Put that MD 20/20 down TD. Pay attention.
Saddam cuts and runs at the first sign unless you threaten his hold on power.
That's all I said....that's all AlD said...that is all that history supports...Saddam will fight to the last drop of someone else's blood but he'll probably gas RP if he's about to go down.
Small wonder then that every single country in the Big Guy's 'hood has opposed Bush Big Bumble.
Stop and think about:
Iran - gassed in a brutal war
Syria - war with Saddam in Baath power struggle
Kuwait - invaded
Saudi Arabia & Gulf States - threatened by Kuwait invasion
Not to mention Jordan & Egypt
All but two of those countries, against all historical odds, fought with the US and its Euro allies.
Now all have expressed their opposition to Bush.
So again tell me which regime is the real threat -Saddam's or Georgie's?
Its not surprising that the Times of London reported recently that Pentagon generals do not consider Iraq to be any threat to US national interests, not even a leeeetle one.
2. jexster - 8/22/2002 5:27:10 AM
So rally round the Flag TD...and join the Bloodletting to Make Bush Believable because right now, the West Texas snake oil salesman is shaping up to be a world historical buffoon.
Major career move.
3. jexster - 8/22/2002 5:32:18 AM
Lead on Oh Great Bumble Boy
Here comes TommieDaschole your little drummer boy
"On Tuesday, Canada said it would not aid U.S.-led military action against Baghdad unless it had stronger evidence of imminent Iraqi aggression."
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee
4. jexster - 8/22/2002 5:38:50 AM
"Getting rid of Saddam is in the world's interest" - Bar W Phoney Baloney Ranch 8/21
"There may be some tough times here in America. But this country has gone through tough times before, and we're going to do it again."
"I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here."
"I can assure you that, even though I won't be sitting through every single moment of the seminars, nor will the vice president, we will look at the summaries."
"Tommy [Thompson, Health and Human Services secretary,] is a good listener, and he's a pretty good actor, too."
"The trial lawyers are very politically powerful. … But here in Texas we took them on and got some good medical—medical malpractice."
"I firmly believe the death tax is good for people from all walks of life all throughout our society."
—Waco, Texas, Aug. 13, 2002
5. jexster - 8/22/2002 5:39:41 AM
Keep Canada Bushrein
6. jexster - 8/22/2002 11:54:28 AM
Britain Just Says No to WarLord
Evidently Battle to Make Bush Believable Not in "World's Interest"
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain set itself apart from top ally the United States, which has made a "regime change" in Baghdad a priority, saying on Thursday its main aim in Iraq was to get weapons inspectors back in.
In comments that underlined differences between President Bush ( news - web sites) and London, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the main threat was from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites)'s suspected capability with weapons of mass destruction.
"What everybody is concerned about...is particularly the threat that Saddam Hussein poses from both his capability and his record to the security of the region and the security of the world," Straw told BBC radio.
"The best way of trying to isolate and reduce that threat is by the introduction of weapons inspections," he said. "The crucial issue here is weapons inspectors
Jerusalem
AND did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the Countenance Divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark Satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold:
Bring me my arrows of desire:
Bring me my spear: O clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire.
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land.
William Blake
7. jexster - 8/22/2002 12:12:08 PM
A few weeks ago, Powell was sent packin on a world tour while Georgie met with this lunatic council of war.
I smell smegma...Panty Waist Powell in his Purty Pink panties has been givin knowing winks and nods to world learders...
The Guardian
Britain's top diplomat at the time of the 1991 Gulf war warned yesterday that a military attack on Iraq could have devastating consequences.
Lord Wright of Richmond, former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, joined the growing number of voices warning the government of the dangers of backing an American assault on Baghdad.
"I do believe that ministers need to examine the case very carefully.
"The implications of an attack against Iraq could be absolutely devastating," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"It is becoming increasingly clear that there is a strong body of opinion here, both in parliament and more widely, that an attack against Iraq would be a costly mistake", he said.
"I don't personally believe that the case has yet been made."
Lord Wright said it would be a mistake for the Americans to take action without the "widest possible measure of support" from the international community.
8. PelleNilsson - 8/22/2002 12:28:03 PM
wonkers
Those who disagree might be well advised to say why instead of fulminating about an "unsavory melange of trotskyites and chic fellow travelers" as if there was no other side to the argument. Israel's policy under Bibe and Buthead has been brutal, but, more than that, ineffective. An academic boycott might well cause some Israeli citizens to have second thoughts.
If you have read my posts here during the past two years or so, you will know that I'm as critical of Likud's politics as anybody. I blame Bibi far more than Sharon who is doing (more or less) what he was elected to do. And, yes, it is brutal but ineffectual. But boycotts are also ineffectual. Not even the mother of all boycotts, the sanction regime against Iraq has achieved what it was intended to do.
In my opinion, the idea that a boycott, in the present political climate in Israel, "might well cause some Israeli citizens to have second thoughts". is nonsense. All it will do is to increase the Israeli's feeling of persecution and, possibly, generate accusations of anti-semitism. I would be interested to see Rustler's opinion on this.
In any case, that is not the purpose of the boycott. Its purpose is is to give leftist academics in the West and their hangers-on that soothing feeling of fighting on the barricades against Israel's neo-colonialist, apartheid-like oppression. It's an ego trip exercise. You can trust me on this because I am a leftist academic.
Finally, the notion that anything positive can come out of blocking contacts between intellectuals strikes me as absurd.
9. jexster - 8/22/2002 12:44:03 PM
Blunder of World-Historical Dimension
The LAT is reporting that Schroeder laughed off recent attempts by Bush's Ambassador to intimidate the Reich.... 
Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Und im Unglück nun erst recht.
Nur im Unglück kann die Liebe
Zeigen, ob sie stark und echt.
Und so soll es weiterklingen
Von Geschlechte zu Geschlecht:
|: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
Und im Unglück nun erst recht. :| )
10. concerned - 8/22/2002 12:50:37 PM
jexster -
Get some sleep, man. You're scaring us.
11. jexster - 8/22/2002 1:09:22 PM
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land
12. jexster - 8/22/2002 1:20:37 PM
Ahhh recht again...
"Washington Goes to War" From: FOREIGN POLICY IN FOCUS
War has been declared in Washington, although it's not against any foreign country. It's an inside the Beltway war, but its outcome will have global repercussions.
13. RustlerPike - 8/22/2002 2:35:49 PM
Jexster:
I've used my Mossad connections on your behalf. Turns out there are some very cute guys in southwestern Baluchistan who really want to spend some quality time with you. When you reach there, contact me from an internet cafe and I'll give you further directions, OK?
14. RustlerPike - 8/22/2002 2:37:04 PM
aaargh.
15. Andonly - 8/22/2002 4:11:41 PM
"Meretz was involved in anti-Egyptian pressure? You sure?"
Yep. I get their email notices and copies of letters sent to George W..
16. Andonly - 8/22/2002 4:15:20 PM
Actually, I should check back to make sure about that--I may be confusing this with their efforts to fight that anti-Arab housing bill and the seizure of Sari Nusseibah's office.
17. Andonly - 8/22/2002 4:21:51 PM
"Of signal import, however, Kissinger also says the U.S. should seek a new international inspection system before resorting to military action..."
Jexster, Kissinger does not expect, nor does anyone, that inspections will be permitted by Iraq, and he DID say explicitly that he does not rule out war at all. He just wants Bush to lead up to it properly, plan well, and follow through effectively. Which is what any sane person wants. But Kissinger is not in Eagleburger's camp and said just as explicitly that they disagreed.
18. Andonly - 8/22/2002 4:25:10 PM
"Now what have we learned about the Kurds young lady?"
That they are at present quietly allied with high level Jordanian elements, little buster.
19. Andonly - 8/22/2002 4:26:49 PM
"HK has more finesse than GWB, more cunning."
Ah. It's reassuring to see that you would support a war against Iraq if it were to be directed by Henry Kissinger.
20. Andonly - 8/22/2002 4:45:33 PM
"HK's iron fist had such a thick velvet glove over it that I can see why you missed the point."
I didn't. You're the one who implied Kissinger opposed going to war with Iraq. I'm the one who said he didn't.
"But its clear nonetheless. His "reservations" are as much anathema to Bush's Big Blunder into War as Bush's regime change is to continued inspection."
I can't be bothered ot decipher this garbled sentence. What Kissinger is saying is that insisting on resumption of inspections is the best means by which the war can ultimately be prosecuted with Europe on board, should that become necessary, which it may well be already.
I could go along with that--one thing Bush pere did right was to get his ducks in a row--but on the other hand, Kissinger isn't always much of a prophet. For instance, he announced in a very grave tone, a few months before Ariel Sharon thumbed his nose at George Bush's demand that Israel withdraw from Jenin, that Israel would never defy the United States of America.
I have a hard time believing France and Russia are somehow going to be more willing to go along with an Iraq attack after just one more game of Find the Nukes. They've got their own economic interests in the region; Bush has done nothing to court or even please them lately; it's in other countries' interests to stall on military action and let the US take the consequences. More inspections could well facilitate this--could as easily forge disunity as coalition.
21. Andonly - 8/22/2002 4:58:49 PM
"Well all 1967 did was prove my point..."
No. The particular part of the conflict that Iraq abetted was launched by the then occupier of the West Bank: Jordan. Israel repeatedly requested that Hussein stay out of the fight begun by Syria and Egypt with prodding from the USSR. But Abdullah waded right in and began shelling Israeli cities. Iraq joined the fun, and in the end both it and Jordan got their asses whupped, with Jordan losing quite a chunk of territory in the process. Territory it could have gotten back a couple of weeks later if it had simply consented to make peace--which it categorically refused to do.
22. Andonly - 8/22/2002 5:00:34 PM
"Saddam spills no blood"
Yes he does. You just don't give a fuck.
23. Andonly - 8/22/2002 5:08:46 PM
"..the idea that a boycott, in the present political climate in Israel, "might well cause some Israeli citizens to have second thoughts". is nonsense. All it will do is to increase the Israeli's feeling of persecution and, possibly, generate accusations of anti-semitism."
Right.
"In any case, that is not the purpose of the boycott. Its purpose is is to give leftist academics in the West and their hangers-on that soothing feeling of fighting on the barricades against Israel's neo-colonialist, apartheid-like oppression. It's an ego trip exercise."
Right.
"Finally, the notion that anything positive can come out of blocking contacts between intellectuals strikes me as absurd."
Very right.
24. Andonly - 8/22/2002 5:10:40 PM
"But Abdullah waded right in and began shelling Israeli cities" should have read "But Hussein waded right in and began shelling Israeli cities."
Abdullah, of course, was Hussein's father.
25. concerned - 8/22/2002 5:15:26 PM
Andonly -
Aren't you getting a bit tired of shooting fish in a barrel?
26. concerned - 8/22/2002 5:19:03 PM
Of course, I recognize the service you are performing by neutralizing the pernicious effects that jexster's flapdoodle would otherwise have on the hordes of gape jawed Lefties of small mental capacity who might come across this.
Carry on.
27. Andonly - 8/22/2002 5:50:20 PM
Pike, I must have mentally transposed some other Meretz action with a protest against the sentencing of Saad Eddin Ibrahim. The Meretz USA website has no mention of Ibrahim--which makes sense, I guess, since the last thing the poor guy needs now is Israelis speaking up on his behalf.
28. Andonly - 8/22/2002 5:53:38 PM
"Aren't you getting a bit tired of shooting fish in a barrel?"
Hey. Everybody needs some kind of recreation.
(But to answer your question...yes.)
29. jexster - 8/22/2002 6:32:42 PM
Bush Calls Musharraf a 'Terror Ally'
Was that just MoronSpeak or do we start bombing in the morning?
30. jexster - 8/22/2002 6:55:34 PM
Jexster, Kissinger does not expect, nor does anyone, that inspections will be permitted by Iraq, and he DID say explicitly that he does not rule out war at all.
Look neither you nor I know what Kissinger expects other than what he said. And neither of us knows what Bush expects except what he said
Kissinger - wants us to enforce a UN resolution under UN auspices
Bush- does not want to enforce the UN resolution under UN auspices
Bush doesn't want to go the UN route because, ostensibly, he believes that will frustrate his call for a regime change..gives Saddam years to dick around (Bush has to move before 04) and gives the Security Council control over his big adventure
HK is playing the basically the same game that the Allies are and that Bush wants to avoid
To Bush then HK's statement is every bit as onerous a position as Scowcroft's Hagel Schwartzkopf, the Pentagon, Powell, the world
ANd it is a poison pill in a velvet glove (mixing metaphor)
31. jexster - 8/22/2002 7:02:02 PM
HK has more finesse than GWB, more cunning."
Ah. It's reassuring to see that you would support a war against Iraq if it were to be directed by Henry Kissinger.
Dyslexia on top of smelly smegma?
Did I say anything more than what I said?
Message # 12819
So what? All you've done is restate facts which prove my point - Iraq has consistently been willing to fight to the last drop of everyone else's blood when it comes to Israel and therefore there is no basis upon which Israel much less the US can plausibly claim based on past experience that iraq/Saddam is a threat to either or if he is, that he has not been deterred
32. jexster - 8/22/2002 7:04:53 PM
"But its clear nonetheless. His "reservations" are as much anathema to Bush's Big Blunder into War as Bush's regime change is to continued inspection."
"I can't be bothered ot decipher this garbled sentence. What Kissinger is saying is that insisting on resumption of inspections is the best means by which the war can ultimately be prosecuted with Europe on board, should that become necessary, which it may well be already. "
Aaah more dyslexia...let me help you little girl
But first read my Message # 12829
Should be simple enough even for you
33. jexster - 8/22/2002 7:07:07 PM
and when you are ready to present a justification for war that is something more than the product of your Jewish frenzy for Israel, that has some - any -reliable factual basis, and just the tiniest trace of analytic worth...
I'll deal with you again
34. jexster - 8/22/2002 7:09:29 PM
And try fewer words...plowing through all that puff 'n fluff is tiresome
35. jexster - 8/22/2002 7:12:53 PM
RP...tnx for your efforts in Baluchistan...hold off for now...a cute young yid lawyer, Yalie, JFK MPP, 26, R. Mandelman(!) has been making pretty eyes at me
36. jexster - 8/22/2002 7:16:00 PM
mmmm ...could that be it? Might my animal attraction to those of the hebrew persuasion explain the excessive moisture and unsanitary condition of Ando's privates, and her wet and stinky rejoinders?
Golden schictze(sp?) syndrome in reverse?
37. jexster - 8/22/2002 7:35:51 PM
And whether or not Ando and cogency cross paths, fact is that outside of Israel and its partisans, the only support Bush has for his little adventure are the editorial boards of 3 relatively obscure publications, a clique of extreme right wing hawks in the Pentagon, Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay and a few assorted of his ilk in the Congress.
Fact also is that Bush cannot extricate himself from one of the most fouled up decision making disasters this side of Wilhelm's Blank Check...
So Ando can understand -
1 - World consensus of indifference at best, opposition most likely
2 - Idiot up shit's creek in a jew canoe
38. jexster - 8/22/2002 8:01:30 PM
Here's a Jewess even a goy fegle can love...and such excellent personal hygiene...
Ando take notes
Dear Jeximan-the-Magnificent:
Thank you for contacting me regarding expanding the war
on terrorism to Iraq. I appreciate hearing from you on this
important issue.
I believe we need to employ every tool at our disposal to
protect our nation, including, if necessary, the use of our armed
forces. However, before we resort to using force against Iraq, the
Administration must exhaust all other options . As a result, I
introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 133, which calls for
Congressional authorization or a declaration of war before force is
used against Iraq.
The resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that:
The United States and the United Nations Security Council
should insist on a complete program of inspection and
monitoring to prevent the development of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq;
39. jexster - 8/22/2002 8:01:49 PM
Iraq should allow the United Nations weapons inspectors
"immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and
all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of
transportation which they wish to inspect" as required by
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 of
December 17, 1999;
The United States should not initiate the use of force against
Iraq without specific statutory authorization or a declaration
of war under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the
Constitution of the United States (except as provided by the
existing Rules of Engagement used by coalition forces to
exercise the right of self defense, or under the National
Security Act of 1947).
If the Administration presents Congress with evidence to
justify military action against Iraq, I will consider the information
with great care to ensure any action taken is in the best interests of
our nation. I also strongly believe that if the United States is to take
action against Iraq we must have a just cause, the threat must be real
and immediate, and we must have the support and assistance of the
international community.
Again, thank you for your views during this difficult time. If
you should have any additional comments or suggestions, please do
not hesitate to contact my Washington, D.C. staff at (202) 224-3841.
DF:wk
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
40. jexster - 8/22/2002 8:02:08 PM
tampons
41. Al D - 8/22/2002 8:04:56 PM
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, said that "at the grass roots" among African American voters, there is a growing perception that "Jewish people are attempting to pick our leaders. . . . There is some concern about that. It's concern about any candidate being targeted by a special-interest group for voting on any one issue."
The above from the Washington Post in reaction to the defeat of McKinney is more than interesting:it is frightening. The Jews in U.S. have been the blacks best friends, and yet if they fear a Palistinian loving Congressperson, who may be a Jew and American hater as well, they dare not work against her. It is important that one know who the enemy is.
M
42. joezan - 8/22/2002 8:37:28 PM
That is mighty scary, Al.
...Really.
This country is getting very wierd.
If we polarize along that kind of issue, the next election cycle could be very, very interesting. If the Rs are smart, they'll start playing that up BIG time.
43. jexster - 8/22/2002 9:04:11 PM
Ando - forgot - HK gave Bush the other sleeve out of his vest with his "reservation" that Bush Blundered into this mess all by his lonesome..
Maybe a picture will help you with this one....they work for LittleTDaschole 
44. ronski - 8/22/2002 9:33:00 PM
Al,
Rep. Johnson is wrong, and out of touch. As much as I appreciate your posts, relax, and see this.
It's so refreshing to see the Times have it right, at least in part.
As for the "Jewish" influence, the victor's out-of-state contributions were nothing compared to McKinney's, who received humungous gobs of anti-Israeli, Arab-friendly money.
Since Black people are not stupid, they will understand this.
The notion that Jews had anything significant to do with McKinney's defeat is preposterous.
The U.S. Left is just getting panicky about all the people who are leaving the reservation (gays, blacks, etc.).
45. ronski - 8/22/2002 9:39:07 PM
And I must add how sad it is that the JesterBlog moves on, relentlessly, devouring all facts, all perspective, all compassion, all decency, all amusement, in its path.
Not so much as a JexsterBlog (why doesn't he just start a Blog and deliver us from this torture?), as a JexsterBorg.
Of course, you know what happened to the Borg.
46. Al D - 8/22/2002 9:42:18 PM
Ronski
I have always said you are the voice of reason on the Mote. I don't think blacks are stupid, but they listen to Farrakhan more than most people realize. Main stream Blacks are afraid to criticise him. Rep. Johnson is considered a more reasonable Black. McKinney's words don't bother me as she is off the wall. Will the media bring Johnson to task for her comment?
I discuss the matter here because America is very envolved with Israel.
47. joezan - 8/22/2002 10:08:28 PM
I wish I could share your optimism, ronski. But it sure seems as though anti-Semitism is on the rise in the Black body-politic. You're right - McKinney is a nut. But Johnson?
Where's the outrage? I mean, the usual (White) suspects in the House may, very gently, refute his statement, but they won't rebuke the man.
And what about the Black reps - his cohorts in the CBC? Where are they on this?
No - I'm sorry.
I see a long, ugly season ahead.
48. jexster - 8/22/2002 10:16:56 PM
JexsterBlog
Mar-ti-ni's at the Townwhouse Ronski...
BTW do you have the right stardate?
49. jexster - 8/22/2002 10:23:51 PM
JexsterBlog
Mar-ti-ni's at the Townwhouse Ronski...
BTW do you have the right stardate?
50. jexster - 8/22/2002 10:25:12 PM
Captain RonksiJane and the Voyager crew may think they have destroyed us - but they are wrong...
We are The Borg. We are Eternal. We will return. Resistance is Futile...
51. jexster - 8/22/2002 10:37:09 PM
Und im Unglück nun erst recht
52. Andonly - 8/22/2002 11:02:12 PM
"therefore there is no basis upon which Israel much less the US can plausibly claim based on past experience that iraq/Saddam is a threat to either or if he is, that he has not been deterred"
You can pretend to listen to Henry Kissinger all you like, but you're simply spouting stupid Brezinskiisms (in addition to the smegma, which an early circumcision would have spared you).
I feel so unkosher, I want to break into Pig German.
Vy em I zo vorried, Herr Doktor? Der Fuhrer hast done us Jews no zpecial harm. Zehr ist no real reazon zu efraide zein! Zo many nations der Nazis sind up against--zhey vould not permit zis mann zu ect out ze thinks ve fear might heppen. Er ist all talk, ja? End yet, Ich kann nicht geschlafen, nicht geschlafen... Please, vill yu tell me, vaht insidious neurosis tortures my veak mind?
Ach, mein dear, mein dear. Du bist zuffering von die Pervertete Judische Electra Komplex, in vich du imaginst zet dein vater vishes zu getoten you vor egspressing ein zexualische dezire vor deine mutter. Uze deine rational mind! Gewissen sie vhat ist real! Zere ist no basis upon vhich you, much less Juden in general, ken plauzibly believe bazed on passt egsperience zet Hitler ist eine threat zu deine tzurvifal.
53. RustlerPike - 8/22/2002 11:37:10 PM
ronski:
And I must add how sad it is that the JesterBlog moves on, relentlessly, devouring all facts, all perspective, all compassion, all decency, all amusement, in its path.
This is a community. Jexster's posting reflects certain problems the man has, but he is a part of the community and we have to put up with him. It's like having a mentally retarded child around, I guess.
Besides, once every 100 posts or so he says something interesting.
OK, 200.
54. RustlerPike - 8/22/2002 11:40:41 PM
marj, if you're lurking - can you give me some info about the Bnei Menashe people? Someone told me their DNA did turn out to be Jewish, and that therefore they truly seem to be the lost tribe of Menashe.
Which means there are 2 million more Jews is the world than I'd thought until now.
55. RustlerPike - 8/22/2002 11:41:11 PM
in
56. RustlerPike - 8/22/2002 11:44:34 PM
Ando:
See? There's no way Meretz can ever do anything remotely pro-Israeli. They are femmie lefties, and thus, by definition, the opposite of a pro-Israeli party.
57. RustlerPike - 8/22/2002 11:47:49 PM
I think the Jewish influence on the African American candidacies is legitimate. And I imagine Majette and others like her will speak up more forcefully, eventually. And it's good that African Americans are electing better leaders than they used to.
58. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 4:03:57 AM
Question: is this an Israeli thing or does everybody have a place under the sink where they keep used plastic and paper bags?
59. joezan - 8/23/2002 6:06:34 AM
Yep - in a coffee can.
60. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 9:07:08 AM
Whew.
61. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 9:12:16 AM
So I've been reading Debka's stories on Abu Nidal's life and death (Debka link in the Parkay bar).
One of the things they say is that Abu Nidal was working for Qaddafi in the 1980s.
Then I read this in FOX: Report: Abu Nidal Behind Lockerbie Bombing, Former Aide Says.
So I says to myself, Russ, I says: maybe Abu Nidal did it for Libya. Duh!
62. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 9:20:40 AM
Debka claims Egypt, and then the CIA, were using Abu Nidal - who was a mercenary type of terrorist - against Al Qaeda at a certain point. Then there's a complicated story about Saddam using Abu Nidal for sussing out how trustworthy Al Qaeda was before he hooked up with it. Then, they say, Saddam began training the Qaedans in the bases at Biyar and Tawil in northern Iraq.
The Bush administration held off acting on the information partly to wait for its verification beyond doubt, but mostly for fear of letting the cat out of the bag on Abu Nidal’s role in the Bin Laden-Baghdad connection and how Saddam Hussein used that role to dig out Washington’s hapless involvement.
But this constraint may have been superseded, providing the Iraqi ruler, who is perfectly aware of the approaching US threat to his regime, with a pressing need shut Abu Nidal’s mouth. He saw the US president under mounting pressure from critics of the coming offensive against Iraq to come up with proof of a direct link between Saddam and terrorists as justification for the offensive. Under this pressure, he feared Bush would jump in one of two ways: He could have sent a covert American force to secret northern Iraqi training bases to snatch al Qaeda trainees with their Iraqi WMD instructors red-handed. Alternatively, American special forces might have abducted Abu Nidal and brought him to America with his damning testimony against Saddam.
Both options boded grave danger to the Iraqi ruler, but neither is any longer available to Washington.
Tipped off to their potential as President Bush’s cassus belli against Baghdad, the al Qaeda and Iraqi birds have flown Biyar and Tawil, while Abu Nidal’s mouth was permanently shut five days ago by four bullets.
Sounds both implausible and convincing at the same time.
63. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 9:36:10 AM
There's also an interesting and not at all implausible story in there about the connection between Oslo, PA corruption, a group of Israeli businessmen and President Bush (who is against all of the above).
The story appears to show that Ariel Sharon is not clean of the Oslo corruption taint. Which I believe. Sharon shares certain business connections and interests with the PA.
64. marjoribanks - 8/23/2002 9:55:01 AM
Spike,
can you give me some info about the Bnei Menashe people? Someone told me their DNA did turn out to be Jewish, and that therefore they truly seem to be the lost tribe of Menashe.
I seriously doubt that the Mizo DNA will reveal evidence of Jewish roots.
I've posted about the Mizo "Jews" at length before on this site and its predecessor. Basically, the Mizos are a coherent tribe that has its own mini state in India's troubled North-East. They were converted to Christianity almost en masse some 75-90 years ago by evangelical missionaries (of the old, Brit, school).
Some time in the 50's, one of the Mizo leaders had a vision whence he derived the idea that the Mizos are actually Jews, and he and a constantly growing number of his cohorts started practicing some Jewish rites, and then (with the help of Israeli rabbis) converting formally. The total number of thus converted Mizos can't be much more than 10,000. But an engine for further such activity was provided when Israel started accepting Mizo migrants in the 80's. There are Mizos in the IDF now and several hundred in a burgeoning community in Israel.
I'd be interested in seeing/reading about any genetic testing that has been done on the Mizos, any links are welcome.
65. marjoribanks - 8/23/2002 10:00:07 AM
The Pashtun legend about Jewish origins is much more compelling historically, and (given the isolation of several Pashtun groupings) I would not be surprised at all to find DNA evidence corroborating the story.
In which case, the worldwide population of Jews would shoot up, not to mention the gaugeable incidence of Jewish wife-stealing, drug smuggling and goatjacking.
66. jexster - 8/23/2002 10:46:41 AM
IzzieLand Braces for 'Raq Attaks If Boy Blunder Comes to Play in Arik's Big Sandbox
67. jexster - 8/23/2002 10:55:54 AM
In the "World's Interest"? In America's Interest? In Israel's Interest? Or in Sharon's Interest and in the Interest of Horny Little Ando?
During the Gulf War, the United States pressured Israel to remain out of the fight, even though Iraq launched 39 Scud missiles at Israel, for fear of losing the support of Arab allies in the military coalition against Iraq. But Israeli officials say that rationale does not apply this time because the United States is unlikely to line up an Arab coalition for an attack against Iraq.
"I don't think America will ask us to hold our fire this time," said a senior adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "America understands there is no real need for a wall-to-wall coalition because it will never have the support of the Arab world for an attack on Iraq."
RESISTANCE IS FUTILE
68. jexster - 8/23/2002 10:58:12 AM
"This whole gas mask thing is like giving aspirin to somebody who is suffering from a terminal disease,"
Hey RP..howza bout a picuture of you in your new gas mask?
