The Logic Off Topic list

GA Moore wrote:

>I think this document proves little
Agreed.

 > The Germans were very much into their own mythology of
>greatness and they did have a long civilization that was never conquered
>by the Romans,
Not sure, but I always thought that Emperor Julianus finally managed it? He 
led some successful campaigns for about three seasons or so shortly before 
he himself became Emperor.

Anyway, in the end depends on your definition of territory and 
simultaneity, I think.



>Yes, there was some sort of Jewish government in ancient times, although
>it was under the control of the Romans for a period about 2,000 years
>ago.
Seems like yesterday!!!!!!! (That was an attempt at wry humour, in case it 
doesn't come off).

>  At some point, and I'm not sure why or how, the Jews seemed to have
>fled and dispersed all over the world - some in Africa, some in the
>Middle East, many in Russia and Europe. In the intervening 2,000 years,
>that area was inhabited by Arabic people.

I could be mistaken, but I think in 425-430 CE Gamaliel VI, Patriarch of 
the Jews of the Roman Empire, died without issue. Emperor Theodosius II, 
who was determined to institute a 'proper' Christian Empire, promptly 
abolished the Jewish patriarchate. There were still about 3,000,000 Jews in 
existence at that time (give or take a few) but the Roman Christians 
(Catholics) sincerely hoped that they had done enough to make Judaism die 
out. Palestine was so depopulated, and another sign was that they Jews had 
failed to take up Emperor Julianus' offer to rebuild their Temple. There 
was no fuss, no rebellion, no revolt when the Patriarchate was dissolved 
and the last vestiges of the old ruined temple were carted away somewhere.

>When you complain that they didn't identify themselves as Palestinian
>until the 1960's, you need to understand that the Arabic people that
>inhabit the middle east were largely one group of people speaking a
>common language. The countries as we know them now - Jordan, Syria,
>Saudi, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. were not created the same way France and
>Germany were created as groups of people speaking the same language and
>with a common history. No, these borders were drawn up on a map somewhat
>arbitrarily by the colonial powers, I think England.
Yeah. They did that in a lot of places. Not many people know, actually, 
that when the 'problem' of finding a homeland for the Jewish peoples came 
up, the British seriously told the international community that they had a 
very nice plot of land in East Africa (Kenyan Highlands) that would be good 
for the job. We might well very now be having some East African terrorists 
if that offer had been accepted!!!! The Jewish people, however, turned down 
that offer because they knew where they wanted to be.

>Thats why you have a
>kurdish people living in Turkey and Iraq. Thats why Iraq was not too
>bothered about changing the border he was given.
Yes. It's also why there's so much trouble in other areas where this kind 
of thing went on. It is not easy when a group of people who formerly shared 
a culture and a language are arbitrarily told upon a whim that they musn't 
be friends any more but must instead act as if they occupy two or three 
separate nations. (Not really relevant, I know, but just trying to lighten 
things up a bit, OK!!).

>So those people living peacefully in their homes and farms in the 1940s
>may not have had a name, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist, and had
>not lived there for generation after generation.
Quite.

>The Jewish foreigners
>who came to Palstine to create Israel had less right than the Indians to
>come back to New York City and kick out the white people and take it over
>again. That was only 300 years ago they lost out, not 2,000 years ago.
Nice example. Is this just an analogy, or did in fact a group of American 
Indians march back to New York City and try to take it over and kick out 
some US citizens? If so, is there a reference; are there some details?

>The desecration of the Jewish Holy sites (about 40 years ago) was
>unacceptable.
Yes.

>But no justification for the conquest of that land.
Yes.

>If
>someone desecrates a Church in Russia, should the US invade and take over
>that land as the 51st state?
Wouldn't that be the 52nd state? (Tony Blair .... "special relationship" 
.... ????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com