region with Jews from Europe/Russia/USA.
People who had no cultural connection to that territory up to that point in time.




No here is discussing Latvia or Turkey.
Nor is anyone trying to defend the political system in those countries.

On the other hand, you're trying to defend Zionism.
That's why we're discussing Zionism.




The Jews have throughout time managed to incur the wrath of many different powers, cultures and tribes.
Practically throughout their entire history they manage to antagonise others.
Why is that?

I don't believe that black people have managed to do so on the same scale.





Christians were persecuted for two centuries under the Romans - but Christianity assimilated itself in to western society.
Judaism did not manage to assimilate itself in to western society.

 

[FredC]

"People who had no cultural connection to that territory up to that point in time."

They speak Hebrew. This is just one cultural connection. Hebrew is the only surviving truly ancient language that has survived in the region and not Arabic.
People will always be drawn towards their onw land and roots which is what Muhammad Ali pointed out with regard to black Africans in the U.S.
Jews have roots in the Middle East. So do the Palestinian Arabs but Palestinian Arabs had already displaced people throughout history.
Now they too have been displaced but we all agree some compromise is in order. My own view is simply that Palestinians should govern themselves according to their preference and religion and apart.

You're wrong again. Aramaic is still spoken. In Iran, it is also known as farsi.

 

[EoinC]

...People will always be drawn towards their onw land and roots which is what Muhammad Ali pointed out with regard to black Africans in the U.S....

Fine, what would happen if a large number of African Americans decided that their homeland was on Bioko Island in Equatorial Guinea? They could make their triumphant return by coming in, buying land and assimilating with the Fang people (not the original people of that land), or they could do it by straight out displacement, backed by firepower. If they chose the latter, they would have a fight on their hands, and that fight would continue until either one group had wiped out the other, or they had learned how to live together.

...Jews have roots in the Middle East. So do the Palestinian Arabs but Palestinian Arabs had already displaced people throughout history...

I think this is the first time that you have admitted that Palestinians do have "roots" and "history". Nice to see.

...My own view is simply that Palestinians should govern themselves according to their preference and religion and apart.

You need to get this idea out of your head that Palestinians have 'a' religion. Palestinians have many religions. The problem seems to be that, as you equate Jewish people with being followers of Judaism, you assume that anyone who speaks out against Zionism (Note the word, Carrera - not 'Jews', not 'Judaism') is doing so for religious reasons. The plight of the Palestinians is about their displacement and lack of rights as a people, not about whatever religion any of them choose to follow.
Palestinian terrorists = bad; Zionist terrorists = bad; Jewish people = generally good; Palestinian people = generally good.
Your isolationist tendancies play right into the hands of the terrorists on both sides of the fence. You are fighting their fight for them. You have no desire to let these people have a chance to live peacefully together - exactly the same as the Zionist and Palestinian terrorists. You don't see any irony in there, Carrera?

 

[FredC]

"Christians were persecuted for two centuries under the Romans - but Christianity assimilated itself in to western society.
Judaism did not manage to assimilate itself in to western society."

Edward Gibbon the famous historian blames Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire. I agree with him entirely and studied these events carefully.
Christians refused to serve in the Roman army and were responsible for the destruction of humanist/philosophical thought and literature within the Empire. Philosophers were often hounded out of society and religious dogma replaced Plato and Aristotle.
Even Michael Grant points out the army declined as Christianity taught people not to support the state by joining up.
Christians also persecuted Jews or believers in other faiths. Judaism never presented a very serious problem to the Romans since it was regional faith whereas Christianity was described by the writer Suetonius Tranquillus in these pretty strong terms:
"afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae."
"Christians, men linked to a new and evil superstition were censured."
Not necessarily my own views but you can see the Romans hated them around the first century A.D.

And what the hell's that tripe got to with this thread?

 

[davidmc]

And what the hell's that tripe got to with this thread?

The quote he attributed was thought inducing:

Suetonius Tranquillus in these pretty strong terms:
"afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae."
"Christians, men linked to a new and evil superstition were censured."

 

[davidmc]

"Christians were persecuted for two centuries under the Romans - but Christianity assimilated itself in to western society.
Judaism did not manage to assimilate itself in to western society."

Edward Gibbon the famous historian blames Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire. I agree with him entirely and studied these events carefully.
Christians refused to serve in the Roman army and were responsible for the destruction of humanist/philosophical thought and literature within the Empire. Philosophers were often hounded out of society and religious dogma replaced Plato and Aristotle.
Even Michael Grant points out the army declined as Christianity taught people not to support the state by joining up.
Christians also persecuted Jews or believers in other faiths. Judaism never presented a very serious problem to the Romans since it was regional faith whereas Christianity was described by the writer Suetonius Tranquillus in these pretty strong terms:
"afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae."
"Christians, men linked to a new and evil superstition were censured."
Not necessarily my own views but you can see the Romans hated them around the first century A.D.

Very good point

 

[Colorado Ryder]

You're wrong again. Aramaic is still spoken. In Iran, it is also known as farsi.

You're wrong. Farsi is very different from Aramaic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

 

[Colorado Ryder]

"Christians were persecuted for two centuries under the Romans - but Christianity assimilated itself in to western society.
Judaism did not manage to assimilate itself in to western society."

Edward Gibbon the famous historian blames Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire. I agree with him entirely and studied these events carefully.
Christians refused to serve in the Roman army and were responsible for the destruction of humanist/philosophical thought and literature within the Empire. Philosophers were often hounded out of society and religious dogma replaced Plato and Aristotle.
Even Michael Grant points out the army declined as Christianity taught people not to support the state by joining up.
Christians also persecuted Jews or believers in other faiths. Judaism never presented a very serious problem to the Romans since it was regional faith whereas Christianity was described by the writer Suetonius Tranquillus in these pretty strong terms:
"afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae."
"Christians, men linked to a new and evil superstition were censured."
Not necessarily my own views but you can see the Romans hated them around the first century A.D.