69. jexster - 8/23/2002 11:01:14 AM
Blunder Boi Bumbles On:US Poll Shows Support for Big Adventure Dropping, Zan Klan Buys Gas Masks
70. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 11:32:16 AM
I agree with the guy who said that and I don't have a gas mask.
I have gas, but no mask.
Katzir is high up on a mountain, surrounded by a sea of Arab villages. Anything that kills us would kill tens of thousands of Arabs too. I'll be in my IDF uniform with my M-16 in hand, provided the current bid by my judge to have me taken out of the unit fails. Then again, even if I'm not removed, I may not have my M-16 in hand, because the roads may be blocked by Ahmed Tibi's Arabs once the shit starts falling, and I may not be able to get to the base. In which case Katzir will be cut off and a horde from Barta'a may try to converge upon us.
Hmmmm.
Maybe I better buy me an illegal weapon, just to be on the safe side?
It's an option, I guess.
Eh, but the way things look now, the war won't start until Sharon decides to start it.
71. jexster - 8/23/2002 11:34:17 AM
As King Blunder Boi scrambles to back away from IraK AttaK, the Los Angeles Times asks Did The Idiot Cause Iraq "Frenzy"? in the first place.
Complete with Chronology of Incompetence
72. jexster - 8/23/2002 11:39:58 AM
Oh you mean your guests bring masks when they drop by...
I bet Zan has a mask
73. jexster - 8/23/2002 11:42:09 AM
You can pretend to listen to Henry Kissinger all you like, but you're simply spouting stupid Brezinskiisms
Hell witch I have QUOTED the man, spoon fed the import of his comments to you and this is all you can manage as return fire?
Whore for Israel that's all you are; all you ever have been, and likely all you ever will be
74. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:08:18 PM
OK Jexster, you're getting on my nerves now. Enough posting for one day. Go away.
75. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:12:39 PM
Mark Steyn in 'The Spectator':
The other day, the National Education Association — i.e., the teachers’ union —announced their plans for the anniversary of 11 September: an attractive series of lessons and projects augmented by public TV documentaries and sponsored by Johnson & Johnson. From the company’s point of view, the sponsorship makes perfect sense: many of us have already gone out and bought a couple of extra crates of Johnson’s Baby Lotion, Extra-Strength Tylenol, etc., to deal with the blinding headaches and intense rectal irritation brought on merely by reading the NEA’s advance literature. And, funnily enough, once you’ve chugged down a few dozen pills and the soothing Johnson & Johnson unguents are caressing one’s pores, the peculiar emphases of the union’s 9/11 curriculum seem to pass through painlessly.
Can someone characterize the Brit papers for me: Spectator, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent - who's on left, who's on right, who's tabloid?
76. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:13:25 PM
Published in Arabia.com, believe it or not.
77. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:22:34 PM
I will add Arabia.com to the Parkay bar post-haste.
This is also from their 'Cartoonopia' section: 
78. marjoribanks - 8/23/2002 12:25:39 PM
Guardian=Left
Telegraph (aka Torygraph): Right
Independent: Centrist
Times: Murdoch
Mirror/Sun/Mail/Evening Standard (70% of the papers sold in the UK) : tabloid junk
79. jexster - 8/23/2002 12:31:04 PM
80. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:35:43 PM
Jexs:
The Gay Area reps interest my butt, as the Israeliism goes.
81. marjoribanks - 8/23/2002 12:37:49 PM
Oh yes, the Spectator is a conservative, right-leaning weekly. It's balanced somewhat by the left-leaning weekly, The New Statesman.
82. marjoribanks - 8/23/2002 12:39:06 PM
The Independent isn't truly centrist, like the Financial Times is on its political pages and in its op-eds. Within the UK spectrum, therefore, I re-characterize it as liberal, left-leaning.
83. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:39:34 PM
One more from Cartoonopia.
Too bad only some of them have English captions.
84. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:41:48 PM
Thanks, marj.
I may ask you to remind me every few months. I forget this stuff. But it'll sink in eventually.
Basically, the rule of thumb is that the papers go from left to right alphabetically, though, yes?
85. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:48:22 PM
New links on the Parkay bar: Cartoonopia and littlegreenfootballs, a blog by a couple of politically minded (Jewish?) web designer brothers.
86. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:51:48 PM
Nope, they don't seem Jewish at all. And they're called Johnson. 
87. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 12:53:26 PM
Michael's a ballet dancer.
88. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 1:07:44 PM
Kahil is good! 
89. marjoribanks - 8/23/2002 1:09:25 PM
Spike,
Today you have asked questions, one of me directly. I have responded in full to these queries.
Where is my fulsome thanks? Where, Spike, are your manners?
90. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 2:20:03 PM
marj:
Does your browser not support posts numbered 12883?
91. RustlerPike - 8/23/2002 2:22:03 PM
Also, I've inducted a post of yours into the Hall of Fame and I've recommended you as an assistant in the proposed WoR thread. Is this not enough for you, you thuggee?
92. concerned - 8/23/2002 4:28:32 PM
Wrt Kahil, I recall looking over some of his cartoons a few months ago, and I wouldn't imagine that RP would be very pleased with most of those.
93. jexster - 8/23/2002 7:02:04 PM
Editors (The New Sun Tzu's at TNR):
In your September 2nd editorial, you defend Bush's plans for waging preemptive war against Iraq on the sole basis that Iraq used chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurds some 15 year ago. For a war to have the "moral" justification you claim, five criteria must be met simultaneously. TNR's purported justification meets not a single one.
The criteria are for just war are:
94. jexster - 8/23/2002 7:14:09 PM
JustWar Theory - Stanford University On-line Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
95. jexster - 8/23/2002 7:26:40 PM
Just war theory insists all six criteria (some see 5, some 7) must each be fulfilled for a particular declaration of war to be justified: it's all or no justification, so to speak. I
t is important to note that the first three of these six rules are what we might call deontological requirements, otherwise known as duty-based requirements or first-principle requirements. For a war to be just, some core duty must be violated: in this case, the duty not to commit aggression. A war in punishment of this violated duty must itself respect further duties: it must be appropriately motivated, and must be publicly declared by (only) the proper authority for doing so. The next three requirements are consequentialist: given that these first principle requirements have been met, we must also consider the expected consequences of launching a war which seems justified according to first principles.
Thus, just war theory attempts to provide a common sensical combination of both deontology and consequentialism as applied to the issue of war.
96. RustlerPike - 8/24/2002 1:06:05 AM
Jexster:
Kindly limit your posts to 15 per day.
You're at 20% of your quota at present.
97. RustlerPike - 8/24/2002 3:55:52 PM
Waht is it about these doctors named Goldstein?
98. jexster - 8/25/2002 1:05:01 PM
I'll try RP.
From Todays NyT Op-Ed
Boy Blunder Get Nuther Big Behine Whuppin :
The Right Way to Change a Regime
By JAMES A. BAKER III
wherein Consiglierie to the House of Bush and Director General of the Great Election Theft says Boy Bush is one fucked up incompetent little shit.
99. jexster - 8/25/2002 4:05:35 PM
The UN option at least Baker sketches is from a political and strategic standpoint, a vast improvement over Bush's Macho Talk, Swishy Walk, and Costly Stumbles, but the question remains, would such a war, otherwise illicit, be made just one simply because the UN blessed it and a dozen nations waged it?
100. jexster - 8/25/2002 7:11:15 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Amid an intensifying debate over whether the United States should attack Iraq, former Secretary of State James Baker won early support on Sunday for suggesting the United Nations ( news - web sites) send in weapons inspectors backed by the threat of force.
Reuters Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
Baker, writing an opinion piece in The New York Times, was the latest in a series of public figures and former U.S. officials voicing reservations about unilateral U.S. military action to topple Saddam Hussein ( news - web sites) as President Bush ( news - web sites) pushes for "regime change" in Baghdad.
The former secretary of state, who helped Bush's father craft the international coalition behind the 1991 Gulf War ( news - web sites), said the United States should first approach the United Nations for a final resolution authorizing weapons inspections in Iraq at any time, backed by the threat of the force.
"Seeking new authorization now is necessary, politically and practically, and will help build international support," Baker wrote.
Baker's proposal for intrusive U.N. inspections as a way to justify military action against Baghdad won swift bipartisan backing from the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, and Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican. Both appeared on CBS' "Face the Nation" program.
"By going to the United Nations, making the request, even if it results in Iraq stonewalling it, would move us into the moral high ground in appealing to our allies for their collaboration and gaining the support of the world for whatever form of action we end up taking against Iraq," Graham said.
Specter agreed. "Before we use military force, we ought to try all of the alternatives: economic sanctions, diplomacy, inspections."
101. jexster - 8/25/2002 11:50:43 PM
LET's ROLL JOEZ! And let's see who rolls with you morons.
Idiot Savants in the Court of King Boy Blunder - HOLY SAND DUNES Batman - Richard Perle
Washington's faceful bureaucrat
Maybe Sickles should sign up with that Rummy crew of dolts and macho men....fit right in!
Better be quick for
Iraq pushes to isolate Bush
Saddam Closes for the Kill
US History has rarely if ever witnessed such colossal incompetence in the Executive Branch,
In the Name of Allah and His Prophet (HIS NAME BE PRAISED!), DEATH TO TEXUS for dumpin their trash on the rest of us. 
102. jexster - 8/26/2002 12:12:02 PM
I think Our Very Own Jewish American Princess oughta be comfort girl to the GOP Whip...we'll call her a gift from Israel
Iraq & The Nine Other Countries TD Would Invade
103. RustlerPike - 8/26/2002 2:49:42 PM
Ahem.
104. RustlerPike - 8/26/2002 2:50:28 PM
Ahem.
105. RustlerPike - 8/26/2002 11:40:20 PM
Ahem-hem.
106. RustlerPike - 8/27/2002 3:03:37 AM
marj:
Are you being a meanie towards concerned?
107. jexster - 8/27/2002 11:40:33 AM
San Francisco, Calif.: 1. An article today recounted a dispute among your colleagues concerning the possible outcomes of urban warfare with Gen Hoak being decidedly pessimistic (realistic?). Question, how effective can U.S. tactics of "a synergy of violence and speed" be in urban fighting?
2. How might this be different from the experience of the last violently swift force to try, the German 6th Army?
Gen. Bernard Trainor: Urban warfare is ghastly. Nobody wants another Stalingrad or Grozney. The defat of the Iraqi army in the field could reduce the need to fight in the cities. As Mao did in China in 1949, he took the countryside and the Nationalists holed up in the cities facing the communists and a hostile population became discouraged and gave in. We saw the same thing in Kurst in Afghanistan.
Jeximan The Magnificent aka Commander Baba Jex and Gen. Bernard E. Trainor (USMC Ret)
Adjunct Senior Fellow,
Council on Foreign Relations
108. jexster - 8/27/2002 11:49:03 AM
Experience:
Associate, Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government (1996-present); Military Analyst, NBC News (1993-present); Director, National Security Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government (199096); Military Analyst, ABC News (1990-91); Military Correspondent, New York Times (1986-90); career in the Marine Corps, retiring as Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, Policies and Operations and Marine Corps Deputy to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1951-85).
Selected publications:
The Generals' War, (co-author 1995); After the Storm (1993).
Honors:
Presidential Commission of Roles and Missions; Member, International Institute of Strategic Studies; Member of the Board of Visitors, Air Force Academy; Member of the Board of Directors, World Affairs Council; Member of the Editorial Board, Joint Force Quarterly; Editorial Advisor, Naval War College Review; Advisor, Center for Naval Analysis.
Education:
Distinguished Graduate, Air War College
M.A., University of Colorado
B.A., Holy Cross
109. jexster - 8/27/2002 11:51:07 AM
you can give your soul to Jessus but your ass belongs to the Corps...one for the Commandant...one for the Corps
110. jexster - 8/27/2002 11:52:15 AM
where's my J.A.p?
111. jexster - 8/27/2002 12:04:53 PM
BOY BLUNDER CHRONICLES: General Anthony Zinni [USMC]- re: Attack on Iraq One Stoopid Idea
Joining Gen Joseph Hoar [USMC -ret] former Cmndr Central Command
112. jexster - 8/27/2002 12:08:29 PM
Zinni derided the plan as ``Bay of Goats,'' a sarcastic reference to the failed U.S.- backed invasion by Cuban exiles at the Bay of Pigs in 1961.
113. concerned - 8/27/2002 12:55:00 PM
jexster - honorary Muslim.
114. jexster - 8/27/2002 1:05:38 PM
Cows are dying, buzzards are flying
TDashole- bugle boy to the Boy Blunder WarLord
Iraq Moves to Isolate the Imbecile
"George W. Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position, an invasion of Iraq, from which he cannot extract himself and which will have nothing but negative consequences, for everyone but first of all for the United States. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. He will diminish rather rapidly the already declining power of the United States in the world. He will contribute dramatically to the destruction of the state of Israel by furthering the suicidal madness of the Israeli hawks. Of course, there will be many persons in the world who will be happy to see such negative consequences. The trouble is that, in the process, Bush will conduct warfare that will destroy many lives immediately, lead to a degree of turmoil in the Arab-Islamic world of a kind and at a level hitherto unimagined,"
115. jexster - 8/27/2002 1:07:07 PM
One for the Commandant, one for the Corps!
116. RustlerPike - 8/27/2002 4:06:40 PM
Jexs:
7 more posts and you reach your quota. Carry on.
117. jexster - 8/27/2002 4:47:09 PM
Affirmative.
URGENT MESSAGE FROM STARFLEET FOR RONSKI
118. jexster - 8/27/2002 4:50:55 PM
and lastly an email from my good buddy - Bernie Trainor
My gift to the IDF's premiere reservist!
----- Original Message -----
From: MC151rvn@aol.com
To: jex2@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: Live Chat 8/26/02 - Washington Post - Thank You
Thank you for the nice note and the reference. Urban warfare is indeed grim. Since WWII, we have only had to do it twice, when the Marines captured Seoul in Sept. 1950 during the Korean war and again when the Marines liberated Hue during the Vietnamese Tet offensive of 1968. Both caused terrible casualties and I personally lost five good friends between the two actions. Hopefully that will be avoided if we go into Iraq. Here is an excerpt on a strategy for Iraq from an OPED I just submitted to the Washington Post. I don't know yet whether they plan on publishing it.
By concentrating air power on the Iraqi military in the field, and not on Iraq's infrastructure as was the case in the Gulf war, civilian casualties would be minimized. However, it would probably force retreating military units loyal to Saddam Hussein to fall back on the cities, where American power would be less effective. Fighting in cities is a nasty business accompanied by terrible casualties all around to say nothing of the destruction wrought. This may be Saddam's plan as there are reports that the Iraqis are digging trenches and erecting fortifications around urban centers. But, historically, when a regime's army is defeated in the field and loses control of the countryside cities don't long hold out. This was the Chinese communist experience in 1949 when it defeated Chiang Kai-shek. When it becomes clear to Iraqi troops holed up in Baghdad that defeat is in! evitable, defections and surrender become more likely. This is particularly true if the populace welcomes the attackers as was the case in Afghanistan.
119. jexster - 8/27/2002 9:18:58 PM
Pat Buchanan writes: "the GOP establishment is beginning to split over the issue of war on Iraq. Majority Leader Dick Armey was the first to speak out against it, followed by Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Bush I. An attack on Iraq now, says Scowcroft, would 'jeopardize, if not destroy (our) global counter-terrorist campaign.' It could cause Saddam to launch weapons of mass destruction at Israel, provoking Israeli nuclear retaliation, igniting Armageddon. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf concurs...When Bush returns from Crawford, Texas, in September, he is going to face a hellish situation. With Armey, Scowcroft, and now ex-Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger, Sen. Chuck Hagel and Jack Kemp deserting the War Party, Democrats have all the political cover needed to oppose the president's pre-emptive war...If the president [sic] and War Cabinet are still committed to pre-emptive war, they will have to make a far more compelling case to the country and Congress."
Send in the reserves RP...send in the J.A.P brigades, your team is losing big time
120. jexster - 8/27/2002 10:02:42 PM
Last one RP..if you look closely you can see the Ando's First JAP Brigade
And you said I was afraid Bush would what..come again? And what was that Yiddism about your Butt and the Bay Area congressional delegation? Come again?
Its no surprise to me that the NATO allies are bailing on Bush. They know that he's headed for disaster
Lawrence Eagleburger 
121. joezan - 8/27/2002 10:28:17 PM
(Yawn)
The invasion of Iraq is inevitable, jex.
You can post all the retarded Oliphant cartoons you please, but it will happen.
Deal with it.
122. ronski - 8/27/2002 10:37:57 PM
jexster,
And you don't honestly think I am going to bother opening that, do you?
123. RustlerPike - 8/27/2002 11:30:03 PM
Why do the three guys on the right in that cartoon have mustaches?
Were there many Mexican officers in the Union Army?
Or is this Oliphant's way of saying 'macho, non PC people'?
124. RustlerPike - 8/27/2002 11:31:57 PM
I admit there were a lot of mustachioed Americans back then, too, but those three look more Mexican than American.
Anyhow...
125. joezan - 8/27/2002 11:54:49 PM
...those three look more Mexican than American.
You're right, Pike.
In fact, that middle mustachioed guy looks just like Eli Wallach.
126. joezan - 8/28/2002 12:05:57 AM
In fact, he should probably be saying, Allies? We dun nid no steenking allies!"
127. RustlerPike - 8/28/2002 1:01:31 AM
You know, it's not fair that only certain threads get nudie pics, while others have to make do with pixellated pics of Jexster's aging e-pals.
This woman is called Tuesday Weld and she was once married to Dudley Moore.
128. RustlerPike - 8/28/2002 1:05:56 AM
You know, it's not fair that only certain threads get nudie pics, while others have to make do with pixellated pics of Jexster's aging e-pals.
This woman is called Tuesday Weld and she was once married to Dudley Moore.
129. RustlerPike - 8/28/2002 1:07:15 AM
I got the error message so I reposted. So now you see Tuesday twice. I don't figure anyone will be suing over that.
131. RustlerPike - 8/28/2002 12:45:20 PM
She thought she could get away from me.
132. jexster - 8/28/2002 1:58:06 PM
Saddam Moves to Isolate Bush: War to Make Boi Blunder Believable Under Attack from US Friends & Foes Alike
Let's roll?
Let's send in the JAP Brigades
133. jexster - 8/28/2002 2:01:39 PM
Jexster's aging e-pals.
Gunnery Sergeant Jexster, Drill Instructor: Who said that? Who the fuck said that? Who's the slimy little communist shit, tinkle-toed cocksucker down here who just signed his own death warrant? Nobody, huh?! The fairy fucking godmother said it! Out-fucking-standing! I will PT you all until you fucking die! I'll PT you until your assholes are sucking buttermilk. (grabs private Pike) Was it you, you scroungy little fuck, huh?
Private Pike: Sir No Sir!
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, Drill Instructor: You little piece of shit you look like a fucking worm, I bet it was you!
134. jexster - 8/28/2002 2:05:14 PM
135. RustlerPike - 8/29/2002 11:13:30 AM
I'll PT you until your assholes are sucking buttermilk. (grabs private Pike) Was it you, you scroungy little fuck, huh?
No man grabs my privates and lives.
Besides, I'm a first sergeant.
136. PelleNilsson - 8/29/2002 12:14:14 PM
Your privates were discussed, recently, in the Café. You shoul really get out more instead of sulking in your hut.
137. RustlerPike - 8/29/2002 1:48:55 PM
Pelle:
I saw that, but I figured I'd let my privates deal with it in a private manner, as they saw fit.
138. RustlerPike - 8/29/2002 1:59:50 PM
Pelle:
Some rabid anti-femmie Israeli guy (more rabid than me, if you can believe that) claims that feminism in Sweden is so bad that women have their own, less expensive public transportation and men are not allowed to pee standing up.
Do you have any idea where he is getting these stories from?
139. PelleNilsson - 8/29/2002 2:03:46 PM
Fine, mature, manly thinking, First Sergeant. BTW, I am (i.e. was) an artillery captain. How's that for oneupmanship?
140. concerned - 8/29/2002 3:34:12 PM
RP -
I'm waiting for the women to start using the urinals in Sweden, since the stalls will be occupied by men. That'll prove that they've reached sexual equality.
141. RustlerPike - 8/29/2002 4:23:46 PM
Well, I just feel like crying. My monster wife is holding a birthday party for my daughter and nobody even told me about it.
142. judithathome - 8/29/2002 4:48:16 PM
My husband's ex did that to him with his son. He just called his son and said he was sorry he missed the party but wanted to take him someplace special for dinner and to buy him a special present afterward. What he didn't do was tell the kid what a shit his mother was for excluding him from the party...it's not the kids fault and they shouldn't be made to feel thay are the the cause of bad feelings between the parents.
I know you tend to think I'm siding with your ex but I'm not; just giving you the benefit of having been there and seen what works out best IN THE END. Don't give in to a momentary feeling of rage that could ruin what comes after. It isn't worth it.
143. RustlerPike - 8/29/2002 5:17:43 PM
Yes, well, thank you for sharing that, Judith. Men should never give in to their momentary rage, should they? That's an all-female prerogative.
Well I will give into my rage, and unless that party is called off, I'm crashing it. And don't answer me either, Judith, I'm fuming right now. Respect that. Believe me - although I know you want to lecture me and make me feel even angrier than I already am, don't. You'll feel better IN THE END. Believe me - I've been there.
As for the urinal affair - the guy seems to be right.
UnbefuckingLIEVEable.
WOMEN VICTIMIZED BY URINALS. A women's anti-urinal movement in Sweden, Germany and Australia is partly based on the idea that males who stand up to urinate are committing "a nasty macho gesture" suggestive of violence toward women. The U.S. Navy stumbled into this argument by announcing that it is thinking of replacing urinals on its ships with stainless-steel toilets. Feeling victimized by criticism, Rear Admiral S.R. Pietropaoli wrote a testy letter to the Washington Times saying that plans to remove "trouble-plagued urinals" have "nothing to do with gender."
And this, too.
Save the Urinals
Ed T. Barron, edtb@aol.com
Some feminist groups here in the U.S. and overseas are campaigning to have urinals removed from men's rest rooms. The rationale is that, because men can aim and women can't, this is degrading to women. At the University of Stockholm, in Sweden, urinals are being removed from men's rest rooms in response to these feminists.
This appears to be something that was going on a year or two ago.
144. RustlerPike - 8/29/2002 5:18:47 PM
This is way too much.
Women most definitely suck.
145. PelleNilsson - 8/30/2002 2:04:52 AM
This has all the hallmarks of an urban legend. It probably has its origin in some paper spoofing the feminists, which was picked up by the irony-impaired. I can say this with some confidence since I use the urinals at Stockholm University on an almost daily basis.
146. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 5:35:26 AM
You chauvinist pig!
I hope you use them sitting down!
147. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 5:43:53 AM
Scandinavian toilets are just different enough to be strikingly weird. The bowl shaft is longer and narrower than that of american pottery; not that the nordic toilets are taller, but the base porcelain allows a greater distance for doo drop.
The net effect, corroborated by at least two swedes, is that often shits will splash. Svante says that's cuz I'm an amateur, but I don't think one should have to wiggle and target the output of one's arse to hit the slopes and not the deadly dampening depths below.
(...) 
On the other hand Swedish urinals are brilliant for their beauty... These urinals are a vision of simplicity in parabolic curvature. The urinals glide out of the wall like pods for pee: something simple, streamlined, and Star Wars, all at the same time.
(click pic)
148. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 5:46:36 AM
Arlanda Airport urinal: 
149. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 6:35:41 AM
A proposed law in Sweden wants wall urinals banned in men's restrooms because for a male to stand is a symbol of male dominance - an outgrowth of sexual harassment legislation in America. This proposal is illustrative of the irrational pettiness to which 'female victimization' can and does sink.
I'm adding dadi.org to the SWoM links. Good stuff there.
150. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 6:38:42 AM
Ummm - where are my SWoM links?
151. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 6:53:28 AM
Has there always been a maximum number of links in the Parkay bar or is this a new thing?
152. joezan - 8/30/2002 7:15:18 AM
What is it with Swedes and pee anyway?
Wasn't it Sweden where this new pee funnel, which allows women to use urinals, was recently invented and met with a great feminine chorus of hallelujahs?
153. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 7:27:18 AM
Swedes would appear to be particularly wussy.
Pelle? Your input?
154. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 7:43:23 AM
This is not bad.
Some restrooms have little partitions between urinals, but on the whole I'd say 95% don't. There's really no privacy, and as bad as it is for women to have to sit on disgusting toilet seats, at least you can close the stall door and enjoy the billions of wriggling germs in relative solitude.
Just try doing your business with someone next to you. I mean, right next to you. I don't really like brushing elbows with complete strangers anywhere, least of all in a bathroom. Not to mention: Guys are weird, especially when they relieve themselves, and there are a few categories they fall into.
The Chatters: I know, people love to talk, but c'mon, man, I've got my dick in my hand, here. And so do you. Do we really need to talk about the traffic or sports or the memo you just got? It's somehow even more disconcerting when you actually know the person, I find.
Chatters don't just talk to people in the bathroom anymore, however, thanks again to technology. In the past year I've pissed next to several guys who were busy chatting away into cellphones. It's still pretty distasteful, but at least I don't have to keep up my end of the conversation.
The Grunters: I guess maybe these guys have prostate problems, or something, but there's a lot of grunting going on in the bathroom, and it's a little disturbing. I know there are masturbation jokes to be had here, but I'll just skip to the sound effects, as if that is somehow better. Basically, you get:
*UNZIP*
(pause... pause... pause...)
*GRUNT* TINKLETINKLETINKLETinkletinkletinkletinkletinkletinkle...
*teenk*
*tik*
*GRUNT*TINKLETINKLETINKLE...
This goes on for a long, long while. Weird, whatever it is.
>>>
155. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 7:44:25 AM
>>>
The Farters: I know, I know, the bathroom is the place for it, but sheez, these guys must be storing it up for week beforehand, because it sounds like the Titanic leaving port.
Please, keep in mind, while the activities of said gentlemen are occurring, they are standing less than four inches away from me. Okay, ladies? That stall looking a little better to you now? I thought so.
In closing, let me just say that, yes, I'm aware of the device you can order online, that looks like a little funnel thing and allows women to pee standing up. So, no need to forward the link to me. And women, I'd think twice before ordering one for yourself. Might not be worth it.
156. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 7:50:57 AM
Guys, read this, will you? It's funny as shit. Is this C. Thomas Howell guy real? Was he really in The Outsiders?
Funny shit.
157. PelleNilsson - 8/30/2002 1:22:50 PM
Wasn't it Sweden where this new pee funnel, which allows women to use urinals, was recently invented and met with a great feminine chorus of hallelujahs?
Never heard of it.
< dour>
On the other hand, it seems we have finally hit on a subject that manages to engage the feeble powers of what some might call, charitably, your intellect.
< /dour>
158. joezan - 8/30/2002 1:31:27 PM
Pelle:
Then you must not be paying much attention, there in the loo at the University of Stockholm.
159. wabbit - 8/30/2002 2:14:29 PM
I've recreated this thread in hopes that this past week's error message problem will be alleviated. Please see Message # 4064 in thread 27. The same has been done here.
160. PelleNilsson - 8/30/2002 2:21:03 PM
Joe
It's ineteresting that you know more than me about the loos at Stockholm University.
Teleportation?
161. RustlerPike - 8/30/2002 3:38:23 PM
Watch it, Pelle. Joe has sacred status in this thread.
Joe: 'loo'?
Let's do this: there was a femmie campaign to remove the urinals at Stockholm U. It failed to remove the urinals, but it got half the world talking about it, which is good for the femmies because they like to strike fear into our hearts and make us think there is nowhere where we can just be guys. Femmies like to insert themselves anywhere guys group, to prevent any kind of male bonding and report to their sistern about any worrying trends. They can't be physically present in the public toilets, so they insert themselves through obscenely ridiculous ideas they float in the media. Since urinals are a sort of homage to the coolness of being male, urinals must go. This is especially true of military toilets: the army is the classic male bonding site, and women make sure to have at least one woman present in every possible unit, at every possible moment.
The reason the Israeli femmie scene is in such a huff right now is that men are getting called up for reserve service, and the women can't be present in the places where the army is now, because it's too scary, and women don't do reserve duty, not even for the femmunist cause (after all, they do the world a favor when they even agree to serve their shortened term in regular army service. About 40% of them don't even do that). They have infiltrated the standing army quite thoroughly, including the Air Force, but the reserve grunt units patrolling in the Territories are impenetrable.
So now Israeli femmunism is in deep shit, and losing ground daily, thanks to Yasir Arafat and Saddam Hussein.
162. jexster - 8/30/2002 5:44:14 PM
First Sergeant Pike, I will gouge out your eyes and skull fuck you so you can see me feed your privates to Ando and Pack of Wild JAPS.
163. jexster - 8/30/2002 10:14:36 PM
Jerusalem -- A series of provocative and clearly political remarks by top military figures has spurred anxiety among left-leaning Israelis that a new generation of military leaders is wading into waters where it does not belong.
Chief of staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon described Palestinian militants earlier this week as a "cancer-like" threat that must be defeated at all costs.
Speaking before a rabbinical assembly Sunday, Ya'alon blamed Palestinian leaders for fomenting violence against Israelis and said they are "not prepared to recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state."
Just a few days earlier, air force chief Maj. Gen. Dan Halutz stepped into a raging political debate over the army's dropping of a 1-ton bomb in a residential neighborhood of Gaza, defending the strategy as "militarily and morally" proper.
The attack killed 14 civilians -- nine of them children -- as well as its intended target, Hamas leader Salah Shehadah.
IsraelitesDefendingFascism IDF todays force for the political freaked, morally weak, the 21st century IzzieNazi
164. jexster - 8/30/2002 11:09:58 PM
Pelle's was right to spurn the Affrikaner/Israeli analogy.
The Afrikkaner apartheid was not as violently oppressive. The Affrikaner was not an occupier rather was a segregationist not an eliminationist. The colored had limited rights physical segregation, and was a fellow citizen in South Africa and the state's goal was to perserve that special status. The PAL has no guarantee of rights, status or place. What the PAL has now is simply the remainder left over after yesterday's theft available for tommorrow's. The Israeli occupation is implicitly radical, impermanent, elminationist. Apartheid was conservative, permanent, and preservationist.
And as b4, the ANC was more radical, better organized, more powerful, more violent, politically more extreme than te PLO.
165. RustlerPike - 8/31/2002 3:37:05 AM
As usual, jexster, your analysis of the Mideast situation is succinct and spot-on, leaving nothing out of the picture.
There are 22 Jewish countries in the Middle East, and only one for the Arabs (Palestine). Yet the Jews won't even let the Arabs have that, the fuckers. They want to shove a Jewish country west of the Jordan down the Arabs' throats and demand that the Arabs "respect democracy" in their tiny country, when they themselves respect only autocracy, racism, militarism, violent religious fanaticism and criminal state-funded sadistic atrocity campaigns, featuring "martyrdom operations" like causing huge office buildings to burn and collapse on their occupants.
Skull-fuck the Jews, I say!
166. RustlerPike - 8/31/2002 3:39:35 AM
Let me say this: there were 3,000 dead in the World Trade Center, and there are about 600 Israelis dead in the current terror war. There won't begin to be a sense of normalcy and justice in the world until there are at least 100 Arab deaths for every Israeli and American one.
167. RustlerPike - 8/31/2002 11:51:02 AM
It strikes me that PelleNilsson is quite easily rearranged as PenislesLlon.
Whereas, if I spell it PelleNissson (which is as good a spelling as any), I get PenislessLon - which is what I was aiming at, of course.
I'm sure that'll get me some brownie points with the Triumvires, eh?
168. RustlerPike - 8/31/2002 12:17:26 PM
Ah, what the hell.
PenisLessOne.
169. RustlerPike - 8/31/2002 12:17:54 PM
PenislessOne?
170. LadyChaos - 8/31/2002 7:34:39 PM
Just War Theory... blah-blah-blah...
Saddam Hussein has never complied with the cease fire agreement that his generals signed at the end of the Gulf War. GWB has all the international law he needs to justify going in and smacking the guy around.
Nobody should ever have to buy the same horse, twice.
171. Al D - 8/31/2002 8:30:36 PM
I spent a couple of hours listening to an Islamic group explaining Jihad. There were four speakers; the only names I remember are Tireq Ramadan and Jackson, who had an Arabic first name. The first speaker assured all that Islam is a religion of peace, but peace must be with justice:no justice, no peace, no justice, no peace. I was worried they all might run out and start looting Korean shops. He never got around to saying exactly what "justice" he would settle for.
The last speaker came to Islam from his jail cell, and was rescued from sin by Allah. Some get saved by Islam, some by Jesus, but many don't stay saved once they get our unless they can make a career out of it. He talked about his slave ancestors. He could have made a shorter speech. You white motherfuckers made slaves of my kin and I'll get your white ass for sure.
They were all very interesting.
172. Al D - 8/31/2002 8:31:46 PM
LC
I don't come here often, so you might be here a lot, but it sure good to see you and hope is all well with you.
173. RustlerPike - 9/1/2002 12:44:31 AM
Al:
What exactly was the venue for these speeches?
174. Edmund Dantes - 9/1/2002 10:20:17 PM
Palestinians kill teenaged girl for "collaboration"
18-year-old Rajah Ibrahim was the second female in a week to be killed by members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, who are affiliated with Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. The first was her aunt, a mother of three.
175. RickNelson - 9/2/2002 8:59:10 AM
Al, can you give the name of that group to a local tv news affiliate who can do one of those investigative reports? We've two such choices to call if there is something we want to report. They chose to or not, but trying is Ok.
176. jexster - 9/2/2002 9:47:17 AM
From the BBC, This is the World Service
The Stoopid Questions, Stoopid People Show
First we go to today's guest Colin Powell with the Stoopid Question of the Hour...
"Iraq has been in violation of many U.N. resolutions for most of the last 11 or so years. And so, as a first step, let's see what the inspectors find. Send them back in. Why are they being kept out?"
For an answer we take you to Baghdad and Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Assiz calling Baghdad, come in
Baghdad...
"It's a non-starter because it's not going to bring about a conclusion. Is the return of inspection going to stop the American attack on Iraq? There are doubts about that. I have here the number of statements by high-ranking American officials telling that with or without the inspectors."
Thank you very much Mr. Foreign Minister. We appreciate you appearing on our show in such difficult circumstances.
What with Boi Blunder Bumble Bombs dropping on Baghdad and your responibilities in "Operation Cut the Idiot's Balls Off and Feed Em to Cheney" you must be quite busy.
"Pleasuably busy. Why, to paraphrase one of your charming metaphors, its been like stealin camels from a baby at a whadi"
Now that was one DUMB question eh JoeyZ?
177. joezan - 9/2/2002 9:54:54 AM
Yeah, jex - real dumb.
What about 4 years ago, when the inspectors were kicked out?
What about all this time since, when all Iraq had to do to comply with UN sanctions and prevent "millions of Iraqis starving", and get everyone off their backs, was allow inspectors back in, when they weren't being threatened with attack?
178. jexster - 9/2/2002 10:01:00 AM
If ya got a problem with the present Strongman of the Fertile Crescent, just wait...a new more terrifying model is now being trained at the Institute for Care of the Mentally Infirm in Crawford Texus
179. jexster - 9/2/2002 11:50:17 AM
What about 4 years ago, when the inspectors were kicked out?
They weren't "keicked out". Richard Butler ordered them out because of the bombing.
Here are a few "what abouts" for you?
- What about some evidence that Saddam has nuclear weapons of mass destruction?
- What about some evidence that he has chem-bio weapons that are usable?
- What about some evidence that he can deliver as much as a pipe bomb to Basra?
-What about all these complainst NOW about weapons that were last used in the 1980's with tactic approval from Rumsfeld?
- What about the chicken hawk's apologia for death and destruction "Saddam is now so weak that he can't find tred replacements for his rusting tanks?
- What about the of all the countries that, face imminent and grave danger (according to Cheney), not a single one supports Bush's Big Bumble?
- What about the fact that every such country opposes the Regime's adventurism?
And HOW ABOUT a little less bombastic bushshit?
180. jexster - 9/2/2002 11:53:47 AM
Dumb questions or dumb people?
181. RustlerPike - 9/2/2002 1:15:08 PM
If there is one thing I've had enough of, it's Arab spokesmen like Aziz or Erekat using Americanisms like 'non-starter' and 'endgame' and 'this is the politics of - '.
I mean really, if you hate America that much, why are you trying so hard to keep abreast and savvy?
182. PelleNilsson - 9/2/2002 1:55:39 PM
Haaretz story
Damascus has allowed some 150-200 Qaida operatives to settle in the Palestinian refugee camp Ein Hilwe near Sidon in Lebanon. The group, including senior commanders, arrived from Afghanistan through Damascus, Iran and directly to Lebanon. These Qaida operatives are responsible, among other things, for the latest outbreak of fighting inside the refugee camp, as part of their effort to take over the camp.
These details and others have lately been gathered by various intelligence services.
This looks like a planted leak which may or may not be true. Question: Why now?
183. jexster - 9/2/2002 7:40:03 PM
Operation Isolate the Imbecile: Iraq Presses Case, Victories Continue for Saddam
Regime's WarLord Confused in Crawford Returning to Washington
Pakistan shuns action against Iraq (02-Sep-02)
Pakistan will not join the United States in any military action against Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein, the country's president, General Pervez Musharraf has said. (CNN)
Musharraf Critical of Attack on Iraq (AP)
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, whose alliance with the U.S.-led campaign on terrorism was crucial to the war in Afghanistan, has warned that an American attack on Iraq would cause more turmoil in the Muslim world.
Russia warns against Iraq attack Russia says it will not support any U.S. military action against Iraq because it would only "complicate" attempts to resolve problems in the Middle East. Foreign minister blasts Bush for not presenting a single fact based argument to support claims that Iraq threatens US interests"
China declines to single out Pakistan and Iraq as special targets of its new regulations for missile technology exports (AP)
... require that missile technology exports be approved by government regulatory agencies and that exporters be registered.......Specific regions or countries, such as North Korea ( news - web sites), Pakistan and Iran — nations whose missile programs have concerned the United States —...
Iraq Continues Diplomatic Campaign (AP)
Negotiations can still avert a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, Iraq's vice president said as his country pressed ahead with its diplomatic campaign and the United States got more advice to proceed with caution.
184. jexster - 9/2/2002 7:40:17 PM
Muslims Keep Heat on U.S. as Europeans Warn Iraq (Reuters)
Muslims leaders kept a united front of pressure on Washington on Thursday to avert a strike against Iraq, saying it could unleash fresh turmoil in the Islamic world by widening a gulf between Muslims and the West.
China, India Decry Plan to Strike Iraq (Reuters)
China and India, the world's two most populous countries, stressed their opposition to the use of force against Iraq without mentioning the United States by name.
- Aug 28 7:33 AM ET
Mandela Criticizes U.S. on Iraq (AP)
Nelson Mandela said Monday that he is "appalled" by U.S. threats to attack Iraq and warned that Washington is "introducing chaos in international affairs." He said he had spoken with President Bush's father and Secretary of State Colin Powell
185. jexster - 9/2/2002 7:48:32 PM
PelleNilson, Captain of Artillery Troops, We - who are about to die so that all nations will believe in Our King and not scorn him - we salute you! 
186. jexster - 9/2/2002 7:49:06 PM
187. jexster - 9/2/2002 7:54:20 PM And you can cut your defense expenditure Pelle. You fella don't need those bitchin Leopard II tanks and death dealin Haubits 77's. King George will take care of you. 188. jexster - 9/2/2002 8:11:57 PM 189. jexster - 9/2/2002 8:35:47 PM And fear not JoeZ, its all in the mind..a question of mind over Moron ... of minding one's own bidniss...of what happens to the brain when you JUST SAY YES to cocaine and Arik 190. joezan - 9/2/2002 8:54:01 PM They weren't "keicked (sic) out". Richard Butler ordered them out because of the bombing. 191. jexster - 9/2/2002 9:40:59 PM Don't worry Joe, I will save you... 192. joezan - 9/2/2002 9:55:03 PM Don't bother, jex: 193. jexster - 9/2/2002 10:05:53 PM Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company 194. RustlerPike - 9/2/2002 10:14:21 PM Jexs: 195. joezan - 9/2/2002 10:18:16 PM Do you think we're idiots here, or are you really not aware that that was in November. Iraq officially expelled UNSCOM in December, refusing to let them back in to continue inspections. 196. RustlerPike - 9/2/2002 10:26:22 PM This looks like a planted leak which may or may not be true. Question: Why now? 197. RustlerPike - 9/2/2002 10:31:28 PM I donno, Joe, I think the point was that even when the inspectors were there, they were being misled continually. 198. jexster - 9/2/2002 10:42:05 PM No JoeZ I think you are a WarFrenzied Moron. 199. joezan - 9/2/2002 10:42:08 PM Whose point? 200. joezan - 9/2/2002 10:45:50 PM Anyway - wrt Syria: I think Pelle's question was a rhetorical one - he knows the deal. 207. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 12:44:39 AM Jexs is strangely silent. 208. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 12:46:09 AM I would have expected a six-post, boldfaced, untoy-picked-upped highly pixellated rant from old Jexs. 209. Andonly - 9/3/2002 12:58:48 AM Well, I'm glad someone else noticed that Schiff article in Haaretz today. I'd been wondering what the hell was up in Ein Hilwe--like, why would someone want to start trouble there just lately? I wondered whether it was because Arafat was appearing weaker and more than ever incapable of overcoming the old-man halitosis that every news photo confirms he must reek of. But a) Arafat has not actually been knocked off his steed yet, so I don't know why Pal "refugees" in Lebanon would bother getting all excited just yet, and b) surely Syria would have quickly constrained your garden-variety Pal uppityness in Lebanon. The al Qaida connection, if true, would make some sense. 210. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 2:40:54 AM Ando, 211. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 6:49:09 AM Ehhh, kids don't need moms. 212. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/3/2002 10:27:28 AM The good doctor believes this Pike wight lacks a single drop of Irish blood. 213. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 11:33:29 AM I will look up 'wight' when I get back from the grocery store. 214. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2002 11:37:32 AM He is calling you a creature. 215. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 11:46:09 AM Oh. 216. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 11:58:38 AM The thing that got me going was that I had been under the impression that the judge had given her final decisions on my matter, and that it was all over, at least until next spring, when my wife may start her ritual of saying she wants to move out of Katzir with the kids all over again. 217. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 12:03:55 PM I think I'll beat up the wife's lawyer. This is really going too far. What can I get? A person has got to slug people once in a while. He doesn't seem that strong. 224. Andonly - 9/3/2002 1:39:04 PM The Financial Times ran a fuckiung Gareth Smyth piece on the Schiff article this morning--or rather, a brief mention of the piece shorn of any specifics, followed by a tissue of raging Palestinian bloviation about how the US and Israel are conspiring to cut up the Arab world and Israeli claims about 200 al Qaeda in Ein Hilwe are all lies. (There are only 199, goddammit.) 227. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2002 2:25:06 PM Rustler 228. joezan - 9/3/2002 2:29:15 PM Well, whaddayaknow - at least on this point, the US is even more PC than Swedeland. 229. Andonly - 9/3/2002 2:45:10 PM Pike, I'm with the Swede on this: relentless jexstronism is a turnoff. Isn't there some Judaic proscription against spilling one's seed on the ground? 230. PelleNilsson - 9/3/2002 2:59:11 PM joe 231. ronski - 9/3/2002 3:12:55 PM A friend of a friend had a parakeet named Onan (because he spilled his seed). 232. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 3:13:24 PM Pelle: 233. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 3:16:32 PM (Ando: 234. RustlerPike - 9/3/2002 3:18:11 PM Jexster was over his daily quota anyways. 235. jexster - 9/3/2002 9:36:04 PM The Hon. Nancy Pelosi 236. jexster - 9/3/2002 9:37:48 PM 237. jexster - 9/3/2002 9:38:27 PM Bite me Pike....go suck some Sarin 238. jexster - 9/3/2002 9:45:25 PM So Zan, are you still legion? 239. ronski - 9/3/2002 10:38:19 PM jexster, 240. RustlerPike - 9/4/2002 12:19:10 AM OK, here's a funny thing (the funny part comes at the end): 241. RustlerPike - 9/4/2002 12:20:56 AM >>> 242. Andonly - 9/4/2002 12:41:01 AM R-"A friend of a friend had a parakeet named Onan (because he spilled his seed)." 243. RustlerPike - 9/4/2002 7:38:56 AM Yahweh actually presented me with that towel in my dream and commanded me to use it. 252. PelleNilsson - 9/4/2002 2:49:17 PM jexster 253. jexster - 9/5/2002 10:46:01 AM Move them where you'd PPickelhaube. As I am sure you know, I don't much care. But if Zan thinks he's going to get way with calling me a "pathetic liar" by hiding under his First Sgt's skirts... 254. jexster - 9/5/2002 10:49:52 AM Copyright 1998 Agence France Presse 255. jexster - 9/5/2002 10:50:36 AM 256. jexster - 9/5/2002 10:54:48 AM Wait til Bush puts the Zan Clan on the front lines of his War for Believability... 257. jexster - 9/5/2002 10:55:12 AM 207. RustlerPike - 9/3/02 5:44:39 AM 258. jexster - 9/5/2002 10:58:16 AM 259. jexster - 9/5/2002 11:12:12 AM In his interview is the second of a series in which national and world figures reflect on the terrorist attacks and their effect on a year of public life and policy. 260. joezan - 9/5/2002 11:20:39 AM (hee-heeeeee!!!) 261. jexster - 9/5/2002 11:57:37 AM Meet Gen Zinni Zan...a real "euroshit" if ever one there was... 262. jexster - 9/5/2002 1:45:09 PM Until we get those pics of the Zan Clan in gasks masking waiting to meet Jesus in the air on the banks of the River Jordan, we'll have to make do for yuks... 263. joezan - 9/5/2002 1:52:43 PM One from today's news - how much more do you need, jex? 264. jexster - 9/5/2002 2:23:43 PM You benighted bloodthirsty little imbecile... 265. jexster - 9/5/2002 2:24:57 PM 266. jexster - 9/5/2002 2:25:48 PM "What is your name?" 267. jexster - 9/5/2002 2:32:04 PM 177. joezan - 9/2/02 2:54:54 PM 268. jexster - 9/5/2002 2:32:48 PM Sound off like you got a pair asshole 269. jexster - 9/5/2002 3:28:44 PM CAIRO (Reuters) - Arab League chief Amr Moussa said Thursday a strike against Iraq would "open the gates of hell" in the Middle East, and urged Baghdad to readmit weapons inspectors in coordination with the United Nations ( news - web sites). 270. marjoribanks - 9/5/2002 5:27:08 PM Jex, 271. joezan - 9/5/2002 9:39:48 PM What are you doing, kissing up for Arky's job, marj? 272. joezan - 9/5/2002 9:41:43 PM 273. joezan - 9/5/2002 9:43:36 PM (heee-heeee) 274. wonkers2 - 9/5/2002 9:43:40 PM Has arky left us? 275. jexster - 9/5/2002 9:56:19 PM One resounding failure deserves another (and a tee-hee-hee from the littlegirlie in the gas mask) 276. jexster - 9/5/2002 9:59:33 PM Marj... 277. jexster - 9/5/2002 10:02:09 PM FYI - I have already tried to focus argumentation with that insipid little cretin...he gave his answer...and now its time for mine 278. joezan - 9/5/2002 10:09:17 PM I am going to wipe the fuckin floor with JoeZ 279. jexster - 9/5/2002 10:11:29 PM People may and people have hurled all manner of insult my way...and it don't matter shit to me...but NO ONE, NOBODY is going to impugn my character and get away with it... 280. jexster - 9/5/2002 10:12:19 PM I think its time you acted like a man and apologized. 281. joezan - 9/5/2002 10:14:48 PM How can anyone possibly impugn the character of a guy who screamed bloody, obsessive, psychopathic revenge against the "subhuman Slerbs" for 100 posts-per-day, three months running? 282. joezan - 9/5/2002 10:55:40 PM Ok - I'll give you this, jex: the inspectors were not formally expelled. They left on the advice of the Clinton admin, for their own safety. 283. concerned - 9/6/2002 3:35:32 AM the underlying reason for my wife's belligerent behavior towards me is, I believe, what mgleason termed her depression. Since coming to this country - and even since the weeks before she got on the plane - she has had been in a state of deep fear that she cannot fit in, is not good enough, clever enough, whatever. Somehow this feeling of 'I'm too stupid to make it among the white people' transmogrified itself into very aggressive behavior towards me. With the help of her local Kenyan friend, my wife decided that I was the root of all her problems. 284. concerned - 9/6/2002 3:40:51 AM How else to explain the appeal of such as Al Qaeda and African dictators who are actually believed when they claim the AIDS is a CIA plot or that GM food is 'poison', thus won't be distributed to their starving countrymen? 285. concerned - 9/6/2002 3:41:53 AM & all these idiots never consider why most of East Asia isn't having any such trouble as they are. 286. concerned - 9/6/2002 4:18:22 AM Re. the attempt on Hamid Karzai's life and the explosion in Kabul: 287. concerned - 9/6/2002 4:19:50 AM ...terroritory, resulting from changing words in mid word, but there's sort of a ring to it. 288. jexster - 9/6/2002 2:05:53 PM Say what you will about the Bush administration's determination to go to war with Iraq, the bottom line is that any strike on Baghdad will cost us dearly -- not just immediately, but for years to come. 289. jexster - 9/6/2002 2:12:57 PM jexster, 290. ronski - 9/6/2002 2:33:01 PM jexster, 291. jexster - 9/6/2002 3:03:50 PM WASHINGTON –– President Bush telephoned leaders of China, Russia and France on Friday in hopes of softening their opposition to ousting Saddam Hussein, but he made little noticeable progress. 292. jexster - 9/6/2002 4:40:02 PM Earth to Zan..what IS your Name? 293. jexster - 9/6/2002 5:02:06 PM The witness of sacred history 294. jexster - 9/6/2002 5:03:46 PM "What have you done?" 295. jexster - 9/6/2002 11:07:42 PM 296. RustlerPike - 9/7/2002 8:49:47 AM Thread host is in the middle of an rl upheaval which has included 24 hours in the slammer and house arrest in a neighbor's home, pending a court-order move from his Katzir residence to a nearby location. 297. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/7/2002 8:53:01 AM > included 24 hours in the slammer and house arrest in a neighbor's home, pending a court-order move from his Katzir residence to a nearby location. 298. RustlerPike - 9/7/2002 1:10:36 PM Alwight alweady, XTC. 299. RustlerPike - 9/7/2002 1:31:11 PM About half the people in my cell and the adjoining one were there on account of charges by their wives. 300. RustlerPike - 9/7/2002 1:34:45 PM Happy Rosh Hashana to all - whether you have foreskin or not. 301. RustlerPike - 9/7/2002 1:43:16 PM 302. joezan - 9/7/2002 11:12:48 PM Was the food any good, Pike? 303. concerned - 9/8/2002 1:49:27 AM So, I take it, RP, that you wouldn't say "Shofar, so good."? 304. Andonly - 9/8/2002 11:45:13 AM L'shana tovah. 305. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 1:24:25 PM Ando: 306. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 1:27:32 PM Bummer is, they're going to make me see my children in those god-awful visitation centers for the duration of the trial, which could take up to nine months. 307. joezan - 9/8/2002 7:57:44 PM I dunno, Pike. Until very recently (when most African Americans learned it was in their interest to talk the PC talk, whether they walked the walk or not), if you'd asked most AA men in a mixed marriage why they chose a White woman, they'd tell you flat out - because Black women are just too combative, or words to that effect. And actually, sometimes you still hear them say stuff like that. There was even a play about it (although, of course, in the play this was all a misperception on the part of the man, who really couldn't help harboring this misperception because whitey'd kept him down so long - self-esteem and all that). 308. wonkers2 - 9/8/2002 8:01:02 PM The Scopes monkey trial didn't take nine months! 309. RustlerPike - 9/8/2002 8:37:42 PM wonk: 310. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 9/8/2002 9:33:27 PM > erections are scheduled for sometime between 11/03 and 04/04, depending on whom you believe. 311. joezan - 9/8/2002 11:13:39 PM Back on topic here: 312. RustlerPike - 9/9/2002 12:37:40 AM Arafat has become irrelevant, as Sharon said he would make him. But I figure he and Yasin are planning their big Last Hurrah for when Saddam strikes. 313. RustlerPike - 9/9/2002 12:56:53 AM I think it's about time for getting me a divorce though. 314. RustlerPike - 9/9/2002 1:08:49 AM T7 to me: "you went crazy because of the birthday, didn't you, daddy? And you were right." 315. robertjayb - 9/9/2002 2:13:37 PM I think it's about time for getting me a divorce though. 316. RustlerPike - 9/10/2002 1:51:06 PM Much more respectable, this look, I find. 317. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 1:56:48 PM Well spotted. One of them is hard coded, the other is in the database. I'll fix that... 318. alistairconnor - 9/10/2002 1:57:52 PM Sorry, wrong thread. Answering another question about the redesign. No, I'm not going to fix that : ask wwabit. 319. jexster - 9/10/2002 6:48:07 PM I need the spiritual advice of a rabbi. 320. RustlerPike - 9/11/2002 1:55:23 PM Look at how cool the links in the tan bar look! 321. Wombat - 9/11/2002 1:57:29 PM Pistachio=Greenish 322. judithathome - 9/11/2002 2:00:29 PM I think the link bar is beige. The Beige Bar. Sounds like someplace with potted ferns that serves Cosmopolitians. 323. RustlerPike - 9/11/2002 2:33:07 PM Well, firstly, thanks for answering me, people. I owe you both. 324. RustlerPike - 9/11/2002 2:39:41 PM Iac, this place feels decidedly more luxuriously upholstered. I think we should do this every other year, at least. 325. robertjayb - 9/11/2002 11:21:17 PM Rustler, 326. judithathome - 9/11/2002 11:39:05 PM It's gelato... 327. ronski - 9/11/2002 11:48:29 PM It used to be butterscotch. Now it looks beige to me. 328. alistairconnor - 9/12/2002 6:12:06 AM It looks like strawberry to me (natural strawberry icecream, with no preservatives or added colouring). 329. alistairconnor - 9/12/2002 6:14:20 AM I asked one of the Arabs who spent the daytime hours with me in the courthouse lockup what the Kishon jailhouse was like. 330. marjoribanks - 9/12/2002 11:51:22 AM Spike, I do hope that you are keeping yourself sane and not entering into a zero-sum game with your opponents. Why not just fuck off from the scene for a few weeks - go and soak yourself in Eilat for a while or something, take a trip outside the country, anything? 331. marjoribanks - 9/12/2002 12:00:09 PM Now, on to today's speech by Bush at the UN. 332. marjoribanks - 9/12/2002 12:03:56 PM By the way, I did not make up the word bushbaby. It's a small, wide-eyed animal, also known as the galago. 333. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2002 12:38:06 PM Good observation, marj, and the ones that crafted the speech must have been aware of these implications. 334. joezan - 9/12/2002 12:46:51 PM Well, there are of course major differences between Israel's intransigence and Iraq's. 335. marjoribanks - 9/12/2002 12:56:08 PM What the hell are you babbling about so incoherently, Zan? 336. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2002 1:10:31 PM Joe 337. Edmund Dantes - 9/12/2002 1:11:36 PM As the Israelis put all their eggs, every last one, into a US basket, they risk reducing their own futures to fiat or whim by whatever US administration is in power. It's just dumb policy. 338. PelleNilsson - 9/12/2002 1:15:18 PM This is what Bush had to say re I&P: 339. JJBiener - 9/12/2002 1:32:31 PM Banks - What the hell are you babbling about so incoherently, Zan? 340. joezan - 9/12/2002 1:42:54 PM Anyway - a joke for Pike: 341. marjoribanks - 9/12/2002 2:12:26 PM Which other nations should Israel be courting? I didn't realize she had spurned a lot of offers of friendship and support. 342. marjoribanks - 9/12/2002 2:16:23 PM Israel refuses to comply with UN resolutions because to do so would threaten its very existence. Israel has been attacked by its neighbors repeatedly without provocation. Withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza without appropriate security measures could ultimately result in the destruction of Israel. 