Rome fell because it got fat and lazy. Romans no longer had the stomach to join the army and fight. Rome began to depend on mercenaries.

 

[Hypnospin]

like the blackwater (and all romanesque then, security contractors) security forces/mercenaries gratis the us taxpayer???????????

Rome fell because it got fat and lazy. Romans no longer had the stomach to join the army and fight. Rome began to depend on mercenaries.

 

[limerickman]

They speak Hebrew.

Not in the country's where they were brought up in.

The Jews of Europe, the Jews of Russia, the Jews of the USA, who were transplanted to the Middle East didn't speak Hebrew in their native regions.

Nor did they have any cultural attachment to the Middle East save for the fact that they happen to have the same religious belief.

It's tantamount to saying that because one is a Roman Catholic in Britaim, one shares the same culture as an Italian RC or an American RC.
They don't.

They speak Hebrew. This is just one cultural connection. Hebrew is the only surviving truly ancient language that has survived in the region and not Arabic.
People will always be drawn towards their onw land and roots which is what Muhammad Ali pointed out with regard to black Africans in the U.S.
Jews have roots in the Middle East. So do the Palestinian Arabs but Palestinian Arabs had already displaced people throughout history.
Now they too have been displaced but we all agree some compromise is in order. My own view is simply that Palestinians should govern themselves according to their preference and religion and apart.

Palestinians are entitled to inhabit the land from which they were forced off by the Zionists terrorists in 1948 who injured and murdered many in doing so.

 

[limerickman]

You're wrong. Farsi is very different from Aramaic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

Farsi is widely spoken : here are the heads of state of Iran and Israel speaking Farsi at the funeral of Pope John Paul II.
Two countries that allegedly do not recognise each other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4421947.stm

This second link suggests, as Fredc, does that Farsi and Aramaic are closer than you do :

http://www.unipedia.info/Persian_language.html

 

[limerickman]

Fine, what would happen if a large number of African Americans decided that their homeland was on Bioko Island in Equatorial Guinea? They could make their triumphant return by coming in, buying land and assimilating with the Fang people (not the original people of that land), or they could do it by straight out displacement, backed by firepower. If they chose the latter, they would have a fight on their hands, and that fight would continue until either one group had wiped out the other, or they had learned how to live together.
I think this is the first time that you have admitted that Palestinians do have "roots" and "history". Nice to see.You need to get this idea out of your head that Palestinians have 'a' religion. Palestinians have many religions. The problem seems to be that, as you equate Jewish people with being followers of Judaism, you assume that anyone who speaks out against Zionism (Note the word, Carrera - not 'Jews', not 'Judaism') is doing so for religious reasons. The plight of the Palestinians is about their displacement and lack of rights as a people, not about whatever religion any of them choose to follow.
Palestinian terrorists = bad; Zionist terrorists = bad; Jewish people = generally good; Palestinian people = generally good.
Your isolationist tendancies play right into the hands of the terrorists on both sides of the fence. You are fighting their fight for them. You have no desire to let these people have a chance to live peacefully together - exactly the same as the Zionist and Palestinian terrorists. You don't see any irony in there, Carrera?

Well put, Eoin

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Farsi is widely spoken : here are the heads of state of Iran and Israel speaking Farsi at the funeral of Pope John Paul II.
Two countries that allegedly do not recognise each other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4421947.stm

This second link suggests, as Fredc, does that Farsi and Aramaic are closer than you do :

http://www.unipedia.info/Persian_language.html

Your link suggests no close link between the languages.

 

[FredC]

Your link suggests no close link between the languages.

In times past there was, which is more than Crappy would have us believe. Hebrew was derived from Aramaic. Checkout the history of Aramaic on google.

 

[limerickman]

Your link suggests no close link between the languages.

Did you read the link?
If you bothered to read the link, you'd see :

"Additionally, many words were introduced (to Farsi) from neighbouring languages, including Aramaic and Greek in earlier times,"

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Did you read the link?
If you bothered to read the link, you'd see :

"Additionally, many words were introduced (to Farsi) from neighbouring languages, including Aramaic and Greek in earlier times,"

Yeah. Engish has many words introduced from French and Latin words but that doesn't make the languages in any way similiar.

 

[limerickman]

Yeah. Engish has many words introduced from French and Latin words but that doesn't make the languages in any way similiar.

So?
Words from disntinct languages migrate : which is the not the issue in this part of the discussion.

You disputed FredC's (correct) claim that Farsi is a derivative of Aramaic.
Fred C was correct in this claim and you were incorrect to dispute it.

http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/lss/staff/erica/CALL/aramaic.html

 

[Colorado Ryder]

So?
Words from disntinct languages migrate : which is the not the issue in this part of the discussion.

You disputed FredC's (correct) claim that Farsi is a derivative of Aramaic.
Fred C was correct in this claim and you were incorrect to dispute it.

http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/lss/staff/erica/CALL/aramaic.html

A nearly dead language spoken by all those Iranians and Afghani's?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/special_packages/passion_of_christ/8038021.htm

 

[Colorado Ryder]

So?
Words from disntinct languages migrate : which is the not the issue in this part of the discussion.

You disputed FredC's (correct) claim that Farsi is a derivative of Aramaic.
Fred C was correct in this claim and you were incorrect to dispute it.

http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/lss/staff/erica/CALL/aramaic.html

If I'm wrong, how come Farsi is considered a part of the Indo-European language family and Aramaic is part of the Afro-Asiatic language family?