343. JJBiener - 9/12/2002 4:04:10 PM Banks - It is so tiresome to read these cookie-cutter, inane, arguments. 344. marjoribanks - 9/12/2002 4:12:25 PM Biener, 345. JJBiener - 9/12/2002 4:55:13 PM Banks - what about Israel's occupation, which we know is as much or greater a threat to global security as Saddam's Iraq? 346. Al D - 9/13/2002 10:23:49 PM JJ 347. JJBiener - 9/14/2002 12:30:31 PM Al - Whose fault is that? Israel has had nuclear weapons for years and never even considered using them against its neighbors. If its neighbors acquire similar weapons and the situation becomes unstable, isn't this then because they are threatening Israel? 348. RustlerPike - 9/14/2002 4:00:15 PM Thanks for #329, ac. I was in my home though I wasn't allowed there anymore and was thinking of spending the night. Then I read that and got the hell out of there. You probably saved my butt in a way it has never been saved before. 349. RustlerPike - 9/14/2002 4:04:10 PM Good one, Joe! 350. Andonly - 9/14/2002 8:08:04 PM Rustler Pike, 351. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 12:12:57 AM Hey Ando, thanks for your support in my time of personal distress. I will remember your warm friendship when you are also in dire straits. 352. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 12:48:41 AM rjb: 353. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 12:50:37 AM marj: 354. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 12:54:58 AM From the site you linked: 355. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 2:08:13 AM 356. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 2:10:26 AM The jpeg does not do justice to the beauty of this place, with its olives and surrounding Judean semi-desert mountains, where I spent a formative period of my childhood. 357. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 2:11:42 AM I really should go for a walk instead of staring at this screen. 358. concerned - 9/15/2002 2:29:38 AM RP - 359. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 4:36:34 AM Connie: 360. RustlerPike - 9/15/2002 6:08:23 AM Retouched. Best I can do for now. 361. Andonly - 9/15/2002 11:35:59 PM "Andonly, who I thought was "with me" somehow, is trying to pounce on the opportunity to get rid of me." 362. Andonly - 9/15/2002 11:36:28 PM "Am I imagining this or is the prospect of what is about to go down in the Middle East - and its implications for you as a Jewish person in the US - making you exceedingly hostile towards me and what I stand for?" 363. alistairconnor - 9/16/2002 9:51:24 AM The funniest things come out in moments of truth like these: ac, who I thought hated me (and on certain levels perhaps does), gave me some extremely important advice when I was confused and needed it. 364. ronski - 9/16/2002 10:26:09 AM Palestinian Totalitarianism: Terrorism is Tolerated, but Gay People Are Not 365. robertjayb - 9/16/2002 11:40:52 AM Noted without comment...(Reuters News Service) 367. concerned - 9/16/2002 5:40:44 PM Re. 359 - 369. RustlerPike - 9/16/2002 9:52:13 PM ac, Ando: 374. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 11:24:16 AM Where did the posts prior to 22 August go? 375. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 11:33:00 AM Andonly, I came across this written by you: "What Kathy may have been referring to in her 3,000-year remark was the existence of the Hebrews, who could, perhaps, have lived 3,000 years before Jesus' time. They may have later been the "hapiru" of Ramese II's time, who built the pyramids--although the word meant laborer or brickmaker and did not apparently refer to an ethnic group per se. So the hapiru may have been a class of Egyptians who ultimately left Egypt and founded a nation; or they may have originally been an ethnic group (Hebrews) which migrated to Egypt per the Joseph story, occupied a particular class there, and *then* left to found their nation." 376. Andonly - 9/17/2002 11:48:44 AM Message # 374 377. Ms. No - 9/17/2002 12:38:24 PM PE, 378. Andonly - 9/17/2002 12:49:00 PM PE, 379. Andonly - 9/17/2002 12:49:28 PM Incidentally, the departure from Egypt itself may have been prompted by disease (possibly leprosy)--the Hebrews' or the Egyptians, I can't guess. It has been suggested that the Hebes didn't flee Egypt but were thrown out as a means of containing some scourge or other. But it's impossible to read Numbers and not come away with the sense that the Israelites of this period were themselves unusually concerned with disease and explicitly set out to separate themselves from Egyptians and, post Exodus, all other groups. One divine punishment for mixing with other folk seems to have been plague. 380. ronski - 9/17/2002 1:12:53 PM I thought hapiru or apiru meant "wanderers" or something like that. 381. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 2:13:33 PM Message # 378: "Linguistic data alone is insufficient to determine who the Hebrews were (or weren't)... There are good reasons to believe that whatever their distant ethnic origins, the people who eventually wrote the Pentateuch did have their collective cultural beginnings--those which led to them becoming Jews--in Egypt.". 382. Andonly - 9/17/2002 2:49:05 PM "I would say the linguistic evidence is primary." 383. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 3:09:11 PM "I know you would." 384. Andonly - 9/17/2002 5:03:25 PM PE, 385. Andonly - 9/17/2002 5:26:30 PM Wait, I see now you were referring to my original remarks to Kathy Kattenburg, where I said, "So the hapiru may have been a class of Egyptians who ultimately left Egypt and founded a nation; or..." 386. RustlerPike - 9/17/2002 9:02:51 PM Wrt Ando's curious Egyptian-origin campaign: 387. RustlerPike - 9/17/2002 9:19:22 PM >>> 388. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 9:58:26 PM Actually I now recall that "Hebrew" is the Graeco-Roman rendering of the Aramaic "ebaru". It's in the OED. 389. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 9:58:51 PM RP is there ever an end to your psychosis? 390. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 10:26:29 PM Andonly: I interpreted the passage of yours in Message # 375 to mean that there were two possibilities for the origins of the Hebrews: (1) They were ethnolinguistic Egyptians who left Egypt for ancient Canaan/Palestine and founded the Hebrew ethnos; or (2) Some Canaanites/Palestinians went to Egypt at some point and returned to Canaan/Palestine. 391. RustlerPike - 9/17/2002 10:50:55 PM Pe: 392. Andonly - 9/17/2002 11:18:39 PM "I don't know what makes you think researchers are convinced that the root ain-bet-resh (from whence Ivri - Hebrew) stems from heh-peh-resh (your hapiru, which sounds Assyrian or something). Iac, hapiru may sound like the English word 'Hebrew', but it doesn't sound a lot like Ivri, which is how the Hebrews say 'Hebrew'." 393. Andonly - 9/17/2002 11:30:56 PM "Why, I'd even gander a guess that you, Ando, are not called Rivka or Leah or Avigail, but something like Joanne or Patricia or Tina." 394. sakonige - 9/17/2002 11:35:34 PM Well, not really. Maybe you should leave him out of it. 395. pseudoerasmus - 9/17/2002 11:51:17 PM The morphological characteristics of Kennewick man suggest an ancestry in common with the Ainu of Japan. 396. sakonige - 9/17/2002 11:53:49 PM Yes. I'd like to know how many skeletons of about the same age have been discovered in the Eastern portion of North American continent. I wonder if it will be discovered that people arrived in the Americas in more distinct waves than previously thought. 397. sakonige - 9/17/2002 11:55:15 PM 398. pseudoerasmus - 9/18/2002 12:00:44 AM 399. Andonly - 9/18/2002 12:13:45 AM "(1) They were ethnolinguistic Egyptians who left Egypt for ancient Canaan/Palestine and founded the Hebrew ethnos;" 400. Andonly - 9/18/2002 12:17:26 AM "The morphological characteristics of Kennewick man suggest an ancestry in common with the Ainu of Japan." 401. Andonly - 9/18/2002 12:23:57 AM Excellent chart. 402. sakonige - 9/18/2002 1:43:19 AM Andonly, if you are thinking of that jerk Sixty Minutes put on camera Sunday, he's an extremist taking advatage of the fact that the Kennewick Man's skeleton was found on his turf. Not even all the people in his tribe agree with him about this. I'm pretty sure most American Indians want to know where the Kennewick man came from and how he is related to the rest of us, base on quotes I read and heard. We're not as backward about science as that guy is trying to make us look. I really wish Sixty Minutes had interviewed some of the may opposing opinions on this subject among native Americans. 403. sakonige - 9/18/2002 1:51:56 AM There really isn't any conflict between respecting traditions and letting native American artifacts tell us their story, or the Museum of the American Indian wouldn't be greeted with such enthusiasm from all the tribes. This Umatilla guy blocking the scientific analysis of the Kenniwick Man is an ignorant goof who will eventually be put in his place. Eventually, samples will be taken and the skeleton will be reburied, and everybody will be happy and enlighted by it all. 404. sakonige - 9/18/2002 1:54:25 AM boy, I made a few typos in that mess, didn't I? 405. sakonige - 9/18/2002 12:08:03 PM Sorry for babbling on about Amerindians in your Israel thread, RustlerPike. Do feel free to delete this off-topic garbage. I was just so startled to be addressed on this subject in a friendly tone for once. 406. Wombat - 9/18/2002 12:17:10 PM A judge recently permitted scientists to examine the Kennewick man's remains. 407. alistairconnor - 9/18/2002 5:49:56 PM I'll become normal when the world does. 408. Jenerator - 9/18/2002 7:22:28 PM [[Hello RustlerPike.]] 409. RustlerPike - 9/18/2002 11:31:33 PM Jennie!!! 410. RustlerPike - 9/18/2002 11:34:34 PM The Middle East will not find peace until you get your shit together. 411. RustlerPike - 9/18/2002 11:43:16 PM Well, it's the first time terror has struck this close. 412. RustlerPike - 9/19/2002 12:17:52 AM OK, people, there's only one thing I can possibly do now in order to come out of this a winner. 413. Wombat - 9/19/2002 1:14:37 PM As the pathetic charade that is Sharon's "policy" against terrorism continues... 414. RustlerPike - 9/19/2002 11:22:47 PM Pe: 415. RustlerPike - 9/21/2002 9:04:02 AM Arafat's compound is being demolished, with Arafat inside it. 416. RustlerPike - 9/21/2002 6:16:41 PM 417. sakonige - 9/21/2002 8:16:18 PM I would never let anyone take a picture of me crying at my son's funeral, let alone publish it. 418. Edmund Dantes - 9/21/2002 9:08:35 PM Your boast is as empty as a fresh recruit predicting how he'll behave in battle once the shooting starts. 419. pseudoerasmus - 9/21/2002 9:37:50 PM RP: The Bantu languages -- which also include Swahili, Xhosa [Nelson Mandela's native language] and Zulu -- are a subset of the Niger-Congo macro-family of languages. These languages are distributed across West Africa below the Sahara, all of Central Africa, most of southern Africa and parts of East Africa. Any Semitic-sounding words in East African languages are either coincidences or loanwords from Arabic or the languages of Ethiopia/Somalia. 420. RustlerPike - 9/21/2002 11:19:43 PM Pe: 421. joezan - 9/22/2002 3:39:11 PM Hey Pike - are the bookies taking odds on Arafat's chances of making it out alive? 422. alistairconnor - 9/23/2002 8:34:23 AM Sharon is a master. 423. pseudoerasmus - 9/23/2002 7:07:35 PM all the languages of Kenya. There are half a dozen Cushitic languages in Kenya. 424. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 11:33:02 AM joe: 425. RickNelson - 9/25/2002 11:41:52 AM alistair has a good point. 426. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 12:18:34 PM Never heard of any of those Cushitic tribes (other than the Somalis). They must really be small. 427. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 12:19:23 PM I've moved to Harish. 428. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2002 1:09:36 PM Of course Alistair has a good point. That's why the usual Israelophiles have been silent. They like to think of Sharon as a consummate politician with A Plan. Now even they will have to admit the he is a dinosaur who thinks with his ass and whose only solution to every problem is violence. The man is a simpleminded thug who is destroying his own country. 429. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 1:13:39 PM I donno, I sorta feel like Hairy is in deep shit. Why would anyone think otherwise? Because some Euro-peons are pleading for his life? I don't think anyone outside of Europe really cares if the top floor gives in. 430. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 1:28:38 PM Jeez. I need to find out my social security number. How the f--k do I do that? 431. PelleNilsson - 9/25/2002 1:40:15 PM Nobody in Europe, except some fringe elements, give a shit about Arafat. You have missed the point. Read Alistair's post again. 432. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 2:44:33 PM I'm living in an apartment on the main road. Second floor. A/C. 78 sq. meters, I think. Doesn't seem too noisy. 433. robertjayb - 9/25/2002 3:04:58 PM rustler, I hope you are comfortable in your new digs. Are you far from Katzir and your kids? 434. alistairconnor - 9/25/2002 3:32:08 PM This is just a theory, but it seems to me that ongoing civil war is Sharon's only plan. He kicked it off, he'll do whatever he can to keep it on the boil. Of course, he has plenty of allies on the Palestinian side who are delighted to play along. 435. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 10:30:21 PM rjb: 436. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 10:45:46 PM >>> 437. joezan - 9/25/2002 10:51:39 PM However, development of Harish has so far failed, largely due to the council head's total incompetence... 438. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 11:09:40 PM >>> 439. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 11:23:24 PM >>> 440. RustlerPike - 9/25/2002 11:28:09 PM I'm a troublemaker. 441. betty - 9/25/2002 11:52:19 PM No Pike, you're a whore and a bore. And it is very difficult to be both of those things at the same time, so do consider yourself accomplished. 442. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 2:47:46 AM You're right, bets. I'm a whore and a bore. I'll go back to hosting the sex thread and walking around nekkid in my house and telling people I don't know all about it. 443. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 3:02:18 AM I see no contradiction between being right of Sharon on sovereignty and being just as firm on anti-discrimination. I don't think there's any justification for the Arab toddlers to be stuck at home all day because the uppity Jews won't give them a nursery school. These Arabs aren't throwing rocks or doing anything nationalistically-motivated. Anyone who really knows my history and views on things knows I am not switching sides or being inconsistent at all. 444. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 3:04:02 AM The Karajas doing my campaign crowd control... shades of Altamont. 445. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 5:33:31 AM My deal with the Arabs is: you accept my (Jewish-Israeli) sovereignty, I'll give you full equality. Stop disputing my right to the land, and I'll give you full rights on it. 446. PelleNilsson - 9/26/2002 6:19:32 AM Thomas Friedman: Is Ariel Sharon leading Israel to a dead end? 447. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 6:44:02 AM Burp. 448. Andonly - 9/26/2002 6:58:04 PM "On the other hand, you are invited to read and comment on this article which suggests that Israel is giving Marwan Barghouti the Nelson Mandela treatment." 449. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 10:16:18 PM Ando: 450. RustlerPike - 9/26/2002 10:17:03 PM I would call that more of a farticle than an article. 451. RustlerPike - 9/27/2002 12:48:30 AM Sharon is brilliant. He waited until the White House started the Iraq thread, then found an excuse and bombed jasper out of his presidential compound. 452. RustlerPike - 9/27/2002 2:23:09 AM Hey, cool, the American embassy works fast. They have my social security number for me. Only took one day. 453. PelleNilsson - 9/27/2002 9:43:32 AM Another articla on Sharon's politics, this one by Henry Siegman, a senior fellow on the Middle East at the Council on Foreign Relations: Sharon's real purpose is to create foreigners 454. PelleNilsson - 9/27/2002 9:44:31 AM On Friday, General Eitan Ben Elyahu, the former head of the Israeli Air Force, declared on Israeli television that "eventually we will have to thin out the number of Palestinians living in the territories," enriching Israel's political lexicon with another euphemism for ethnic cleansing. 455. PelleNilsson - 9/27/2002 9:50:37 AM And then we have Official report exposed by Sarid slams Hebron settlers for 'thuggery' 456. concerned - 9/27/2002 11:51:50 AM Jews losing Israeli Demographic Race 457. concerned - 9/27/2002 11:59:43 AM I reject much of the criticism of the US and Israel from Yurrup because I am anti-emetic. 458. PelleNilsson - 9/27/2002 12:03:43 PM Note that in his projections Mr Dayan includes the West Bank and Gaza in "the Land of Israel". Not everybody, and notably not the present US administration, would agree to that. 459. Andonly - 9/27/2002 2:05:39 PM "What this article shows - apart from its factual contents - is that the criticism levied at Israel from Europe, which Sharonistas love to call "anti-semitic" is in fact a reflection of similar opinions voiced by Israelis themselves." 460. Andonly - 9/27/2002 2:10:39 PM "Note that in his projections Mr Dayan includes the West Bank and Gaza in "the Land of Israel". Not everybody, and notably not the present US administration, would agree to that." 461. Andonly - 9/27/2002 2:20:23 PM Don't know if anyone has noticed, but the NYT has 'discovered' this morning that Hizballah has rockets supplied by Iran, and can open a front on Israel's northern border. 462. Andonly - 9/27/2002 2:44:12 PM This is the sort of thing Siegman would never try to assert in a situation where he could be challenged directly: 463. RustlerPike - 9/27/2002 3:48:18 PM I will give MK Sarid a call on Sunday. I want him to help me with my new initiative - the Harish-Katzir action group. We will open a nursery school for the Arab kids and a computer room for all kids. Then we will hire guards for the entrances to Harish. 464. concerned - 9/27/2002 5:18:00 PM You could sound more like marj if you became incandescently indignant at any hint of criticism of your more spurious ideas and worshipped at the altars of the likes of Robert Fisk. 465. RustlerPike - 9/27/2002 11:57:28 PM That is admittedly beyond my reach, connie. 466. RustlerPike - 9/27/2002 11:58:13 PM >>> 467. RustlerPike - 9/28/2002 12:11:15 AM The thing is, this would be happening in Wadi Ara - which is, as of now, the symbol of Jewish-Arab strife here and the hopelessness of the entire situation. 468. RustlerPike - 9/28/2002 12:20:53 AM Actually, that anniversary is being marked today. 469. concerned - 9/28/2002 3:50:41 AM 470. RustlerPike - 9/28/2002 4:03:32 AM Amen. 471. RustlerPike - 9/28/2002 4:05:49 AM Giant leap for mankind: my wife agrees to come over and drink coffee in my new place. She suggested it, even. 472. RustlerPike - 9/28/2002 5:34:52 AM The council has managed to bring in some religious Jews to settle in Harish. 473. RustlerPike - 9/28/2002 8:21:21 AM Btw - that's my car in the lower left corner. 474. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 10:03:57 AM Sharon's forces are out of Arafat's compound. 475. RickNelson - 9/29/2002 10:16:10 AM Sad, very sad. 476. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 10:51:57 AM My wife even said to our son that she wished it could all go back to the way it was, but I think she's just bullshitting. 477. PelleNilsson - 9/29/2002 11:08:44 AM Rustler 478. pseudoerasmus - 9/29/2002 11:28:34 AM Rustler: Last week I read a book about Nestorian Christianity. Nestorianism was the branch of Christianity which, in effect, denied the unity of Christ's divinity and humanity and insisted they were independent (whatever that means). It was anathematised at the Council of Ephesus in 431, and thereafter only existed outside the Roman/Graeco/Byzantine world, that is to say, mainly in Asia. After the Nestorian Church severed its links with Constantinople, the Persian empire (which was officially Zoroastrian at the time) ended its official policy of persecution and recognised the Nestorians as the "Church of Persia". This policy continued under Arab Islamic rule because the Nestorians' anti-Byzantine attitudes were valuable for the Muslims. So under both Zoroastrian and Islamic patronage, the Nestorian Church was able to prosper and expand freely, such that between the 7th and 13th centuries, Nestorianism flourished in India, Central Asia and western China. Whole nations in Central Asia converted, including the Uighurs, the inhabitants of Xinjiang, China's western-most province who are today Muslims. Marco Polo found Nestorian Christians of many different nationalities dominant among the advisers at the court of Kublai Khan. 479. pseudoerasmus - 9/29/2002 11:29:04 AM I mention this to you, and in this thread, because of a fascinating piece of linguistic trivia associated with Nestorianism. The liturgical language of Nestorianism is Syriac, a form of Aramaic written in a script different but derived from the Hebrew script. With various modifications, the Syriac/Aramaic script was adopted by the Uighurs, who used it until they converted to Islam. From the Uighurs, the Mongols got their traditional script (the one used until 1919 when Cyrillic was adopted by the communists); and from the Mongols, the Manchus adopted their own script in the 1600s. The Manchurians being the rulers of China between the 1636 and 1911, all official state documents were written in both Chinese and Manchurian, using the script that was derived from Syriac and which still bears an unmistakeable "Middle Eastern" look (except that it's written in the Chinese top-to-bottom, right-to-left direction): 481. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 2:14:14 PM So it is "Sharon's forces" now, not "our forces" or "the IDF"? Interesting. 482. PelleNilsson - 9/29/2002 2:17:21 PM Rustler 483. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 2:20:11 PM I think a truly excellent leader, in Israel, has got to find a way of both standing up to Arab nationalism and respecting - even rewarding - Arab loyalty to Israel. 484. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 2:21:49 PM Pelle: 485. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 2:29:01 PM Pe: 486. PelleNilsson - 9/29/2002 2:33:09 PM Read Message # 350 again. 487. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 2:40:35 PM Pelle: 488. judithathome - 9/29/2002 2:42:36 PM This thread has become about your personal drama, which has fuck all to do with anything that affects Israelis in general, Palestinians, or the rest of us. I'm not interested in serving as the audience for your elaborately spun personal duel with authority. 489. Andonly - 9/29/2002 8:39:37 PM "Nestorianism was the branch of Christianity which, in effect, denied the unity of Christ's divinity and humanity and insisted they were independent (whatever that means)." 490. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 9:58:11 PM Judith: 491. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 9:59:27 PM Ando: 492. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 10:01:58 PM Hah, you see. I'm a clever Pikester, I am. 493. RustlerPike - 9/29/2002 10:08:27 PM God fucking damn, I hope I'm in business. 494. RickNelson - 9/30/2002 9:48:39 AM They don't believe in the three as one? hmmm.... interesting p.o.v. from my Christian upbringing. I've believed the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are the trinity for my whole Christian life. This is an interesting idea. 495. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2002 12:12:07 PM andonly and Rick 496. RustlerPike - 9/30/2002 12:43:37 PM This whole move to Harish has suddenly infused me with renewed political energy. But it keeps going nowhere. I just get all excited about stuff and start making bombastic speeches here on the Mote, I call Knesset members and their aides, but in the end I'm just pooped and I don't really have anything to show for it. 497. RustlerPike - 9/30/2002 12:49:11 PM The whole point about the Christian disputes and heresies over the centuries is that they were always pointless. It always seemed to me that there was something about the Christian church that made these splits inevitable, but that this had nothing to do with the actual points disputed. Maybe the church was too big. Maybe the leadership was too weak. 498. Wombat - 9/30/2002 2:56:52 PM Q: How many temples would a solitary jew build on a desert island? 499. pseudoerasmus - 9/30/2002 2:57:25 PM The Nestorians did not deny the trinity or the divinity of Christ. Their dispute with the Orthodox Church was hair-splitting even by the standards of the 5th century. The Orthodox Christians insisted that Christ was both human and divine, but his divinity and his humanity were "neither divided nor separate" (whatever that means). The Nestorians rather ferociously insisted that Christ's humanity and divinity were separate and divided, i.e., in effect, there were two Christs. 500. Wombat - 9/30/2002 3:00:00 PM hahahahaha! 501. pseudoerasmus - 9/30/2002 3:08:21 PM Message # 489: "And, what script do the Uighurs use now that they are Muslims?" 502. concerned - 9/30/2002 3:23:24 PM It'd be interesting see PE's sectarian breakdown of attitudes relating to Muhammad expressed in terms of his pedophilia. 503. concerned - 9/30/2002 3:24:34 PM It'd be interesting to see PE's sectarian breakdown of attitudes relating to Muhammad expressed in terms of his pedophilia. 504. PelleNilsson - 9/30/2002 3:39:33 PM Very good PE. Of course Muslims, and, I suspect Jews, are not convinced by these theological sophistries and condemn Christians as polytheists and I dare say they are right. Ordinary Christians see God and Christ as separate entities, although perhaps united on some higher plane, and have no clue about the Holy Spirit. 505. concerned - 9/30/2002 3:51:43 PM Would this 'polytheism' then also apply to the angels and demons, not excepting Satan, which are most notably a staple of Islam? 506. pseudoerasmus - 9/30/2002 3:57:46 PM The Sunnis believe a girl can be married off at any time after conception, but the marriage can only be consummated when the girl is pubescent. 507. concerned - 9/30/2002 3:59:21 PM Bravo! 508. Andonly - 9/30/2002 4:00:21 PM Holy Spirit, Schmoley Schpirit, it's just some pedantic upstart's version of the Shekhina. 509. RustlerPike - 9/30/2002 4:00:47 PM Some Protestants see Catholics as polytheists (the Virgin Mary cult) and idol worshippers (the crucifix), I think. 510. Andonly - 9/30/2002 4:17:41 PM "...while the Muslims, for whom Christ is known as Isa bin Maryam and is the antepenultimate prophet of God..." 511. Andonly - 9/30/2002 4:18:59 PM "When the Uighurs converted to Islam they of course adopted the Perso-Arabic script. This was abandoned in the 1930s in favour of two scripts -- Latin and Cyrillic. But in the 1980s the Uighurs re-adopted the Arabic script with official Chinese approval. But this Arabic script was very different from the earlier one. The current version is a fully vocalised script." 512. pseudoerasmus - 9/30/2002 4:29:21 PM (1) Oops, yes, Jesus is the penultimate prophet of Islam. Yahya (John the Baptist) is the antepenultimate. 513. Andonly - 9/30/2002 4:36:51 PM So the Uighurs invented vowel characters that weren't there in classical (if that's the right term) Arabic? What, if anything, are they derived from? 514. Andonly - 9/30/2002 4:40:25 PM About written vowels in Hebrew: they aren't necessarily absent in script, or in block letters either. But fluent speakers just don't use them. They are certainly taught to and used by novices learning the language. 515. pseudoerasmus - 9/30/2002 4:45:47 PM What the Uighurs adopted in the 1980s was the so-called Ottoman Reformed Script, proposed originally for Turkish by scholars allied with the Young Turks early in the 20th century, but never adopted. The ORS got rid of all the Arabic letters which were not necessary in Turkish and introduced new letters for all the vowel sounds present in Turkish but missing in Arabic. For more information, see my remarks here. 516. Andonly - 9/30/2002 4:53:35 PM PE, I wonder if you've ever seen Hebrew tropic notation. At this point I can't recall any longer what it looks like, or even whether it's written above or below the phrases to be sung. But I remember (about 200 years ago, when I had to learn them in preparation for my bat mitzvah) that the notation for Hebrew tropes reminded me of Hebrew vowels. 517. pseudoerasmus - 9/30/2002 4:53:43 PM Message # 514: "About written vowels in Hebrew: they aren't necessarily absent in script, or in block letters either. But fluent speakers just don't use them. They are certainly taught to and used by novices learning the language." 518. pseudoerasmus - 9/30/2002 4:56:11 PM I have always theorised that the word semitic was coined in spite of the fact that the root is Shem because some German Orientalist got confused by the undotted Shin and mistook it for Sin. 519. transient1a - 9/30/2002 5:09:59 PM Nestorius and Nestorianism 520. Andonly - 9/30/2002 5:54:40 PM "Yes, I am aware of that. But vowel markers for learners don't count. Arabic has the same thing: vowel markers are used, but only in dictionaries and the Qur'an." 521. Andonly - 9/30/2002 5:55:26 PM "I have always theorised that the word semitic was coined in spite of the fact that the root is Shem because some German Orientalist got confused by the undotted Shin and mistook it for Sin." 522. pseudoerasmus - 9/30/2002 6:16:10 PM "Most insidious perhaps is the vav that, if it's got a dot next to it, makes the oo sound as in "tool." Ordinarily the vav would be a fucking consonant (V).." 523. RickNelson - 9/30/2002 6:29:52 PM 499 has to be the funniest post I've ever read! 524. RickNelson - 9/30/2002 6:34:20 PM Drool ya'all, my wife made roti chani. 525. Andonly - 9/30/2002 6:38:29 PM "Don't you mean the letter tsadi can represent the /ch/ sound in addition to the normal /ts/ sound?" 526. Andonly - 9/30/2002 6:44:27 PM Actually, wrt to the kaf/khaf (c/ch, k/kh) business, I think what I was remembering was simply the difference between an ordinary and a final k(h)af. (Hebrew has 22 letters plus 5 finals.) 527. Andonly - 9/30/2002 6:45:52 PM "But Hebrew and Arabic have it easy. In Urdu, the V letter can mean /v/, /w/, /o/, /u/, or /au/." 528. Andonly - 9/30/2002 6:46:51 PM Oh, wait, you mean ch, not kh? 529. Andonly - 9/30/2002 6:48:28 PM "tsadi = /ts/ or /ch/ 530. concerned - 9/30/2002 6:49:22 PM Re. 514 - 531. Andonly - 9/30/2002 9:20:34 PM "Religiously, it appears that the Hebrews were a bit more....catholic...than is commonly admitted" 532. RustlerPike - 9/30/2002 11:46:29 PM Ando is talking about khaf which becomes kaf when a dot called a dagesh (emphasis) is placed inside it. 533. RustlerPike - 9/30/2002 11:48:58 PM transient: 534. RustlerPike - 10/1/2002 12:22:40 AM 535. transient1a - 10/1/2002 12:37:37 PM Message # 531 536. transient1a - 10/1/2002 12:38:17 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 537. Andonly - 10/1/2002 1:45:51 PM "Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt -- explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say." 538. Andonly - 10/1/2002 2:49:39 PM Transient, your "Moses" link covers a great deal of ground, much of which I'm familiar with, but a lot of it is entirely speculative and in some instances the author presents as fact things that remain in dispute among Egyptologists. 539. transient1a - 10/1/2002 4:43:44 PM Andonly, 540. transient1a - 10/1/2002 5:14:33 PM A little bit of searching and it appears highly probable that Ahmed Osman is simply a crackpot. 542. RustlerPike - 10/1/2002 10:22:50 PM From a FOX piece: 543. RustlerPike - 10/1/2002 10:25:21 PM Jexster: 544. joezan - 10/1/2002 10:38:21 PM Ahmed Osman? 545. RustlerPike - 10/2/2002 12:00:06 AM joe: 546. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 12:09:45 AM In Turkish, Ottoman is Osmanli. Germans say Osmanisches Reich for the Ottoman Empire. 547. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 12:23:25 AM I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case. The noun lah simply means "god" and is cognate to the Hebrew el. Thus "al - lah" is not a proper name at all but simply the common noun preceded by a definite article ("the god"). 548. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 12:37:07 AM "Arab Christians of all denominations -- Maronites, Catholics, Syrian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox -- use the word Allah to say God. " 549. transient1a - 10/2/2002 10:28:16 AM Message # 547 550. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 10:44:26 AM I don't know what I am supposed to be wrong about. 551. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 10:47:24 AM "Allah is the personal name of the One true God." 552. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 10:48:07 AM ...equivalent to sayING.... 553. transient1a - 10/2/2002 11:14:26 AM pseudoerasmus, 554. transient1a - 10/2/2002 11:21:30 AM Correction: 555. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 12:27:36 PM Transient1a, you are a deeply stupid man. I did NOT argue about the meaning of the word "allah" according to its etymology. I merely cited a simple grammatical fact: the Arabic definite article is al and the Arabic word for "god" is lah. Thus, al lah is grammatically the same phenomenon as al qaedah or al alamein. It is a common noun with a definite article in front of it. This is NOT etymology -- it is grammar. 556. transient1a - 10/2/2002 1:07:44 PM Message # 555 557. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 1:30:32 PM "So what you claim is grammatical is, in fact, etymological." 558. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 1:34:48 PM And the views expressed therein are those of an Islamic foundation based in Saudi Arabia. 559. transient1a - 10/2/2002 2:07:00 PM pseudoerasmus, 560. transient1a - 10/2/2002 2:08:49 PM OOPS. 561. PelleNilsson - 10/2/2002 2:15:41 PM Because you are simply wrong. 562. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 2:20:23 PM Sorry, but references on Arabic grammar and lexicography trump Britannica. And what I said earlier, which is: 563. transient1a - 10/2/2002 2:28:01 PM PelleNilsson, 564. PelleNilsson - 10/2/2002 2:56:33 PM And transient1a bows out, ungraciously. 565. transient1a - 10/2/2002 4:17:55 PM 566. transient1a - 10/2/2002 4:28:26 PM The post referred to should have been: 567. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 4:52:55 PM I repeat: Britannica agrees with me when it says "Allah is Standard Arabic for God". 568. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 5:08:12 PM this phRase 569. JJBiener - 10/2/2002 5:11:24 PM PE - Sputter all you like, but Transient got you on this one. You made the grand pronouncement that Allah is not the proper name of the diety in Islam, and he demonstrated that in fact it is the proper name. Whether the name also translates as "the god" doesn't change the fact that you were wrong. 570. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 5:21:21 PM How did Transient demonstrate that? He hasn't done that at all. 571. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 5:24:41 PM According to Biener and Transient1a, Yemeni Jews and Maronite Christians worship an Islamic deity. 572. transient1a - 10/2/2002 7:12:38 PM pseudoerasmus, 573. transient1a - 10/2/2002 7:18:05 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 574. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 8:15:52 PM As I said earlier, Transient has absolutely no discrimination about websites he cites and quotes. In Message # 549, he quoted from some Muslim website of unknown provenance and reliability; and in the same post he had a link to a site run by some Christian lunatic fringe group talking about paranormal experiences. Then in Message # 559 he quoted someone who quotes from Britannica, which didn't really support his case at all.. And now his fourth citation, in Message # 572, is a website of........... 575. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 8:17:04 PM I will add that The Cambridge History of Islam never uses "Allah" and opts always to translate it as "God". This is justified thus: 576. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 8:21:29 PM 577. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 8:21:51 PM Additionally, in English, the only difference between "God", meaning a false God, and "God", meaning the One True God, is the capital "G". In the Arabic alphabet, since it does not have capital letters, the word for God (i.e. Allah) is formed by adding the equivalent to the English word "the" (Al-) to the Arabic word for "God/God" (ilah). So the Arabic word "Allah" literally it means "The God" - the "Al-" in Arabic basically serving the same function as the capital "G" in English. Due to the above mentioned facts, a more accurate translation of the word "Allah" into English might be "The One -and-Only God" or "The One True God". 578. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 8:26:03 PM Those who insist that "Allah" is a name of the deity in Islam -- much like Zeus or Vishnu is a name, as opposed to a word which simply means "God" -- are generally those who wish to deny Islam's links with Judaism and Christianity for ideological reasons. 579. Andonly - 10/2/2002 8:29:58 PM More to the point: 580. Andonly - 10/2/2002 8:32:17 PM Ruling to Disband Association Has Finally Been Published 581. Andonly - 10/2/2002 8:33:02 PM Disseminating the Culture of Peace Does Not Serve the Law 582. Andonly - 10/2/2002 8:33:21 PM "[Ibrahim Yusri] stresses that the [Egyptian] political leadership decided to freeze all forms of normalization except for what could serve the [Palestinian] issue. The activity of the Cairo Association for Peace deviated from this framework, because it calls for a culture of so-called peace at the height of a sweeping tide of blood pouring out onto the land of Palestine." 583. Andonly - 10/2/2002 9:00:27 PM Transient: "Allah is thus a proper name, not derived from anything, and the Al is inseparable from it." 584. Andonly - 10/2/2002 9:01:39 PM Oops, sorry, thats aleph-lamed-YUD-lamed for elil, which probably renders any comparison moot. 585. transient1a - 10/2/2002 9:43:00 PM pseudoeramus, 586. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 9:49:40 PM "So much for no argument over etymology...." 587. transient1a - 10/2/2002 9:51:31 PM Andonly, 588. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 9:52:01 PM On the question of etymology alone, I am now persuaded by this eminently linguistic reasoning that "allah" is not a contraction of "al-ilah": 589. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 9:55:14 PM Let me quote the Al Haramein Foundation of Saudi Arabia once again: 590. transient1a - 10/2/2002 9:55:21 PM pseudoerasmus, 591. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 10:02:15 PM Well, is "God" a personal name or just a word? 592. transient1a - 10/2/2002 10:20:43 PM pseudoerasmus, 593. transient1a - 10/2/2002 10:24:06 PM Have to go. Probably will not be back until late tomorrow. 594. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 10:27:57 PM "To me a deity is a deity. God is a deity." 595. pseudoerasmus - 10/2/2002 10:29:09 PM correction: 596. RustlerPike - 10/2/2002 11:15:57 PM Advice: 597. RustlerPike - 10/2/2002 11:34:31 PM The discussion on the meaning of Allah is disconcertingly Nestorian in character. I have no idea what anyone - especially Pe - is trying to prove up there. 598. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 12:18:04 AM It's actually much more down to earth than that. 599. RustlerPike - 10/3/2002 4:34:56 AM Allah bless you, Pe. 600. Andonly - 10/3/2002 9:36:28 AM But Pseudoerasmus, alilah aside, your quote from Christoph Heger in Message # 588 undermines your contention that Allah tanslates to "the God". For, rather than the first sylable, al, standing for the definite article which I assumed (and you asserted) indicates the uniqueness of the deity in the same way a capital G defines "God", 601. Andonly - 10/3/2002 9:40:38 AM Transient, re Message # 587, you are the only person in this forum whose messages to me I find regularly indecipherable. Perhaps the problem extends in both directions, but I don't know how to fix it. 602. Andonly - 10/3/2002 9:41:24 AM Unfuck, Eldammit. 603. Andonly - 10/3/2002 9:42:58 AM Wrong deity, I guess. YAHWEH! CLOSE ITAL! 604. Andonly - 10/3/2002 10:39:23 AM It seems that in pre-Islamic Arabic, allah meant "god" in its masculine form and allat meant "god" in its feminine form--goddess. The terms allat and alilat both were used to refer to various goddesses, including foreign ones such as Aphrodite and Venus. 605. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:08:02 AM Interestingly, I stumbled on the Hebrew for Elohim's enimatic statement about his identity, "I am that I am." 606. RustlerPike - 10/3/2002 11:09:05 AM I'm thinking out loud here: does this mean Al Bundy is not really Al Bundy but just 'the Bundy'? 607. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:13:55 AM Sigh. Once more, with corrections and clarifications: 608. RustlerPike - 10/3/2002 11:15:36 AM Ando: 609. RustlerPike - 10/3/2002 11:19:02 AM Those passages are so beautiful. 610. RustlerPike - 10/3/2002 11:20:56 AM Actually the sneh is a tree, not a bush. 10 points to whoever finds the Latin name and a picture. 611. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:33:20 AM More to suggest "Allah" was the name of a pre-Muslim deity: 612. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:34:48 AM Allah, back in your box, in the name of 613. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:35:51 AM /> Ooh, scary. I typoed right before I tried to write "Yah." Must be a sign. 614. JJBiener - 10/3/2002 11:40:35 AM Here is my contribution to the discussion on the name of God. 615. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:41:32 AM 616. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:47:10 AM Biener, I always liked the ending of that Clarke short story. 617. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 11:56:44 AM Message # 600: "But Pseudoerasmus, alilah aside, your quote from Christoph Heger in Message # 588 undermines your contention that Allah tanslates to "the God"." 618. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 12:01:48 PM Message # 604: "If the name Allah derives from Arabs' polytheistic period, then I don't see why supposing a derivation of al- from El is not preferable to the notion that al in the word "Allah" means "the". 619. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 12:02:31 PM But the question of what root "allah" derives from is moot isn't it since both the Arabic al-'ilah and the Syriac alaha are cognates to el and elohim. 620. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 12:43:49 PM correction: khalq is "creation" not "mercy" 621. jexster - 10/3/2002 1:09:25 PM Operation 'A Matter of Time' was an unmitigated failure. The cabinet … did not succeed in weakening Arafat's status. Indeed, the outcome of the siege, and of the destruction of those Palestinian government buildings that were still standing, was the opposite of what those who dreamed up the operation had intended: Arafat's position was strengthened, at least temporarily. 622. Andonly - 10/3/2002 1:36:50 PM "This last phrase, lil-lahi, occurs in the second line of the Qur'an." 623. Andonly - 10/3/2002 1:45:01 PM "But the question of what root "allah" derives from is moot isn't it since both the Arabic al-'ilah and the Syriac alaha are cognates to el and elohim." 624. JJBiener - 10/3/2002 1:47:51 PM This discussion of whether Allah is a proper name or not is silly. First it is a mistake to claim anything based on the fact that Arab Jews and Christians also describe God as Allah. Ultimately Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worship the same god. They differ in how they perceive God and how they worship that God, but they all fundamentally follow the one, true, all-powerful God. 625. Andonly - 10/3/2002 1:58:27 PM "Yes. But I have now dropped that argument in light of Heger's persuasive derivation." 626. Andonly - 10/3/2002 2:18:42 PM Now, this answers something I was wondering about, which is whether there are actually two L's written in the Arabic spelling of "Allah": 627. Andonly - 10/3/2002 2:20:32 PM The previous excerpt came from this page. 628. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 2:55:00 PM Message # 626: "Now, this answers something I was wondering about, which is whether there are actually two L's written in the Arabic spelling of "Allah": .... If this is so, it indicates still further that Allah was originally El-something, not "the god." 629. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 2:55:58 PM Message # 622: "Yes, but the Quran was written long after the Allah was in use." 630. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 2:56:15 PM Message # 624: But we're saying the same thing, you just don't recognise that. When I said "Allah" is not a personal name of God in Islam in the same way Zeus or Vishnu is, I mean by "personal name" a designator which is to be transliterated but not translated. I have been holding that "Allah" is a translateable word because it refers to the same thing that the word "God", "Dios", "Dieu", etc. refers to in the Jewish and Christian contexts. By contrast, Zeus and Vishnu have no equivalents outside Graeco-Roman and Hindu religions, respectively. Therefore, I reckon these two are personal names while "Allah" is a word. 631. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 2:58:13 PM "Most of our names mean something in one language or another. Then name Alexander is Greek for helper and defender of mankind." 632. JJBiener - 10/3/2002 3:07:50 PM PE - If Allah is not the personal name of God in Islam, what is Allah's name? 633. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 3:12:20 PM Islam holds that God has 99 "names", but they are all translateable attributes like "the compassionate" or "the merciful". 634. JJBiener - 10/3/2002 3:28:27 PM From PE Link: 635. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 3:31:13 PM Clarification to Message # 628: Thus, according to the way it's pointed, the full rendering of the Arabic "Allah", showing both the letters and the markers, is ALLLAH." 636. alistairconnor - 10/3/2002 4:17:53 PM Pseud's definition of Christian sects missed out the Manicheans, probably for the sake of simplicity. 637. JJBiener - 10/3/2002 4:25:32 PM Alistair - I try to stay away from Christiany. Too much sects and virulence. 638. transient1a - 10/3/2002 5:11:27 PM Andonly, 639. transient1a - 10/3/2002 5:24:16 PM pseudoeramus, 640. transient1a - 10/3/2002 5:26:30 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 641. Andonly - 10/3/2002 5:50:22 PM "These are reduced to two by Heger's observation that the shadda is a late embellishment." 642. Andonly - 10/3/2002 5:51:00 PM "If "allah" is directly derived from "el" ( instead of first having been borrowed from "alaha" which itself was derived from "el" ), then the /h/ is explicable as a transference of the same phoneme evident in the variant "eloh-", "elohim"." 643. Andonly - 10/3/2002 5:51:15 PM Incidentally, the pointed text you call a "shadda" looks rather like a shin--or, as it is known when it stands for some name or aspect of God I've forgotten, and graces a mezzuzah, a "Shaddai". As in "El-Shaddai". 644. transient1a - 10/3/2002 6:13:14 PM Andonly, 645. transient1a - 10/3/2002 6:43:10 PM JJBiener, 646. Andonly - 10/3/2002 7:18:04 PM Transient, you're bugging me. I took note of your previous reference to your message 585. I ignored it. That is because it said: 647. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 8:39:46 PM In Message # 630 I provided the final and definitive explanation of why "Allah" is not a name of God but is a word meaning "God". The argument does not rely on etymology which, as Transient himself has noted, is not pertinent to meaning, which depends on usage. The usage of the word "Allah" in Arabic is that it is used to mean "God" by Arabic-speaking Jews, Christians and Muslims. 648. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 8:39:54 PM "In Message # 567 pseudoerasmus fabricates the truth to support his contention: 'when an Arab says "Allah" he is well aware that "lah" means "god", as in "false gods" or "pagan gods". 649. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 8:41:56 PM The first plausible connexion between "allah" and "alaha" was made in my quotation of the remarks of Christoph Heger, not in anything Transient said. 650. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 8:56:57 PM Message # 642: "....the Aramaic alaha, which seems to make sense as a forerunner to Allah, is possibly also related to Elohim." 651. Andonly - 10/3/2002 9:03:08 PM "According to the Manicheans, Jesus, who was subject, like all of us, to the interplay of heavenly Good and earthly Evil, alternately shat and abstained from shitting. Approaching his death, he attained the final degree of perfection, renouncing meat, sex, and, presumably, defecation. And then he died. There must be a lesson there." 652. transient1a - 10/3/2002 9:04:31 PM Andonly, 653. transient1a - 10/3/2002 9:05:58 PM Change: state to stated 654. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 9:08:07 PM The /a/ in Arabic is not a long A like the first vowel in "mama", but closer to the American A such as you find in the Americans' pronunciation of "France". That is often the reason the definite article is transliterated "el", as in "El Alamein". 655. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 9:13:02 PM Pustulent keeps ignoring that my Message # 547 contained a two-pronged argument: 656. Andonly - 10/3/2002 9:30:57 PM "I find it inconceivable that it is not related, so I can't understand why you say "possibly also related"." 657. transient1a - 10/3/2002 9:32:18 PM pseudoerasmus, 658. transient1a - 10/3/2002 9:35:37 PM pseudoerasmus, 659. transient1a - 10/3/2002 9:36:15 PM in 'your' head. 660. transient1a - 10/3/2002 9:47:54 PM pseudoerasmus, 661. RustlerPike - 10/3/2002 9:47:58 PM Didn't McGarret use to say "alaha" at the end of every episode of Hawaii Five-O? 662. ronski - 10/3/2002 10:21:34 PM I thought it was "Book 'im, Danno." 663. pseudoerasmus - 10/3/2002 11:13:37 PM Message # 657: "Does this mean you do not read your own quotations? BECAUSE You mentioned the connection between "allah" and "alaha" first in your Message # 577" 664. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:29:51 PM OK. 665. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:30:24 PM (You Jack Lord freaks obviously have sussed out the Hawaiian cop's Aramaic roots.) 666. Andonly - 10/3/2002 11:42:56 PM "In the pointed text, the little mark which looks like a W is the shadda, which indicates that the consonant below it is doubled in pronunciation. The little line above the shadda is the vowel marker for short A. The other other line at the end is the vowel marker for short U." 667. transient1a - 10/3/2002 11:59:34 PM pseudoeramus, 668. RustlerPike - 10/4/2002 12:26:25 AM ronski: 669. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 12:49:27 AM Message # 664: For the Aramaic "alaha" to get to the Hebrew "Elohim" seems to require two things. 670. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 12:50:44 AM Second is appendage of the plural suffix -im. 671. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 1:22:33 AM Message # 667: In other words, you are trying to win this argument through semantics, i.e., by muddying and obscuring the distinction between "name" and "word" (or between what English teachers call "proper noun" and "common noun"). According to your reasoning, the English word "God" is also a name of the supreme deity. 672. Andonly - 10/4/2002 1:22:56 AM Pike: "The Hebrew for God's statement is not at all what you wrote. It is ehyeh asher ehyeh - 'I shall be what I shall be', or, in Popeye's words, 'I yam what I yam'." 673. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 1:26:36 AM I've been using the word "thus" far too often. Thus, I will try to stop henceforth. 674. Andonly - 10/4/2002 1:33:37 AM "Languages typically borrow a lexeme but not the rules of inflexion governing that class of lexeme. Thus, in Arabic, the word for 'student' is talib and its plural is tulub. But when non-Arabs borrowed this word, they just took talib and applied their own languages' rules of pluralisation." 675. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 1:43:39 AM "Yes, I know, that's just my point: if the imported word were alah or alaha, Hebrew speakers would have employed their own pluralization rules to produce "alahot," not "elohim". So it must first have been changed to sound like "Eloh." 676. Andonly - 10/4/2002 1:46:33 AM I'm tired. Thus, anon, and henceforth until morning, I shall be sleeping... in my bed... which is not hither... but rather, being up the stairs, thither. 677. Andonly - 10/4/2002 2:07:57 AM "But if there was borrowing, it would almost have to be from Hebrew to Aramaic, since Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic as the speech of Jews and that would have introduced many Hebrew words into Aramaic." 678. RustlerPike - 10/4/2002 2:32:26 AM Over and anon, Ando. 679. stostosto - 10/4/2002 5:22:18 AM Insh al'ilah. 680. stostosto - 10/4/2002 5:25:32 AM Al 'ilah is a concept by which we measure our pain. 681. RustlerPike - 10/4/2002 6:32:07 AM Explain that one please, o norseman. 682. stostosto - 10/4/2002 6:41:19 AM Rustler, 683. RustlerPike - 10/4/2002 7:12:09 AM Ah - the friend of Bul Makarti? 684. stostosto - 10/4/2002 8:11:39 AM Ah - the friend of Bul Makarti 685. RustlerPike - 10/4/2002 9:07:56 AM But they kicked out drummer Bita Ibn Basta, first. And then they were discovered by Harun Ibn al-Satun, and producer Harij Mart al-'Un. Yes? 686. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 9:22:18 AM Rustler, why does Hebrew call Greece "Yavan"? 687. TabouliJones - 10/4/2002 9:26:25 AM On the recommendation of Andonly (or, was it, stostoso?) I just picked up Michael B. Oren's Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. I have only read about 10 pages, but it looks like it will be an excellent, comprehensive, history of the Six Day War and its repercussions. If I get a chance I will attempt a review and summary of it in here or the book thread when I am done. 688. Wombat - 10/4/2002 9:35:55 AM Benny Morris wrote an excellent history of the Arab-Zionist (Israeli) interaction from pre Israel to post-first Intifada. He was one of the first, and probably the best of the "revisionist" school of Israeli historians that has swept away some of Israel's founding myths. 689. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 9:38:21 AM If I am not mistaken, Vav or Waw also serves as the vowel /o/. (This is paralleled in Arabic.) So perhaps Yavan or Yawan was originally pronounced Yon but the original pronunciation was forgotten under the influence of the written language. Classical texts would of course not have been vocalised, so it's not difficult to imagine that the original pronunciation was lost and the Vav was read as a V. I am encouraged in this belief by the spelling of "Zion": Tsadi, Yud, Vav, Nun. 690. TabouliJones - 10/4/2002 9:38:49 AM Thanks Wombat. Suggestions noted. 691. stostosto - 10/4/2002 9:42:08 AM (or, was it, stostoso?) 692. transient1a - 10/4/2002 9:42:32 AM pseudoerasmus, 693. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 9:47:20 AM So you do or do not recognise a distinction between "proper noun" and "common noun"? 694. stostosto - 10/4/2002 9:47:59 AM A god forbid that transient1 succeeds in prolonging this debate. 695. stostosto - 10/4/2002 9:48:56 AM (Or should I say "the transient 1"? 696. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 9:49:37 AM Tabouli, a recommendation: A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Making of the Modern Middle East, by David Fromkin. 697. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 9:50:25 AM Yes, there is irony in the moniker "Transient1a" since he gives indelible impressions of permanence.... 698. stostosto - 10/4/2002 9:51:42 AM Pseud, 699. Wombat - 10/4/2002 9:55:13 AM In reading Van Creveld, I was struck--again--at how inappropriate Israel's current defense structure is for dealing with the threats they face. 700. Wombat - 10/4/2002 9:56:39 AM The Fromkin book is excellent. 701. transient1a - 10/4/2002 10:07:51 AM pseudoerasmus, 702. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 10:12:45 AM Message # 698: I do not know anything about Turkish attitudes toward Jews except from what I read -- the question has never really come up in my personal experience of Turks or Turkey. 703. TabouliJones - 10/4/2002 10:14:11 AM PE, 704. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 10:15:13 AM 705. Wombat - 10/4/2002 10:29:12 AM The Turkish and Israeli governments have close ties in the area of defense (much to the chagrin of the Arab world). PE will correct me if I am wrong, but when the head of the last Islamic Party governing coalition proposed downgrading Turkish-Israeli relations, a delegation from the military visited him and warned that it would be ill-advised to do so. 706. marjoribanks - 10/4/2002 10:31:16 AM Ah. Nowadays one speed-reads two or three threads on the Mote, lacking time or energy to post anything of any length or relevance. 707. stostosto - 10/4/2002 10:31:56 AM Pseuder, 708. marjoribanks - 10/4/2002 10:32:10 AM Transient, 709. marjoribanks - 10/4/2002 10:38:01 AM Sto, 710. stostosto - 10/4/2002 11:01:54 AM marj, 711. Andonly - 10/4/2002 11:12:29 AM Tabouli, I will be interested in learning what you thought of "Six Days...". 712. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 11:20:49 AM Heikal is also the author of a book on Sadat's assassination, which argues that he was killed not because of the peace treaty with Israel -- as is the conventional wisdom in the West -- but because it was the Islamists' opening gambit to destroy the hated Nasserite secular-socialist regime (which was continued by Sadat). Of course the Islamists opposed the treaty also, but that was incidental to their motivation, according to Heikal. 713. marjoribanks - 10/4/2002 11:29:04 AM Sto, 714. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 11:43:23 AM Marzipranks just invited Transient to start pleading once again for the Khazar theory for the origins of the Ashkenazim. 715. marjoribanks - 10/4/2002 11:48:41 AM "Marzipranks just invited Transient to start pleading once again for the Khazar theory for the origins of the Ashkenazim. " 716. marjoribanks - 10/4/2002 11:50:28 AM I want to see that genetic survey about Pashtuns. 717. Andonly - 10/4/2002 11:50:34 AM Sto, I'm not terribly clear on the chief sources of Jews who settled in Russia, but I'm under the impression that Jews ultimately were settled in most parts of the Islamic empire, so surely some migrated to Russia from the east and via the Slavic countries. 718. Andonly - 10/4/2002 11:53:42 AM "The review essay begins with the fascinating observation that one of the conspirators in the assassination plot, after he was arrested, declared "I have killed Pharoah" in front of the media." 719. Andonly - 10/4/2002 11:58:55 AM "By the way, a recent genetic study of Pakistani populations has found no evidence for the folkloric claim that Pashtuns are descended, in part, from Jews." 720. TabouliJones - 10/4/2002 12:00:21 PM Andonly, 721. stostosto - 10/4/2002 12:06:22 PM Thanks, Ando, that timeline is very informative given my level of knowledge. 722. RustlerPike - 10/4/2002 12:10:34 PM Pseudo: 723. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 12:10:59 PM From the Abstract: 724. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 12:11:39 PM From the text: 725. JJBiener - 10/4/2002 12:21:12 PM Sto - Try Paul Johnson's History of the Jews. 726. ronski - 10/4/2002 12:23:20 PM What language or languages do the Makrani speak? 727. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 12:28:26 PM The Makranis speak Baluchi, but they are the descendants of African slaves. Oman used to have a colonial enclave in Pakistani Baluchistan along the Makron coast, Gwadar, and the predominant population of Gwadar is Makrani (apart from recent migrants). 728. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 12:28:54 PM Makran, not Makron... 729. transient1a - 10/4/2002 2:26:43 PM pseudoerasmus, 730. transient1a - 10/4/2002 2:27:50 PM Why red? 731. transient1a - 10/4/2002 2:29:20 PM Oh. I know what happened. Sorry. 732. transient1a - 10/4/2002 2:33:27 PM Easier to read: 733. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 3:28:13 PM ALLAH is the proper name of God among Muslims, corresponding in usage to Jehovah (Jahweh) among the Hebrews...." 734. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 3:32:57 PM REPOST 735. transient1a - 10/4/2002 3:45:34 PM pseudoerasmus, 736. transient1a - 10/4/2002 3:46:30 PM Ouch; 737. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 3:48:09 PM Come to think of it, one of the most famous phrases in Islam, bismillahi.... (In the name of God) is a contraction of: 738. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 3:55:07 PM "Some people, who are not Muslims, may have been brought up in a culture where they are taught that their 'God' and Allah are sufficiently close in properties that the two words are interchangeable. Think about custom -- or, if you want, characteristic sociolinguistic properties." 739. transient1a - 10/4/2002 4:01:26 PM pseudoerasmus, 740. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 4:10:57 PM Transient, you are trying to pull a fast one. In response to my point that Christian Arabs say "Allah", you replied: 741. transient1a - 10/4/2002 4:36:28 PM pseudoerasmus, 742. transient1a - 10/4/2002 4:43:29 PM pseudoeramus, 743. transient1a - 10/4/2002 4:49:37 PM Change: with to within 744. Andonly - 10/4/2002 4:55:00 PM "Well, as I have already told you, Arab Christians, who are not Muslims, have been brought up in a language where the only word for God is Allah." 745. Andonly - 10/4/2002 4:55:20 PM You have admitted yourself that usage, not etymology, determines words' definitions. All people of the Abrahamic faiths who are half awake know that God has many names. Why ordinary folk should believe that "God" and "Allah" are not proper names in the languages they happen to speak, I can't imagine. 746. Andonly - 10/4/2002 5:01:03 PM (By the way, when I speak of "ordinary folk", I do not mean people who spend ungodly amounts of time sweating the name of the Deity in online forums, but rather, trailer trash from Fort Worth, illiterate Islamists from Peshawar, and people from France.) 747. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 5:16:41 PM Message # 741: 748. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 5:27:42 PM #744, #745 749. pseudoerasmus - 10/4/2002 5:36:50 PM Fanatical Muslims will never say "God" or "Dieu" even when speaking English or French because they don't think holy words and holy texts should ever be translated. Fanatics in Pakistan "confiscate" bilingual editions of the Qur'an and "retire" them (bury them). I'm sure they would like to burn them but they can't burn the Arabic part, so they give the books a "burial". 750. Andonly - 10/4/2002 6:45:52 PM "So this whole issue should be thought of as "should 'Allah' be rendered as 'God' in translation from Arabic into English"?" 751. Andonly - 10/4/2002 6:46:15 PM Me: "...the descriptive term "Allah," which in Arabic usage means "the one and only god," becomes in common parlance the proper name of God for Arabs, just as "God" becomes the proper name of God for Anglophones." 752. Andonly - 10/4/2002 6:52:50 PM De-Yiddishizing and clarification: 753. Andonly - 10/4/2002 6:53:16 PM Fuck a duck and delete the last not. 754. Andonly - 10/4/2002 6:59:01 PM "Fanatical Muslims will never say "God" or "Dieu" even when speaking English or French because they don't think holy words and holy texts should ever be translated. Fanatics in Pakistan "confiscate" bilingual editions of the Qur'an and "retire" them (bury them). I'm sure they would like to burn them but they can't burn the Arabic part, so they give the books a "burial"." 755. RustlerPike - 10/4/2002 7:14:36 PM ronski: 756. Andonly - 10/4/2002 9:02:51 PM But is that "Andole-a," as in "the Andole"; or "Andoleah," a masculininzed form of "Leah" with the /r/ in andro- mysteriously dropped; or an-d'olea, meaning, "pertaining to that which is of oil"? 757. Andonly - 10/4/2002 10:54:09 PM "Lewis also observes that while the left-wing Egyptian intelligentsia was opposed to the peace treaty with Israel, the Egyptian masses were in favour. Which if true, means there's been a big change in attitude since the late 70s /early 80s." 758. RustlerPike - 10/5/2002 12:34:05 AM Andullahi: 759. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/2002 4:45:18 AM Message # 746: Andonly, "illiterate Islamists", even in Peshawar, is virtually a contradiction in terms. 760. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/2002 4:57:17 AM Message # 750: "Fair enough. But surely the answer will depend on a given translator's intentions, which one would hope would surrender to the preponderance of usage. But if not, who is a prescriptivist to say that the rendering of Allah as Allah in languages not Arabic is incorrect? It might be deliberate and politically motivated, or simply chauvinist, but that in itself would not make it wrong as translation, if you follow me." 761. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/2002 5:01:32 AM Message # 741: "The Christian God and the Jewish God have, at least some, different characteristics... Yet in English speaking 'Christian' countries, many Jews use the word God. And, perhaps, after, say, 100 years of living in the US or UK it would not be unreasonble for those Moslems to also use the word 'God'. But, just as the Jews are aware that there are significant differences between the Jewish God and the Christian God, so the Moslem would realize that their God is different. This is the phenomenon which you seem to find so puzzling that you wish, in some way, to reflect it in the classification of the word for designating the name of the deity. However, culture and custom do not necessarily follow clear logical rules." 762. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/2002 5:03:17 AM Message # 742: "When a serious schism occurs [within] a religious society which of the two divergent sects gets the 'logical' right to keep the name of deity." 763. transient1a - 10/5/2002 7:20:28 AM pseudoerasmus, 764. transient1a - 10/5/2002 7:26:44 AM >>>>>>>>>>>> 765. transient1a - 10/5/2002 7:32:57 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 766. transient1a - 10/5/2002 7:33:26 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 767. transient1a - 10/5/2002 8:14:41 AM pseudoerasmus, 768. PelleNilsson - 10/5/2002 10:38:33 AM transient's #763-67 are a massive demonstration of obscurantism. What does it all mean? Nobody knows, except (possibly) transient himself. 769. transient1a - 10/5/2002 11:07:27 AM PelleNilsson, 770. PelleNilsson - 10/5/2002 11:16:52 AM 1. I think PE is correct in this matter. 771. transient1a - 10/5/2002 11:29:58 AM PelleNilsson, 772. Andonly - 10/5/2002 12:58:57 PM Pelle, 773. Andonly - 10/5/2002 1:01:28 PM It might be worth noting for some reason that the proper name of the document from which that reference is drawn is "The Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English, Phase II" 774. Andonly - 10/5/2002 1:05:15 PM "I suspect that what motivates transient to exhibit his flawed mental acrobatics in public is a refusal to acknowledge that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same supernatural entity." 775. Andonly - 10/5/2002 1:08:06 PM "If you sit real close you can get an occasional glimpse of his varicose veined scrotum - looks like a third knee, with pubes dyed pink - from under his galabiya!" 776. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/2002 2:33:09 PM What Transient linked to was not a work of descriptive linguistics, but a KEY to the abbreviations and terminology used in the scholarly annotations in a corpus of Middle English texts. 777. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/2002 2:41:44 PM Transient1a is still arguing without the least reference to the translatability issue. A "proper noun" and a "common noun" are not just some arbitrary terms; they must have some correlation with a distinction in the reality of usage. And the usage I've pointed to is this: common nouns are usually translated between languages, proper nouns are not usually translated. As I said before, Mexican newspapers say "Bush", not "Zarza", in reference to the occupant of the White House. So if the "God" of the Hebrew- 778. transient1a - 10/5/2002 3:19:49 PM pseudoerasmus, 779. transient1a - 10/5/2002 3:44:00 PM psuedoerasmus, 780. transient1a - 10/5/2002 3:45:11 PM Ouch: a source they can check. 781. RustlerPike - 10/5/2002 3:57:15 PM God is an omniscient and omnipotent noun. 782. transient1a - 10/5/2002 4:05:19 PM RustlerPike, 783. stostosto - 10/5/2002 4:26:41 PM Re: Message # 755 784. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/2002 10:00:33 PM What style manuals like "The Handbook of Current English" say is irrelevant because these are written -- never by linguists -- but by teachers, editors and others with an interest in prescribing and promoting an authoritative standard for "correct usage" in language. Thus, such books say that grammatical phenomena like ain't are "incorrect". 785. pseudoerasmus - 10/5/2002 10:01:43 PM Those toponyms which do get translated refer to old and well-known geographical entities whose names have an ancient and classical pedigree in the languages in question. Thus, since Egypt has been known as Egypt in the west for thousands of years, the name is not about to get changed to Masr (the Arabic word for Egypt). But geographical entities which are new or recently become known, almost never get translated. Bolivia is Bolivia is Bolivia in any language, albeit with a few phonological adaptations to account for those sounds which do not exist in some languages (such as L in Japanese). 786. Andonly - 10/5/2002 10:57:40 PM "What Transient linked to was not a work of descriptive linguistics, but a KEY to the abbreviations and terminology used in the scholarly annotations in a corpus of Middle English texts." 787. RustlerPike - 10/5/2002 11:27:51 PM sto: 788. RustlerPike - 10/6/2002 1:57:28 AM Hey guys, here's a death clock. 789. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/2002 4:35:01 AM Pseudus is the late-mediaeval translator of the Neo-Platonist works of the crypto-Jewish Muslim convert al-Anaduli, while Anti-Pseudus was Pseudus's Neo-Aristolelian opponent in the debates held in Ravenna between Byzantine and Rome church theologians over the personhood of the Islamic Allah. 790. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/2002 4:37:14 AM "in common usage endorsed as a matter of course by linguists, God is a proper noun. He then brings up the Handbook of Current English, which, however prescriptivist it may be, is also an indicator of standard usage, and lists God as a proper noun." 791. PincherMartin - 10/6/2002 5:58:38 AM PE -- 792. PincherMartin - 10/6/2002 5:59:33 AM transliterated 793. transient1a - 10/6/2002 9:41:55 AM pseudoeramus, 794. transient1a - 10/6/2002 10:29:37 AM God as a proper name: 795. transient1a - 10/6/2002 10:40:47 AM Just to fair. 796. Andonly - 10/6/2002 10:45:35 AM I've just recalled another glaring instance of the word "God" being treated quite unambiguously as a proper noun. 797. Andonly - 10/6/2002 10:54:26 AM Transient, your Message # 795 excerpt is advocacy crap. 798. transient1a - 10/6/2002 11:13:23 AM Andonly, 799. Andonly - 10/6/2002 2:56:47 PM "If you went to the URL's, you would see that my last two posts were from the Catholic Encyclopedia." 800. RustlerPike - 10/6/2002 3:39:52 PM (God allahmighty, when will it stop?) 801. PelleNilsson - 10/6/2002 3:45:05 PM And when will somebody post something on topic? Why don't you give it a try Rustler? Let's see something about the new settlements that are reportedly going up and your views on them. 802. RustlerPike - 10/6/2002 3:54:41 PM What new settlements? I remember reading something a week or so ago, about a new settlement somewhere. 803. robertjayb - 10/6/2002 3:55:24 PM Yes, please. 804. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/2002 10:30:55 PM In English and other languages written in the Roman, Cyrillic and Greek alphabets where the concept of "capitalisation" exists, a "proper noun" is distinguished from other nouns only according to one standard: they are capitalised regardless of their location in the sentence. This standard is obviously meaningless in those languages where the very phenomenon of capitalisation does not and cannot exist; and in the past it was meaningless even in languages using Roman, Cyrillic and Greek alphabets since small-case letters are a relatively late innovation. Greeks and Romans wrote in all capitals. (In German, all nouns are always capitalised, so this standard is also totally meaningless.) 805. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/2002 10:31:27 PM Message # 791: "How did the Romans speak of Zeus and the other Greek Gods in Latin? In English, when speaking of the Roman deities, we refer to Zeus as Jupiter, Hermes as Mercury, Hera as Juno, etc. Is this distinction maintained in Latin when speaking of the Greek gods? Or are those Greek names tranliterated into Latin as you earlier argued?" 806. pseudoerasmus - 10/6/2002 10:32:23 PM Message # 793: "I think your attempt to reclassify proper nouns was misguided." 807. transient1a - 10/6/2002 11:36:32 PM pseudoerasmus, 808. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 1:32:22 AM Pe: 809. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 6:09:10 AM 810. transient1a - 10/7/2002 6:29:09 AM pseudoerasmus, 811. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/2002 6:45:20 AM I did not put forward my own method of classification. 812. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/2002 6:56:08 AM For the sake of bringing this discussion about common & proper nouns to an end, I will modify my original claim to "In English, the Arabic word 'Allah' is to be translated as 'God', just as 'Saint Peter' is translated from English to French as 'Saint Pierre' and as Moses (the historical person) is translated from English to Arabic as Musa". As I said, my primary concern is translation, not categories of grammar. 813. transient1a - 10/7/2002 7:41:21 AM pseudoerasmus, 814. transient1a - 10/7/2002 7:49:24 AM Oops: neither new nor novel 815. Andonly - 10/7/2002 9:43:52 AM That ice skating cartoon was hilarious, if slightly overconfident. 816. Andonly - 10/7/2002 10:08:33 AM Sto: "I seriously think I need to dig up some foundation-laying reading." 817. Andonly - 10/7/2002 11:05:50 AM Poking around a bit in search of references to this Christoph Heger guy, whom I'm beginning to find quite interesting, I located a discussion of his, of a Koranic surah, whose traditional meaning he challenges to argue that the verse has its origins in Christian theology. 818. Andonly - 10/7/2002 11:19:41 AM But here is a meta-refutation of Heger , which characterizes his explanation of Surah 25 as "missionary." 819. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 11:22:11 AM Ando: 820. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 11:23:16 AM People: 821. Andonly - 10/7/2002 11:41:10 AM Actually, the refutation of Heger is in some respects very strong. 822. Andonly - 10/7/2002 11:43:10 AM "Fruitcake" means "crazy". I'm guessing you mean "fruit," and who cares. 823. ronski - 10/7/2002 11:48:09 AM Rustler, 824. concerned - 10/7/2002 11:50:11 AM Re. 820 - 825. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 12:05:52 PM ronski: 826. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/2002 2:17:45 PM Message # 813: "The concept that words can be translated from one language to another is neither new or novel." 827. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/2002 2:23:24 PM Thus, there is a quality to the word Allah which is different from the quality in names such as Vishnu or Apollo or George Bush. As I said earlier, "George Bush" is rendered "George Bush" in Mexican newspapers, not "Jorge Zarza". The fact that Arabic-speaking Christians say "Allah" is analogous with saying "Jorge Zarza" in Spanish for the occupant of the White House. I've said all this before. 828. Jenerator - 10/7/2002 2:28:46 PM Andonly, 829. Andonly - 10/7/2002 2:42:27 PM Jenerator, I don't have any recommendations for books about sharia, sorry. 830. stostosto - 10/7/2002 3:49:54 PM There will never be sharia in Bahìa 831. stostosto - 10/7/2002 3:59:32 PM Fourteen Palestinians dead in Gaza. 832. transient1a - 10/7/2002 7:10:44 PM pseudoerasmus, 833. transient1a - 10/7/2002 7:12:52 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 834. transient1a - 10/7/2002 7:20:40 PM Ouch 835. robertjayb - 10/7/2002 7:32:46 PM Look at Israeli Attacks 836. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/2002 7:41:48 PM Message # 832: "What! The discussion centered on was English -- until you just tried to switch the topic. But that's one of the problems you just keep changing the topic." 837. robertjayb - 10/7/2002 7:43:21 PM Raid reckless...U.N. 838. robertjayb - 10/7/2002 7:49:18 PM Hamas vows revenge... 839. robertjayb - 10/7/2002 7:51:20 PM .....The four-hour raid was the deadliest against the Palestinians in three months and besides the dead, 25 of the injured were in critical condition, doctors said. Most suffered shrapnel wounds in the head, chest and abdomen. The dead ranged in age from 14 to 52. 840. robertjayb - 10/7/2002 7:53:55 PM ...Abdeen said as troops withdrew, he heard helicopters. ''A big explosion lifted me and blew me 30 feet away,'' he said. 841. robertjayb - 10/7/2002 7:57:01 PM ...Last month, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat appealed for an end to attacks against Israeli civilians. But a few days later Islamic militants staged a pair of suicide bombings that killed seven Israelis, prompting a 10-day Israeli siege of Arafat's West Bank headquarters. 842. robertjayb - 10/7/2002 7:59:02 PM ... In other developments Monday: 843. transient1a - 10/7/2002 8:07:31 PM pseudoerasmus, 844. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/2002 8:44:32 PM In Message # 843 the Transient Pustule deliberately quotes me incompletely. My original statement in Message # 547 made two points, (1) about the morphology of the word "allah" in Arabic; and (2) the use of the word "allah" by Arabophone Jews and Christians. I publically and openly abandoned approach #1 when I learnt -- on my own -- that although the morphology of "allah" as "al + (i)lah" was widely held to be true (including by sources Transient has cited), I realised it was probably wrong. So then I stuck exclusively to arguing #2 and what that means. 845. Andonly - 10/7/2002 9:02:25 PM How does "arcana" translate into venutian, excuse me, Venutian? 846. transient1a - 10/7/2002 9:07:30 PM pseudoeramus, 847. pseudoerasmus - 10/7/2002 9:48:17 PM "The point is that if there was only language in the world you would claim that "Venus" is a proper noun." 848. arkymalarky - 10/7/2002 9:58:21 PM OK now? 849. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 10:32:55 PM OK now? 850. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 10:33:38 PM Now? 851. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 10:37:08 PM This should do it. 852. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 10:39:53 PM The lazy brown fox jumped over the quick white rabbit. 853. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 10:41:43 PM OK guys, any further posting on the names of God will be moved to Religion, so help me Vishnu. 854. transient1a - 10/7/2002 11:35:43 PM pseudoerasmus, 855. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 11:41:42 PM I found this article in the NYT tremendously enlightening. 856. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 11:44:04 PM transient: 857. RustlerPike - 10/7/2002 11:48:37 PM Well, that's my guess then. 858. Wombat - 10/8/2002 7:11:14 AM Rustler: 859. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 8:16:18 AM Well, then, my guess is maybe chemical Katyushas from the Hizbullah, too. 860. ronski - 10/8/2002 8:48:03 AM Pike, 861. TabouliJones - 10/8/2002 9:28:34 AM Speaking of which, the current newstand edition of The New Yorker is running the first part of a two part series on the Hizbollah. I have read the first part; which is quite good, albeit meandering in the typical New Yorker style. The point the article seems to be building to is that the Hizbollah is the greatest terrorist menace in operation today. This point has yet to be fully substantiated in the article; but, like I said, it is a two parter. Regardless, there are plenty of interesting details about hateful Hizbollah rhetoric and doctrine, especially as espoused on its television channel (the name of which escapes me, sorry); Syria's control of Lebanon and the volatility in the area in general. 862. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 10:23:28 AM Can you guys hear this? 863. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 10:29:47 AM It's a sermon by Rabbi Haim Druckman. I never listened to something like that. 864. ronski - 10/8/2002 10:40:43 AM I can hear it. I can't understand it, of course. What's he saying? Something about Iraq, yes? 865. TabouliJones - 10/8/2002 10:48:53 AM Pike, 866. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 10:54:21 AM It's actually quite fascinating. 867. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 11:00:44 AM ronski, tj: 868. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 11:05:54 AM A short-lived, short-range, small scale incursion - maybe. Air strikes -probably. Commando raids - probably. A reoccupation - I doubt it. 869. TabouliJones - 10/8/2002 11:27:29 AM Rustler, 870. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 11:38:10 AM Tabouli, 871. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 11:40:20 AM Finally, there is considerably more religious freedom in Syria than in any number of close-by countries. You can read William Dalrymple's excellent From the Holy Mountain for details. 872. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 11:42:11 AM Also, it should be noted that there has been a marked increase in behind-the-scenes collaboration between the Syrians and the US in the past year, a development that seems to be a big part of the reason Bush left off that country from his Axis of Evil. The Syrians are currently torturing Al Qaeda suspects on behalf of the Yanks as you may or may not know. 873. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 11:43:47 AM 4) above should be read to mean that the domestic religious right in Israel is more influential than its equivalents in the named countries (also Jordan and Lebanon). 874. TabouliJones - 10/8/2002 11:47:52 AM Okay, Syria is probably a bad example; and I am using the term Islamist too loosely, I am sure. 875. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 11:52:38 AM I don't understand why you are using the word caliph. It's a useless term, there is no caliph and there has not been one for roughly 100 years. 876. PelleNilsson - 10/8/2002 12:01:17 PM Tabouli 877. TabouliJones - 10/8/2002 12:04:49 PM marjori, 878. PelleNilsson - 10/8/2002 12:07:56 PM X-post with marj. However, the caliphat was not abolished 100 years ago but 78 years ago, in 1924. 879. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:10:23 PM Tabouli, 880. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 12:10:39 PM Marzipranks's citation of Dalrymple is ridiclous. Why does he always cite fucking travel writers? Syria comes out looking good in Dalrymple because while the Turks have essentially effaced the traces of ancient Christian presence from Anatolia, Syria abounds in things Christian. 881. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 12:13:16 PM (Besides, Turkish objections to Christians were not their Christianity, it was their Greekness and Armenian-ness which implied disloyalty to the Turkish state. The Assyrians, the third major Christian ethnic group in Anatolia, have been untouched.) 882. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:14:44 PM What are you, Pseuder, a Turk apologist? 883. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:17:07 PM I may start referring to Pseuder as Kemal Ourturkapologist from now on. 884. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:17:49 PM How about Kemal Aturkapologist? 885. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 12:25:06 PM No, Marzipranks completely misrepresents things. 886. concerned - 10/8/2002 12:26:48 PM Why does he always cite fucking travel writers? 887. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 12:27:36 PM religious freedom today. 888. Andonly - 10/8/2002 12:27:48 PM "This bloke is a progressive person in most matters, for instance he was far more amenable to the UN's Population Summit's findings a decade ago than was the Pope or the American fundies." 889. Andonly - 10/8/2002 12:32:17 PM [I confess to being with the reactionary mullahs on the matter of importing American game show TV into adolescent societies.] 890. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 12:32:30 PM No, I am not being a Turk apologist. 891. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:34:29 PM Two facts: 892. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:35:51 PM If we rewrote Dalrymple's book with a focus on the Jews of the Middle East, the Turks would come out looking like pretty good and the Syrians like evil villains. 893. Fielding - 10/8/2002 12:37:59 PM 894. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:40:41 PM It should also be noted that the remaining Jews in Syria after 1948 then fled almost en masse after the Madrid Conference in the early 90's. They now live, apparently again en masse, in Brooklyn where their restaurants have markedly improved the ME fare available on Atlantic Avenue. 895. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:44:36 PM Another fact: 896. PelleNilsson - 10/8/2002 12:44:39 PM Jordan is also very tolerant towards its Christians. King Hussein made a point of visiting one or the other of the patriarchs at Christmas and Easter, and several new churches went up while I lived there. I don't know if Abdullah continues the tradition but I would expect he does. 897. Wombat - 10/8/2002 12:46:26 PM Fielding: 898. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 12:49:15 PM Message # 891: "...Syria enjoys a degree of religious freedom today that is quite unlike many of its neighbors." 899. concerned - 10/8/2002 12:49:18 PM Jordan is also very tolerant towards its Christians. 900. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 12:50:24 PM 300 not 300 901. Andonly - 10/8/2002 12:54:01 PM "Sheikh Tantawi is indeed quite progressive on most matters, quite unlike the mullahs and imams of popular American imagination." 902. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 12:54:28 PM "You want to get married not under the strictures of the Orthodox Rabbinate in Israel? Too bad - go to Cyprus. That is a great deal more influence than the Muslim religious right has on marriage in Syria." 903. Andonly - 10/8/2002 12:57:25 PM "The religious right also plays a disprortionate role in Israeli politics. It is an unhealthy situation, that cries out for separation of powers, as in the US." 904. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:57:32 PM Look, compare the rights of Christians in Syria or Turkey or even Iraq, to the rights of these religionists in Saudi Arabia - good and valuable US ally -and you will have some reason for pause. 905. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 12:58:36 PM I thought even India, for all its secularism, allows its own Muslims to be governed by Muslim personal law. In the Shah Bano case, the Indian civil courts awarded alimony to a Muslim woman, which caused orthodox Muslims to protest. The Indian government placated orthodox opinion by passing a law which literally made sharia provisions on divorce the personal law for Indian Muslims. 906. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 12:59:54 PM Actually, Israel and Syria have precisely the same policy on the question of marriage and divorce. 907. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 1:00:33 PM Message # 904: "Look, compare the rights of Christians in Syria or Turkey or even Iraq, to the rights of these religionists in Saudi Arabia...." 908. pseudoerasmus - 10/8/2002 1:02:17 PM Message # 906: "Kindly acquaint yourself with the differences in the modern Jewish observance." 909. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 1:04:07 PM The last sentence on India isn't quite right. But yes, India does allow Muslim personal law to apply to adherents. 910. Andonly - 10/8/2002 1:10:32 PM PE, Spanks is saying that the Orths have a stranglehold on Jewish personal law, whereas Jews in Israel are not even predominantly Orth. 911. Fielding - 10/8/2002 1:10:47 PM Wombat: 912. Wombat - 10/8/2002 1:14:45 PM Andonly: 913. Wombat - 10/8/2002 1:16:44 PM Fielding: 914. Andonly - 10/8/2002 3:55:05 PM On the subject of Israeli Jews having to bend to Orthodox custom when marrying, I don't know that this presents any great hardship, unless the couple is interfaith or has a political objection to the Orths (in which case they do go to Cyprus, which can't be more than an hour or two away). 915. concerned - 10/8/2002 7:27:02 PM Top Iranian Cleric slams Falwell, stops short of Fatwa 916. ronski - 10/8/2002 7:58:40 PM Stops short of fatwa? 917. marjoribanks - 10/8/2002 8:09:34 PM Having read all of Twain's report of his journey around the world on lecture tour (especially paying attention to the bit that includes the Orient), I feel confident in saying the following: 918. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 10:44:54 PM Marj, 919. joezan - 10/8/2002 10:46:27 PM Twain, iirc, was agnostic. 920. joezan - 10/8/2002 10:48:05 PM ..certainly not religious, by any stretch. 921. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 11:04:31 PM This comparison of the Israel religious right with a supposed Arab religious right presupposes that there is any kind of democracy in the Arab countries. There is none, and there is, therefore, no 'right' - or left for that matter. The various Arab regimes are either secular or semi-religious or religious. The masses are increasingly militant and religious. The goverments face the danger of revolution if they disregard the masses' emotional state too blatantly. There is, however, no coalition that could be fractured by this or that decision or pronouncement, and there is no free press or electorate to fear. 922. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 11:04:58 PM >>> 923. RustlerPike - 10/8/2002 11:10:54 PM Joe: 924. TabouliJones - 10/9/2002 8:53:49 AM Thanks Pike and all others who responded to my original question. 925. marjoribanks - 10/9/2002 9:14:54 AM Spike, 926. marjoribanks - 10/9/2002 9:22:58 AM My grandfather had the following passage memorized, and I always read it fondly: 927. RustlerPike - 10/9/2002 11:46:19 AM Marj: 928. RustlerPike - 10/9/2002 12:13:46 PM I hate myself and want to die. 929. marjoribanks - 10/9/2002 12:27:33 PM Oh geez, Spike.
Field Howitzer 77B is included in the divisional artillery battalions. The gun is a development of Field Howitzer 77A and was commissioned into the Army at the beginning of the 1990’s. The difference between this gun and the 77A is that it is equipped with a screw mechanism instead of a wedge mechanism, plus a longer barrel with a plate brake. Field Howitzer 77B is one of the few automatically loaded artillery pieces with cartridge charges. Each gun is is equipped with the POS 2 system for positioning and direction of the gun.
All types of 155 mm ammunition, among others conventional HE ammunition and base-bleed ammunition, can be fired from this gun. Range with a conventional HE shell is in excess of 17 km, and with a base-bleed shell in excess of 27 km. Rate of fire is 3 rounds within 12 seconds.
A Portrait of PellePickelhaube As A Young Man 
Now this is what I mean when I say your talents are wasted here, jex.
See - one thing you're forgetting is that all 10 of us Moties remember GWI and its aftermath very well. And any one of us could, without even trying, find a shitload of news stories such as this, this, this, this, or this, to prove what a pathetic liar you are.
Stamina will only get you so far here, dude.
You need to find a place where they'll be dazzled by your bullshit.
I'll get the quote from none other than Richard Bulter himself which will free at least a synapse or two from the Big Bagboogey Man....
Not Saddam, that other clown, The Krusty One!
CNN - 1997: Iraqi authorities reportedly told the three U.S. weapons inspectors politely but firmly that they could not enter the country after they had flown from Bahrain aboard a U.N. plane to an air base, 125 kilometers northwest of Baghdad. The Iraqi leadership said on Wednesday it would no longer cooperate with Americans in U.N. inspection teams checking Iraq's compliance with Gulf War resolutions.
CNN - 2002: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein denies his government is developing weapons of mass destruction, but it expelled international weapons inspectors in 1998.
PBS: And, in December 1998, Iraq expelled all UNSCOM weapons inspectors charging that UNSCOM has become a spy agency.
(Not that it's not amusing to see a lefty make an ass of himself - but with you, it's gettin' mighty old).
The New York Times
November 12, 1998, Thursday, Late Edition - Final
U.N. Orders Inspectors and Relief Staff Out of Iraq
BYLINE: By BARBARA CROSSETTE
DATELINE: UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 11
After a warning from the United States that a military strike on Baghdad may be imminent, the United Nations abruptly evacuated more than 230 foreign staff members from Iraq today, including all weapons inspectors. Another 41 people from various agencies will depart on Thursday, leaving only essential staff members behind.
Russia, angry that there had been no consultation with all Security Council members before a decision was made to withdraw the arms inspectors, called a meeting of the Council today to demand an explanation from the chief inspector, Richard Butler.
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency were also withdrawn, leaving the Baghdad monitoring center "dead," an official said here today. The inspectors -- 92 from Unscom and 11 from the I.A.E.A. -- flew to Bahrain today.
You have posted about 6,000 words and 10 pictures in three hours, and are obviously taxing your mental strength dangerously. I am cutting down your daily post quota to 10. That leaves you one more for today. Use it wisely.
Actually, the story seems pretty bona fide to me. And Schiff is as respectable as they come (for lefties).
This is more interesting, of course:
Mohammed Atta, the leader of the Qaida group that conducted the Sept. 11 airplane suicide attacks on the Twin Towers in New York, flying the first plane into the towers, visited Syria twice or three times. The Syrians did not give that information to the Americans on their own volition.
Osama bin Laden's son, Omar, left Syria together with his mother Nagwa, three weeks before the attack on the Twin Towers, after receiving anonymous instructions to do so. The son returned to Syria after 9-11, and has since visited twice more. Bin Laden's wife and son lived in the Alawite stronghold in Latakiya in an arrangement that gave refuge to bin Laden's close relatives. The two are not now in Syria.
Intelligence services have also managed to find detailed information about contacts between one of the leading Hezbollah military figures, Imad Mourghniyeh, and a Qaida operative in Sudan. There is no evidence yet of that relationship developing into continuing ties, but there is no doubt the meeting could not have taken place without Syrian intelligence knowing of it.
Btw, this crazed anti-femmie friend of mine is unfazed by your claim of using the urinals at SU daily. He says to ask you about the so-called 'Girl Taxis' which ferry Swedish women at 50% the normal fare. Is there any truth to this at all? Where is he getting this story from, do you think?
Think about a situation in which a group of inspectors from Japan are searching for plutonium in 1944 USA, and you'll start to get the picture.
But I believe that the Truth will set you free. I am a Man of Faith.
Take care though, I am not speaking of small "t" truth. The fact that Iraq did not expell the UN inspectors, the UN ordered them withdrawn in anticipation of bombs over Baghdad. That is a little truth. I'd be more than happy to exceed the daily IP limit by flooding the thread with the kazillion articles (LOVE YA LEXIS!) that establish this small "t" type truth. Hell I know that First Sargent pile would PT me til I puke buttermilk, probably gouge out my eyeballs and skull fuck me. But screw Pike, I'd do it for ya a New York minute..
But you'd never get free. You never get to the Truth. You'd still be lost in corn pon con and Fear-filled Frenzy. The questions to which the Butler correction was but minor preface were to set you on the path to Truth....
I realize now that you are having some difficulty so I will give you the answer...so what is the REALLY about?
The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism." The Truth from Richard Perle
When you're free JoeZ you'll love it. Why you'll be able to tell the difference between fart and fragrance again.
Z BE FREE!
Not jex's - jex thinks we left because Scott Ritter single-handedly destroyed Saddam's war-making machine, pissed on his old man's grave, then called in an airstrike on Baghdad just for shitz-n-gigglez.
As I said in another thread, Iraq is just for starters.
You seem to have stumped him, Joe.
It would be a disaster for Lebanon if al Qaida got entrenched there.
It will be interesting to see if Schiff's report gets replayed at all in the American press.
One US war aim that's been publicized is the possibility of blowing up the calndestinely opened oil pipeline between Iraq and Syria. Unless I miss my guess, that would have an unpleasant effect on the Syrian economy, not just on Saddam's coffers.
Where have you been? My loins have been uncomfortably unstirred lately.
Moms are superfluous.
Dads rule.
Well, OK. I've been called worse.
So Pelle, have you ever heard of anything remotely like this 'girl taxi'?
And then yesterday I get a call around 12:30 from the wife's lawyer, asking me why I wasn't in court, because the session had been scheduled for 11:30. He also said something about there being a new report from the social worker, but apparently he was lying or bluffing, hoping to freak me out, I don't know. So anyway, I duly freaked out and figured this was something the judge had concocted because she had it in for me, she had been shown the letter I wrote to the police about her, something like that, and she was going to fuck me over.
I'm still not totally sure this isn't the case but the surprise jolt factor has worn off a bit, and I'm starting to think maybe she just wants to adjust the visitation arrangement a bit, which I don't mind because this half and half arrangement does have some serious drawbacks for me too.
As for the surprise factor: I had notofied the court that I was dismissing my lawyer and representing myself, but this was never done formally. The court sems to have sent the summons to the session to this lawyer, who apparently purposely didn't inform me of the session. So he's a bastard, but at least it's not a court-engineered ambush like I had thought. And again - I think the wife's lawyer had a part in misleading me about that matter, too, hoping perhaps I would freak out and beat up the judge or something. He did have a smile at the corner of his mouth when he saw me show up at the courthouse, all riled up.
Gareth Smyth is probably the world's worst reporter after Phil Reeves, so I have no better sense of the truth or falsity of the Haaretz piece after reading him.
Pls move jex's posts to the Inferno. They are becoming increasingly tedious, repetitive, lunatic and content-free, and they will scare away visitors.
The true story about the so called Girls' Taxis is as follows. Some years ago there was the recurrent scare-mongering in the press about how unsafe the Stockholm subway system is at night, in particular for women. At the same time, the taxi system was being deregulated. One of the start-up taxi companies saw a market opportunity and offered a discount, 10-20% I think, to women after 22.00. Well, the scare subsided and presumably the discount went with it. I haven't seen it advertised for a long time.
These urban myths are amazing, only surpassed by the morons who believe them. Best regards to your "friend".
You're not even allowed to have "ladies nights" in clubs here, let alone discounts based solely on gender.
***
My folks just got back from Israel where, they tell me, one of my cousins is busy gathering signatures for Mitznah.
Also they complained about the yeshiva buchers making a nuiscance of themselves everywhere, yelling ostentatiously at airport clerks, driving around in cars loaded up to the windows with boxes of gefilte fish, carelessly knocking down women in crowds, wearing hats on top of their kippoht, and generally looking unwashed and unkempt, with especially filthy shoes.
Whatever PC-ness we have here is imported from the US, and as usual the Swedes are slow on the uptake.
Andonly.
Onan. But for some reason I doubt Rustler would like to use that parable at present.
I don't spill my seed on the ground. I have a pink towel that I use when I am making Dove to myself. It helps create the fleeting illusion of being under a feminine skirt of sorts. Then I forget about it, as I start clicking on pics of shiny African women with wonderful butts and wide-open vulvae doing lovely things to each other and to an occasional man.
Then everything goes 'kaboom' and I am quite pleased.
I'm worried about Joe's sudden interest in the subject of feminism. He never used to comment on the subject. What is your take? Is Mr. Cool in danger of deteriorating into a Pikean stupor?)
Dear Rep. Pelosi:
In recent weeks, several prominent Republicans, among them Brent Scowcroft, your colleague Dick Armey, Lawrence Eagleburger, and James Baker have boldly and decisively spoken out against Bush plans to invade Iraq. Over that same period, prominent Democrats have remained embarrasingly silent. As a Democrat and constituent I am ashamed, and I am angry.
Over the next days and weeks, you will be meeting the President and leading House deliberations. I urge you in the strongest terms to speak out; to put Bush his proof, and to examine justifications that have thus far amount to nothing more than deceptiive pretexts for a gravely immoral adventurism.
The consequences for the US and the world should Bush's schemes remain unchecked are grave indeed. Perhaps you read Immanuel Wallerstein's OpEd in Los Angeles Times last April. His opening parapaph has, in the event, turned out to be eerily prophetic:
"George Bush is a geopolitical incompetent. He has allowed a clique of hawks to induce him to take a position on invading Iraq from which he cannot extract himself, one that will have nothing but negative consequences for the United States - and the rest of the world. He will find himself badly hurt politically, perhaps fatally. And he will rapidly diminish the already declining power of the US in the world."
No citizen, no representative can anything to do with any unprovoked, preemptive invasion of a sovereign nation unless the following criteria met. In no case, has the Bush admistration advanced a justification for war that comes close to satisfying a single one.
The criteria are for just war are:
- the damage must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- the prospects of success must be significant;
- the use of arms must not produce evils graver than the evil to be eliminated, and
- the decision for war must be made by legitimate authority, in this case, both the United States Congress and the Security Council of the United Nations.
Please note that Bush's promise to "consult" with the UN and Congress is insufficient. You must not be a party to any consultation without a sure and certain committment that the Administration will seek not only congressional approval but Security Council sanction for any Bush schemes to enforce UN resolutions.
As the decision for war is yours, so too the responsibity for its consequences.
Thank you very much.
John C. McC
San Francisco, CA
cc: Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club
Or just an imbecile?
7:13 GMT, 16 December 1998
BAGHDAD, Dec 16 (AFP) -UN humanitarian staff and weapons experts were being evacuated from Baghdad on Wednesday after UN arms chief Richard
Butler warned Iraq was failing to cooperate with his inspectors, UN sources said.
"We are in the process of evacuating" by
plane to Bahrain, a source with the UN
Special Commission (UNSCOM) in charge
of disarming Iraq told AFP, declining to
give more details.
The UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in
charge of disarming Iraq began
evacuating its staff from Baghdad on
Wednesday, a day after Butler reported
to the UN Security Council that Iraq had
failed to cooperate fully with his
inspectors.
Witnesses said humanitarian staff left
the UN headquarters at the Canal Hotel
with their baggage. "All the staff are
being evacuated," said a witness at the
building.
Butler, the UNSCOM chairman, reported
Tuesday that Iraq had not only failed to
provide full cooperation with arms
inspectors but had introduced new
restrictions on their work.
Don't you think it's time to start your own blog?
I mean, please?
>>>
I was deeply insulted by the fact that the birthday party was held without me, but I spoke to my wife yesterday and it was the first time we've had a semi-normal conversation since she left home. We may actually be able to reach agreement on the subject of visitation and alimony (thus avoiding the dreaded session with the judge, who does after all appear to want to screw me over badly all of a sudden). And I'm thinking - somehow, through this struggle, Anna suddenly has Israeli friends. The femmunists may have their own reasons for joining forces with her, but at least they respect her and have accepted her into their fold. Which goes a long way towards solving the original problem - my wife's feeling that she is not good enough, will never fit in, etc. Which seems to be making her much more normal and less belligerent.
In other words - the common cause makes the femmies see my wife as a person, and not just a kushit. Once she has been accepted into their social circle, though, she seems to be becoming less belligerent towards me.
Who knows, in the end the local femmies may even wind up learning stuff from her. God knows there's a lot they need to learn about how to be women.
This make any sense to anyone?
That's priceless.
P-"Onan. But for some reason I doubt Rustler would like to use that parable at present."
Oh, I don't know. Onan was made to marry someone he didn't like--his brother's widow, was it? I can't remember--and to keep from siring her children he jerked off instead. Naturally, the Lord smote him.
Note that Onan's sin was wasting sperm which had a female Jew-making apparatus ready and willing to receive them.
Pike is in a different position. He had a wife but then she left him. Now he's got no field to plow, as it were, no warm cave with beckoning ova into which to send his wrigglers. Thus Yaweh can't really begrudge him his pink towel.
A while ago I tried to persuade Rustler to extend the scope of this hread to include Iraq, but he was reluctant. Then, as the Bush administrations Iraq policy disintegrated I changed my mind and concluded that for now it is a domestic policy issue (as amply demonstrated by your posts)
I really shouldn't mess around with Rustler's thread but I am reasonably sure that I act as per the intention of our Beloved Leader when I move your latest outbursts to Politics.
You can run you freaskish fundie twit, but you damn sure can't hide!
Agence France Presse
December 16, 1998 17:40 GMT
Butler rapped for ordering UN evacuation after Iraq report
BODY:
By Anne Penketh
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 16 (AFP) - The UN Security Council met in emergency session Wednesday as China, France and Russia protested a decision to evacuate UN arms inspectors from Baghdad ahead of possible airstrikes.
US and British diplomats suggested that the council meeting would not affect the decision-making process in London and Washington regarding possible military strikes against Baghdad.
They reiterated that their capitals believed they had the council's authorization to stage military strikes against Baghdad if necessary, under existing UN resolutions. Iraq narrowly avoided airstrikes last month by promising full and unconditional cooperation to the UN inspectors on November 14.
Russia and France demanded the urgent closed-door session after a negative report to the council from UN Special Commission chairman Richard Butler on Tuesday, followed by his evacuation of all 140 UN arms monitors from Baghdad overnight.
"Butler should resign immediately," a Russian diplomat told AFP before the session. The diplomat predicted that the meeting would be "very violent."
But it was not known whether Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov would in fact demand Butler's resignation during the session which was attended by the UNSCOM chairman and UN chief Kofi Annan.
Butler, an Australian diplomat, explained to reporters Wednesday that he ordered the evacuation after reporting to the council that the experts could no longer carry out their disarmament mandate because of Iraqi obstruction.
"It made logical sense therefore to pull our people out," Butler said.
Goofy gas masks, coon skin hats, muskets and all
From Associated Press
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- President Hamid Karzai survived an assassination attempt today when an Afghan security guard fired at his car as it was leaving the governor's mansion here, witnesses said.
Karzai's condition was not known, but there was no indication that he was hit. The Kandahar governor, Gul Agha Sherzai, was wounded in the attack and witnesses saw him bleeding from the neck.
Jexs is strangely silent.
You seem to have stumped him, Joe.
Thursday, September 5, 2002
Blast Rips Kabul Market
UPDATE: Car bomb rocks the center of Kabul, killing and wounding scores in the bloodiest attack in the Afghan capital since the fall of the Taliban. (Reuters)
HANOVER, Germany, Sept. 1 — Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, believes that the Bush administration is making a terrible mistake in planning a war against Iraq, and he is not afraid to say so.
A new war in the Middle East, he says bluntly, would put at risk all that has been gained so far in the unfinished battle against Al Qaeda
Now that remark prompted a disgustingly nativist anti-german tirade of gringo fundamentalism from the LegionZan over in the Politics thread.
Not a peep though when former Bush national security advisor and retired USAF General Brent Scowcroft said the exact thing.
Zan is one malignant little fuck.
Well let him rail and scoff til he pukes in his gas mask and chokes on his bile. 
'How can you exert pressure on someone by saying to them: Even if you accede to our demands, we will destroy you?...
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, the president's special envoy to the Mideast, made some of his strongest comments to date opposing war on Iraq. Speaking to the Economic Club of Florida in Tallahassee, Zinni said a war to bring down Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein would have numerous undesirable side effects and should be low on the nation's list of foreign policy objectives.
``I can give you many more [priorities] before I get to that,'' Zinni said when asked if the United States should move to remove Saddam.
Zinni said the country should instead concentrate on negotiating a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians, and on eliminating the Taliban in Afghanistan and the al-Qaida terrorist network that launched the Sept. 11 terror attacks
I adjure you by God, do not torment me
"What is your name?" He replied, "My name is Legion; for we are many."
"Send us to the swine, let us enter them."
. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.
And people saw the demoniac sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the man who had had the legion; and they were afraid.
Copyright 1998 Deutsche Presse-Agentur
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
December 16, 1998, Wednesday, BC Cycle
17:07 Central European Time
SECTION: International News
LENGTH: 831 words
HEADLINE: CORRECTION LEADALL: U.N. experts leave Iraq in new weapons crisis Ed: UNSCOM inspectors withdrawn, not expelled
DATELINE: Baghdad/New York
BODY:
United Nations Security Council gathered for an urgent meeting on Iraq Wednesday after disarmament experts were withdrawn from the country and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein warned compatriots of new "aggression" against them.
The experts were withdrawn by UNSCOM after chief weapons inspector Richard Butler released a critical report late Tuesday detailing Iraq's lack of cooperation with the arms inspectors.
"The staff of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) have been ordered to leave Baghdad today," a U.N. statement issued in Baghdad said.
Guess Zan stumped ole jexs eh Sgt Shultzie
"ya vol her Kommandant"
UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 in the face of an imminent US and British missile attack on Baghdad, and have since been barred from returning despite insistent UN demands.
You called me a pathetic liar for stating that Richard Bulter not Iraq ordered inspectors withdrawn
Now you want to change the subject?
Go play with your gas masks...freak
and the herd, numbering about 2000, rushed down the steep bank into the sea
Watch that last step imbecile
I have chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived - yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace. What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time but peace for all time... The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. John F. Kennedy
Yeah, jex - real dumb.
What about 4 years ago, when the inspectors were kicked out?
190. joezan -9/3/02 1:54:01 AM
They weren't "keicked (sic) out". Richard Butler ordered them out because of the bombing.
Now this is what I mean when I say your talents are wasted here, jex.
See - one thing you're forgetting is that all 10 of us Moties remember GWI and its aftermath very well. And any one of us could, without even trying, find a shitload of news stories such as this, this, this, this, or this, to prove what a pathetic liar you are.
Stamina will only get you so far here, dude.
You need to find a place where they'll be dazzled by your bullshit.
What IS you're name, you little puke?
What IS your name?
My good man. You're not wrong, in fact I'm with you in part of your arguments. But you are flailing, in a frenzied, distracted and irritating fashion, and it is both difficult to read and a turn-off to have to wade through.
You are capable of focused argumentation. D'you think you could stick to that for a while? - don't flip your wig everytime sidelined-Zan says something everyone else ignores, about you or on any other topic. Stay on focus. If you don't, you're losing us.
Thank you in advance.
Ok Marj. I don't know what's come over me but I took your advice. I'm back on the meds and I even went and saw my priest.
I feel so much better now.
Bush Bombs in Kabul - TREMENDOUS DISSATISFACTION' - Let's Roll Zan
He made an impassioned plea for the international community to honor its pledges of aid to rebuild Afghanistan.
"The problem is that President Karzai is stuck between the gun and money," he said in a telephone interview. "Pockets of Taliban and al Qaeda are still there, yet the international community is not releasing the funds so that the government can start construction and put people to work.
"The last seven, eight, nine months have been ones of tremendous dissatisfaction and that's what's making the government unstable," he said.
Afghanistan's economic affairs director, Adib Farhadi, said last week that only $150 million had gone to reconstruction projects so far and that $750 million had been given for humanitarian aid and overhead costs.
Yet at a conference in Tokyo, foreign governments had promised $1.8 billion for reconstruction in 2002, he said.
Busy trying to catch and kill loose al Qaeda forces, the United States has said it does not oppose expanding the international peacekeeping force -- but is stridently opposed to committing any of its soldiers to that.
The answer is no.
I am going to wipe the fuckin floor with JoeZ until I see a picture of his family - gas masks and all...
I have had enough from that little shit - enough of his bigotry, enough of his freakist fundie garbage, enuf of RP's little "goy toy"
I am focused on Zan until he apologizes for calling me a "pathetic liar" Zan's sorry ass is MINE!
We're online here, jex.
Get a grip.
Anyway, I'm thinking it's about time for an Iraq thread. Gonna be a great fall - I can tell already...Yanks in the series...and just about the time they're done sweeping up the confetti on 34th St. ---- BOOOOOMMMMMM!!!!
See you over in Suggestions - bring your broom if you'd like.
Sincerely
JZ
NOT NOW, NOT EVER....
You're too sensitive, jex.
But the fact is that the intention was for them to go back in once we were done kicking Saddam's ass again, and Iraq has steadfastly refused to let them back in for the past 4 years. So technically, semantically, you are correct: they were not expelled. They were refused entry.
Which distinction, if you'll excuse my curiosity, you will have to explain to me in regards to how, exactly, it mitigates one tiny bit the current impasse - which is precisely your reason for even bringing it up.
Because whether they were expelled or refused re-entry to complete their job, the fact is the Iraqi government is actively flaunting it's incalcitrance.
There's just no reasonable mitigation here, jex - none
RP -
What your problem is is breathing while being white. Technological and societal advancement among Caucasions often leads to terminal mass envy and hatred among tribalistic knuckle draggers.
It appears that Al Qaeda is attempting an anniversary special, and I would not be in the least surprised if they have something planned on Western terroritory in a week, give or take.
Depending on what it is and how it comes off, intensified activity may result from the US military and jexster's mouth.
The price of oil, now hovering near $30 a barrel, could soar above $50 in the event of hostilities. This would have a ripple effect throughout both the U.S. and global economies (with particularly devastating results for the oil- thirsty Japanese).
Then there's the matter of funding a potentially open-ended military engagement in the Middle East.
America's game of hide-and-seek with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan is estimated to be costing U.S. taxpayers about $30 million a day and has been cited by the White House as a key reason the U.S. budget deficit is once again ballooning.
War with Iraq, clearly, would push defense spending to stratospheric levels and probably result in staggering deficits not seen since the chilliest days of the Cold War.
"If oil prices go up and we burn a lot of money, it could be back to the oil shocks of the '70s," said Alan Auerbach, an economics professor at UC Berkeley. Into the Valley of Death Rides the King Moron
Don't you think it's time to start your own blog?
OOO OOO can I have one with a stardate on it?!?!??!
Maybe a neato pic too? 
Pefect. Just what I was thinking.
Good luck, and come visit us sometime and let us know how many hits you're getting.
That's because GWB is a feckless fuckwad for which we have only Israel to thank
Bibi and Butthead This Bud's for You!
Lunatic Fringe
I know you're out there
You're in hiding
And you hold your meetings
We can hear you coming
We know what you're after
We're wise to you this time
We won't let you kill the laughter
Lunatic Fringe
In the twilight's last gleaming
This is open season
But you won't get too far
We know you've got to blame someone
For your own confusion
But we're on guard this time
Against your final solution
We can hear you coming
(We can hear you coming)
No you're not going to win this time
We can hear the footsteps
(We can hear the footsteps)
Way out along the walkway
Lunatic Fringe
We know you're out there
But in these new dark ages
There will still be light
An eye for an eye
Well, before you go under
Can you feel the resistance
Can you feel the...thunder
2259 In the account of Abel's murder by his brother Cain,[57] Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand."[58]
2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God's gift of human life and man's murderous violence:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning.... Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.[59]
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.[60] This teaching remains necessary for all time.
"What is your name?"
"Can you feel the thunder?" 
Feel the Thunder of the
Shofar
Sorry.
I grant Pelle policeman status (though I see he has taken it on his own) and remind him that the thread policy is that jexster gets 10 posts per day, not one more.
The sort of wight who gets to be a host in these environs whilst the good doctor is pestered because of his unpopularity with Judy.
Dr. Xavier T. Coltrane, Conscious of the Mote
About 5 out of 6 inmates were Arabs. Their women have learned the trick. 
"Two elephants in the muzzle!"
This caricature is by Dudu Geva, one of Israel's finest. The line about elephants is a common one in military inspections: commanders look up their soldiers' gun muzzles to see if they have been thoroughly cleaned. If they see any grains of dirt inside they often say they see elephants in the muzzle, or a variation on that.
The inspection in the caricature is of shofars - ritual rams' horns trumpeted on Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, whatever.
Where will you be staying, if not in Katzir?
Shana tovah.
connie:
Not bad!
Joe:
Bread, white cheese, icky tomatoes, some peppers and onions, hard boiled eggs. A packet of bologna type sliced processed meat and bread for lunch. Not bad. I had a big Arab guy in the cell with me and he provided the coffee. He also had an electric kettle. I think they were being nice to me when they put me in his cell: the others were fuller and I believe he was getting special conditions.
We agreed that women are the scourge of the earth. He said there should be laws that make it possible for us to stick women in jail, instead of the other way around, and that would solve everything.
After the arraignment (if that's the right term) we were back in the cell with another young Arab. They listened to my story and he concluded I was weak and I should never have cut my wife any slack the way I did when we came out here. They summarized the discussion by saying that I should gather strength, go back to Africa and get me another Kenyan woman. If I failed again with that one - well, then I'm just a loser.
But they won't break our spirits and they won't stop our love.
Anyway, maybe you'd be better off with a nice Skandi girl - or maybe an Italian girl?
Couldn't hurt to try.
Well, apparently this is how long these things take.
However - if I make a good enough case on the first hearing, I could have the restriction on entering Katzir lifted. The judge was sympathetic, I believe, and I have tons of evidence.
Joe:
African-American culture and the entire American situation is different from my situation. My wife came from a completely different culture, and she is pretty helpless here without someone leading her and guiding her (which, right now at least, is the role her anti-Pikean friends have taken on). But iac, I don't see myself bringing another wife from Kenya.
Or from anywhere.
My fight is not with my wife. My fight is with the local femmies. This is quite clear to me now.
My wife never threw my kids birthday parties, unless I and my mother and sister arranged one. Now she throws a party with the help of the local femmie establishment, led by Tali Gaon (who brought both her daughters), and with the participation of Yasmin, daughter of Ayelet (raises three children on her own, right where the dirt path from the West Bank village of Barta'a leads into Katzir, believes the "Peace" sticker on her door will stop the terrorists), Sharon, daughter of Anna K. (recently converted to hardline femmunism, changing her hair color to fiery red and donning arrogant airs), Naomi, daughter of Nancy (the other, more worldly Kenyan of Katzir) and one or two others.
So the rats have come out of their holes. Which is a good thing in the long run, I believe.
In any case, erections are scheduled for sometime between 11/03 and 04/04, depending on whom you believe.
A wide window to plan around this rare event.
Where the hell is Arafat? Did he fall off the face of the earth?
Is he drooling on himself in the Al Aqsa Home for Retired Terrorists, or what?
Btw, a car packed with 300 or 400 kg. of explosives (that's a whopper. They took out Merkavas with 100 kg) was nabbed a few km. from here the other day. Probably planned a Rosh Hashana treat for us, the f-cks (I had to do that. This is my son's computer and it's got "Weblocker" installed. Powerful program, btw. I tried to get me some p-rn for j-rking off last night and couldn't get none).
Sounds good to me, Rustler. Stop reacting and make something happen. Hire a mean lawyer and move on.
/s/... world-class procrastinator...
I'd like a bit of space between where the posts end and where the tan bar begins.
Facts: I represent a partnership with a manager partner who is a Jew; my co-counsel is a Jew, the defendant I am about to sue is a Jew
Questions:
Am I in Hebe hell (Sheol)?
Should I buy a gas mask?
Will I meet Jesus in the air?
Have a Yummy Yom Kippur and Chappy Chanucka
Btw - can someone remind me what the color of pistachio is, and what the color of butterscotch is? In ice cream, that is.
Butterscotch is greenish, right? What flavor looks like the link bar?
I know no one will answer this. Nobody ever answers these kinds of questions when I ask them.
Butterscotch=Yellowish
But I still think there is something ice creamish about these colors.
Maybe a light kind of mocha. Or that Italian ice cream, whatever it's called. Gelata, gelada, enchilada.
Of course, at the rate I'm going, I'll be in jail next time you do this.
Jail sucked, let me tell you. And the public counsel guy was telling me I would probably be spending nine months in Kishon jail, waiting for my trial to be over. Yet the judge basically let me go.
I was preparing myself mentally for this experience. I asked one of the Arabs who spent the daytime hours with me in the courthouse lockup what the Kishon jailhouse was like. He said it was OK and I'd be OK, though I'd have to make myself an improvised blade from a sharpened toothbrush, like everyone else did, just to be safe.
Sheee-yit!
Did you ever say how you are charged. What are you alleged to have done that landed you in durance vile?
Heh. I asked just to write durance vile. George Will used it so it must be okay. Right?
The color of mocha or coffee the Beige Bar most resembles is café au lait...coffee with cream. Lots of cream.
Or maybe tea with milk.
Do you like sodomy, Russ? Being on the receiving end, I mean? Don't answer that.
Just stay out of jail. Please.
Like a broken record, I have been stating my belief that the Sharonites (and to some extent, the Bushbabies) have been playing a stupidly short-sighted game wrt the international community. As the Israelis put all their eggs, every last one, into a US basket, they risk reducing their own futures to fiat or whim by whatever US administration is in power. It's just dumb policy. The same wrt the combined nations attitude towards the UN. On the one hand, Israel has enshrined a UN resolution into law (creating the state), on the other it has made not even a pretense of respecting successive resolutions with regard to its occupation, not even lip service, nothing. In this, it has been abetted by the US, particularly the Bushites who have joined Israel in dropping even the pretext that UN Sec Council resoultions apply when it comes to that country.
And now Bush goes to shake a stick at the UN and comes up with this gem:
Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test ... and the United Nations, a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced ... or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding ... or will it be irrelevant?
How long do you think it will take for the rest of the world, including US allies to stand up and say.. wait a minute, what about the Sec Council resolutions wrt Israel? And how long do you think it will be before the US accepts that all the resolutions will have to be worked towards at the same time - including those wrt Israel? Soon, pretty damn soon.
Bushbabies.
Now is also a good opportunity fot Israeli and US UN-bashers to come to grips with reality. Those resolutions Bush talks about are not resolved and issued by the UN bureaucracy or by Kofi Annan and his advisers. These are Security Council resolutions. The UN as an organisation has no place and no vote in the Security Council. If none of the five permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia, US votes against a resolution it has passed and becomes binding on all member states.
So stop grumbling about the UN.
Israel's were imposed in response to actions it had taken as a direct result of numerous attacks from numerous countries with the express, stated purpose of annihilating it (Israel). Those threats still exist - only the most obvious hack would claim otherwise. And don't forget - Israel has come within inches of compliance with the UN Security Counsel Resolution, but its offer was turned down.
Iraq's were imposed as a result of an unprovoked attack on it's neighbors.
You are not addressing the issue at hand. What marj said, and I agree with him, was that now when president Bush, of all people, has elevated repeated, protracted defiance of SC resolutions to the level of casus belli, the comparison with the conduct of Israel will take on a more urgent note. I don't think any amount of spin can prevent that.
Which other nations should Israel be courting? I didn't realize she had spurned a lot of offers of friendship and support.
In the Middle East there can be no peace for either side without freedom for both sides.
America stands committed to an independent and democratic Palestine, living side-by-side with Israel in peace and security. Like all other people, Palestinians deserve a government that serves their interests and listens to their voices. My nation will continue to encourage all parties to step up to their responsibilities as we seek a just and comprehensive settlement to the conflict.
"just and comprehensive settlement" is a phrase used by king Hussein of Jordan, and then by his son. I'm sure it is code for the nature of an agreement but I'm not sure what it means.
I thought he stated the situation rather well. Israel refuses to comply with UN resolutions because to do so would threaten its very existence. Israel has been attacked by its neighbors repeatedly without provocation. Withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza without appropriate security measures could ultimately result in the destruction of Israel.
This is a far different situation than Iraq's. Iraq has been the aggressor in its conflicts with the Kurds, Iran and Kuwait. It has no justification for ignoring UN mandates. Israel does have a justification. The world community cannot expect Israel to sacrifice its very existence and the lives of its people to satisfy the UN. When the UN steps up and provides Israel with real security, then it can have something to say about how Israel behaves with respect to its enemies.
That said, Bush is making a difficult point. If his sole justification for action against Iraq is its failure to comply with UN mandates, he needs to have some more arrows in his quiver.
Guy goes to the toy store to get his daughter a Barbie for her birthday.
They've got Beach Barbie, Soccer Barbie, Office Barbie...etc, all selling for $19.95.
Then, there's Divorced Barbie, which sells for $375.00
Flaberghasted, the guy asks the clerk, What the heck's the story here? - she looks exactly the same as all the other Barbies!
Replies the clerk - "Yeah - but this one comes with Ken's house, Ken's car, Ken's boat..."
Israel should not necessarily be "courting" any nation. It should, rather, play a more sophisticated, less short-sighted, game wrt the international community and its bodies.
Instead, emboldened by what it presumes will be undying and unwavering support from the world's sole superpower, it has consistently thumbed its nose at any multilateral body that has had anything to say about its affairs, whether the Geneva Convention signatories or the International Red Cross or the Security Council or the General Assembly of the UN. This behavior is foolish, and it can backfire.
If the Bushites press for war with Iraq based on that country's refusal to honor Security Council resolutions, you could see such a backfire immediately. At the least, the US will look hypocritical and Israel will be bracketed with Iraq (as a Sec Council flouter) more than it needs. But in fact the next few months could see much more than just that.
This is a far different situation than Iraq's. Iraq has been the aggressor in its conflicts with the Kurds, Iran and Kuwait. It has no justification for ignoring UN mandates. Israel does have a justification.
Blah blah blah. It is so tiresome to read these cookie-cutter, inane, arguments. The Sec Council resolutions wrt Israel do not in any way threaten the existence of Israel, even if carried out to the hilt. Israel's existence is guaranteed and enshrined in law by one such resolution, and the UN is beholden to ensure Israel's legal status now and forever.
There is no justification in international law for flouting Security Council resolutions. None whatsoever, the bloviated apologia are irrelevant and worthless.
I am sorry if you find facts inane. They are facts nonetheless.
The Sec Council resolutions wrt Israel do not in any way threaten the existence of Israel, even if carried out to the hilt.
The resolutions will not destroy Israel per se. They will just make impossible for Israel to defend itself. It amounts to the same thing.
Israel's existence is guaranteed and enshrined in law by one such resolution
I had to chuckle at this one. A UN resolution guarantees Israel's existence? Please explain how the UN resolution prevented the 1948 war, the 1956 war, the 1967 war, the 1973 war, and the 1000's of border skirmishes and suicide bombers who have wreaked havoc on Israel's civilian population. I can just picture Moshe Dayan in 1967 holding up a copy of that UN resolution and saying "We have the right to exist" as the surrounding forces invade and destroy his country.
the UN is beholden to ensure Israel's legal status now and forever
Really? They have a piss poor way of showing it. Every action the UN has taken since 1948 has made it seem like they consider the creation of Israel as a huge mistake they would just as soon wash their hands of.
There is no justification in international law for flouting Security Council resolutions.
You really have no imagination, have you?
I'm not going to whack you nearly as much as you deserve for your thick-headedness. I'm not in th mood.
Read my lips, Biener. Iraq and Israel both have a series of pending Security Council resolutions levelled at them. They both have refused to honour them, in fact the case can be made that Iraq has been more co-operative than Israel in this regard. Your boy, Bush, has now gone to the UN and said that it has to act, for global security and for the future of the organization, to punish one country, Iraq, for not honoring Security Council Resolutions.
In all of this, it wall take a miximum of 48 hours before the UN and the international community comes back, resoundingly, with.... and what about Israel's occupation, which we know is as much or greater a threat to global security as Saddam's Iraq?
The Bush tactic, thus, was dumb. I repeat what I said in another thread, it'd have been better (particularly for Israel)if he'd have kept his trap shut and just acted unilaterally.
It is remarks like this which make a reasonable discussion of the issue impossible. Here is a map of the Middle East and North Africa. You can barely even see Israel let alone the West Bank and Gaza. Despite this we are expected to believe that its occupation of a tiny scrap of land crucial to its own defense is as great a threat as Iraq which has repeatedly attacked and occupied its neighbors and has used chemical weapons on its own people.
Israel is a threat to no one. Yet its destruction has been the goal of its neighbors ever since its creation. Iraq is a demonstrated threat. Yet we hear one apologist after another claim otherwise.
How can you expect to carry on a converstaion when you are unwilling to recognize the situation with any sense of proportion.
Israel is a threat to no one.
If left at peace from its Arab neighbors, I agree. Israel can handle its Arab neighbors, until they get atomic weapons. When and it that happens, Isrtael will be faced with some very tough choices.
If as you say Israel is not a threat if left alone, then Israel is not a threat. It is not the fault of Israel, if it has to go to extreme lengths to defend itself.
I've holed up in my old kibbutz for the weekend and Yom Kippur. Old friends of the family put me up in an office that they use sometimes for when their kids come to sleep over.
(#340)
Is it time you asked someone else to host this thread?
Odds are, some shrink somewhere has diagnosed you with "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" and "Major Depression," and now you're living up to the labels by getting yourself into one kettle of trouble after another.
Calculatedly losing self control is so conveniently Arab, by which I mean adolescent, that one begins to see why you moved to Israel in the first place. It's no comfort that you line up so easily with the current leadership.
This thread has become about your personal drama, which has fuck all to do with anything that affects Israelis in general, Palestinians, or the rest of us. I'm not interested in serving as the audience for your elaborately spun personal duel with authority.
Why don't you keep on topic here or else hand the thread over to someone who is more dedicated to its subject matter than to plumping for approval of his latest neurotic antics.
If you look at the thread's subheader and the list of subjects in the mocha bar, you will find that I am not off-topic at all.
The funniest things come out in moments of truth like these: ac, who I thought hated me (and on certain levels perhaps does), gave me some extremely important advice when I was confused and needed it.
Andonly, who I thought was "with me" somehow, is trying to pounce on the opportunity to get rid of me.
Am I imagining this or is the prospect of what is about to go down in the Middle East - and its implications for you as a Jewish person in the US - making you exceedingly hostile towards me and what I stand for? You feel an existential need to distance yourself from Sharon and the people who voted him in (and still support him overwhelmingly over any other candidate in the polls), don't you, Ando?
Well, it's going to get worse, Ando.
I am charged with threatening my wife on two occasions, one in June and the other about 10 days ago.
On the first occasion, which I described here at the time, I was home for 90 minutes in the middle of a reserve stint, and had my gun with me. My wife lodged a complaint with the police saying I threatened her, saying "I will do anything to prevent my children being taken away from me" (I said something similar to that but I did not threaten her, and the judge also seems to feel that way or he would not have released me).
On the second, I kicked the door to my wife's house repeatedly. She says I also threatened her, saying I would kill her (I said no such thing. I was just trying to kick the fucking door open. It was steel-coated, though, I believe).
I was fed up with being harrassed, spat on, beaten up and intimidated by my wife, her son and her friends, with the active support of our Council Head (who gives her money and other forms of bureaucratic help, like arranging a good job for her son in the army, in return for her fucking me over). The last straw was a birthday she held for my daughter with the help of the local femmie gang, which I was not informed of in advance and which I was not allowed to participate in.
It appears the prosecution's tactic (all women, to the best of my knowledge) is to wait until a guy has two charges against him and then try to get him locked up before he is tried, and for the duration of the trial, thus effectively annihilating him. Luckily, the judge (a man) didn't seem to think that saying what my wife claims I said constituted a threat, even if I did have a gun slung on my neck when I said it.
There are bushbabies in Kenya and they have the darndest screams, at night.
"because the bush baby's call sounds like the shouts of an exited (sic) child, British explorers thus named (sic) it its English name".
It doesn't sound like an excited child. It sounds like a deranged child.
Wa. Waaaa. Waaaaaa. Waaaaa. WAAAAAAAA!!!!
A bit scary if you don't know what it is. 
The view from my window.
I am in Kibbutz Netiv Halamed Heh, east and south of Jerusalem.
You really need to improve the quality of your graphic images.
Yes, I'm not sure but I think maybe my camera's quality has deteriorated.
Is that possible, do you think? Do cameras get glaucoma?
#2 first appeared on the Iraq thread. 
What opportunity? I'm just sick of your ridiculous justifications for fighting with your wife. You're out of control--out of your own control--and it's as if the only personal liberation you can dream up is to lose it, and everything you value, completely.
No one can call you back from the brink, man. You like the fucking drama too much. And who wants to watch a man self destruct? Not I.
Lately you don't stand for anything rational, Pike. And yes, you are imagining things--rationalizing the worst things you can dream up, from your personal life to Israel's political necessities.
It's true that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. But your entire world view boils down to Imminent Victim Who Must Strike Fear Into the Heart of His Vile Persecutor, or Perish. The worthless unoriginality of this outlook totally sells out your intellect.
"You feel an existential need to distance yourself from Sharon and the people who voted him in (and still support him overwhelmingly over any other candidate in the polls), don't you, Ando?"
Huh? Sharon was the right man for the job--until he did his job. Now Israel needs a PM who will push the Pals, and gather Israelis, toward a political settlement. You can keep Sharon in charge of the IDF, as long as it sits down and subordinates itself to a moderate leadership capable of negotiating as well as busting heads. But this business of being in thrall to the settler contingent won't play forever.
Have you got it into your head that your life parallels the larger conflict? How odd is it that you segue from accusing me of wanting to "get rid" of you, to speculating on my "existential need" to distance myself from Ariel Sharon, to whom I've only ever been close in the imaginations of loons like Jexster and Spanks?
I've said again and again that I'd never have voted for Sharon. I've conceded his utility as PM. Now I believe it has nearly reached its end.
I only hate you politically, Russ, and I think you're capable of improving on that front (if you live long enough). From a human point of view, I like you, and I'll do anything I can to help you.
Now that I know you're listening :
Your life is not a Greek tragedy. There is no reason for you to go through hell in your personal life, just because your country is in deep shit. And the cold, calculated violence perpetrated by the Pals, and by your own government, is no excuse for your violent or threatening behaviour. It's up to you to be a human being in the face of adversity.
Whatever has happened between you and your wife, and whatever conspiracies you have become victim to, here's my guess as to why, in the final analysis, your wife left you.
She stopped loving you.
It hurts. It's unfair. It happens.
She didn't stop loving you because of Arafat. She didn't stop loving you because of the femmies. She didn't stop loving you because of the council head. She stopped loving you because of you and her. And Sharon is not going to get her back for you.
SANAA - A Yemeni man divorced his first wife because she was loud and argumentative and picked a deaf and mute woman as his new bride, a local newspaper said today.
Al-Thawra daily said a 40-year-old man named as Yahya from the southern Dhamar province so tired of his wife's "screaming and endless disputes" that he left her after 15 years to remarry.
"He chose one deprived of hearing and speech and who is quiet and mild-mannered," it said.
RP -
An improvement in sharpness. However, the overriding problem with your images is that the blacks are shifted markedly toward a much lighter gray. Try boosting your contrast by shifting your black threshold up with a decent graphics editor like Photoshop.
I don't think I've ever tried to say that my family problems are the direct result of the political or military situation here.
It's true everything connects, but not in the crude way you seem to be implying.
Femmunism has got a hold of this country, definitely. A strong one. But I think a sufficiently horrific blow from Saddam Hussein / Yassir Arafat Horror Productions will help us shake ourselves free of it. Yes, my family situation has become connected with local village politics. But it's not like I'm saying the amount I have to pay in alimony will be decided by Condoleeza Rice, or like I'm negotiating visitation with Kofi Annan.
My wife is apparently not a good person for me to share my life with. I hope this move to Harish will wind up helping me start over and finding someone new.
Ando: I still don't get what you're saying. Are you worried about me? Scared? Truly disgusted?
I don't want to self-destruct. I'm not enjoying the drama. I'm a powerful, positive person in a world run by rats, snakes and poison toads. So I attract a lot of fire. I get clawed a lot, I absorb more than my share of venom, and it's not because I asked for it - it's because I'm me. I fight back. If you can't stand to watch, switch channels. If you're just worried about me - thanks. But don't be. I always look like I've lost before I make a big step forward. And remember - we don't always control the course our life takes. But I find that for me, in the last decade or so at least, it eventually goes in a good direction, and the best developments are the ones that I never planned for.
Regarding the former hypothesis that the Hebrews might originally have been Egyptians.... It's extremely unlikely that the original Hebrews were Egyptians, since such a hypothesis would be completely inconsistent with the evidence from historical linguistics.
Hebrew -- along with Phoenician, Ugaritic, Moabite, Amorite and Eblaite -- is classified in the Caananite subbranch of the Semitic family of languages, itself a subbranch of the Afro-Asiatic macrofamily of languages (which also includes Berber, Chadic and Coptic). But Phoenician or Punic was most likely the closest linguistic relative of Hebrew. According to the linguist Robert Hetzron, Phoenician and pre-Biblical Hebrew were probably just dialects of each other. And we also know that the Phoenician homeland was what is now Lebanon and northern Israel. Therefore it's hard to believe the ancient Hebrews were Egyptians in origin.
Of course the proto-Semitic homeland was probably Arabia.
I expect you'll find August's messages under "Israel and the Palestinians, Pt.1", top of the beige strip on the right of your screen.
***
Rustler,
In spite of your curious opinion that Saddam Hussein is less a threat to Israel than "femmunism," I will be interested in what you have to say about Harish.
Incidentally, some Indian on another board has been insisting that there's little or no public debate in Israel any more about policy re the Pals. I suspect he's simply unhappy with the disenfranchisement of the Left post-intifada, like a friend of mine who (on the other hand) thinks Israelis are politically disunified at the moment. But I'd be interested to know what you think about the current climate of political opinion.
We were getting database glitches because of the sheer volume of posts that had to be re-loaded each time someone accessed a page. Wabbit archived posts from the really big threads ----anything over 10,000 posts. It seems to have done the trick. All those posts can be accessed through a link in the side-bar. The one for this thread is called Israel and the Palestinians pt. 1
Thanks for that information. The origins of Hebrew just happens to be something I've been wondering about lately.
Linguistic data alone is insufficient to determine who the Hebrews were (or weren't). There are good reasons to believe that whatever their distant ethnic origins, the people who eventually wrote the Pentateuch did have their collective cultural beginnings--those which led to them becoming Jews--in Egypt. However, had they originally been Phoenicians, the biblical account of Abraham's descendents resettling in Egypt because of drought would certainly seem plausible.
The subsequent development of the religion may have taken its monotheism from Egypt (it is even remotely possible that Akhenaten's high priest, Osarseph, was Moses) and developed its various proscriptions and ritual cleansing routines as a means of attempting to deal with disease. Certain Hebrew concepts of God, and the name El, are Syriac, but I think that connection dates from after the putative Exodus, not before it, and so is thought to have been incorporated into the Hebrew religion during the mythohistorical period of "wandering in the desert". (If you learn otherwise, let me know.)
Then again, certain aspects of the separation business, esp. some of the dietary proscriptions, simply may have been a reaction to the predominance of Egyptian culture throughout the region.
I would say the linguistic evidence is primary. Other evidences must be reconciled with the linguistic evidence -- unless of course you have some reason to believe that a certain group of Egyptians adopted the language of a completely unrelated people living near the Phoenicians, and the latter largely disappeared while the new, Hebrew-speaking Egyptians remained.
I know you would.
"Other evidences must be reconciled with the linguistic evidence --unless of course you have some reason to believe that a certain group of Egyptians adopted the language of a completely unrelated people living near the Phoenicians, and the latter largely disappeared while the new, Hebrew-speaking Egyptians remained."
Evidently you did not finish reading or considering my Message # 279, since if you had you would not have set up the straw argument in your 381.
It's not just me. Archaeologists and population geneticists who investigate the origins of ethnolinguistic groups typically constrain their interpretations according to the reconstruction of historical linguists.
Dwelling on this further...
I don't know to what extent Egyptian loaned words to Hebrew (and by the way, where would Aramaic fit in the array of linguistic provenances you mentioned?), but my understanding is that the names Mosheh and Yosef (both biblical characters central to the Exodus story, who supposedly lived in Egypt) are Egyptian in origin. There are probably others I don't know about.
My own assumption is that some collection of Hebrew- or pre-Hebrew-speaking Levantines or Canaanites or what have you did migrate to Egypt, did work there (Ronski: hapiru/habiru="laborer" or possibly "brickmaker"), and then left. On the way out, and while overrunning Canaanite cities, they lived near and certainly acquired members of other ethnic groups, as well as a syncretic theology later disguised or denied.
If a variant of this scenario occurred, I'm not sure there's any particular reason biblical Hebrew should have been very much influenced by the Egyptian language, if that's what you're getting at.
But the problem for anyone attempting to defend my supposition on a linguistic basis is that Egyptian influence was not confined to Egypt but extended into Canaan and beyond, at least into the post-Davidic era. For instance, the Judaean king Hezekiah had an ankh and other Egyptian symbols imprinted on the coins of his realm--and this apparently wasn't unusual. Such symbols were used at the time by everybody in the region to indicate royalty, in the same way moderns use the image of a crown to denote "king".
In any case, I don't think anyone, least of all me, has suggested that Hebrew originated in Egypt. So I don't really understand why you say, PE, that the relationship of Hebrew to Phoenician casts doubt on an Israelite cultural origin in Egypt.
What I was considering in that case was the possibility that the priestly class of Amarna, having been ousted from power at the end of Akhnaten's reign, found followers among poor, dispossessed, oppressed, or diseased Egyptians. Some event led to the departure from Egypt of a core group from this contingent, which later joined up with a much larger contingent of Levantines, possibly in the course of aggravating Egypt militarily. Over time, the latter group or groups took over the historical narrative, and its language and gods prevailed until sometime after about 1000 BCE.
>>>
As for Moses: I believe it is pretty commonly accepted that this is related to the Egyptian name-ending -mses, as in Thutmose(s), Raamses, etc.
This does nothing at all to prove Egyptian ethnicity: Henry Kissinger's first name is blatantly Anglo-Saxon, yet his roots are far from England and Saxony. Why, I'd even gander a guess that you, Ando, are not called Rivka or Leah or Avigail, but something like Joanne or Patricia or Tina. The first thing people do in a foreign country is name their kids with local-sounding names.
I do believe that Moses grew up in the Egyptian court: it makes sense to me that a Jew who grew up without a slave identity would become a proud national leader, just as British educated people like Kenyatta and Gandhi became leaders of their own people's liberation movements, and just as modern-day Herzl, a Viennese journalist, became leader of the Eastern European Jews, and just as I, Rustler Pike, raised in the proud, superpowerful USA, refuse to subscribe to the local Jewish custom of behaving like a minority in our own land and apologizing for our existence in the Middle East (though we have yet to see if I will wind up a leader of Herzlian proportions or just another heavy farter begging for his Prozac in some prison cell).
But we all subscribe to the theories that fit our weltanschauung. Ando does not seem to want a theory that places Jews as the rightful, proud owners of the land where I'm living. She apparently likes theories that show us as Egyptian bricklayers. This fits in well with her diaspora bricklaying identity. I like theories that fit in with a prouder -though admittedly less well-paying - national identity.
I think #1 is impossible for linguistic reasons.
I have never said (a) anything about Egyptian loanwords in Hebrew; or (b) that the ancient Hebrew language was influenced by the Egyptian language. Both may or may not be true, but I did not say those things.
My rather limited point is that whatever may have been the various to's and fro's of the proto-Hebrews or the Hebrews, and whatever foreign influences there may have been on their culture, the fact that the Hebrew language is genetically of a piece with the Phoenician language suggests an ethnogenesis somewhere in present-day area of Israel and Lebanon.
As for loanwords, Hebrew has them by the tonne, from Akkadian, Aramaic, Greek, Egyptian, Arabic, etc. Please consult A History of the Hebrew Language by Angel Sáenz-Badillos for more details.
RP is there ever an end to your psychosis?
I'll become normal when the world does.
"Ivri" is certainly the way Hebrews say ayin-bet-resh today. How did the they say it in 1300 or 1400 BCE?
I know you're mad at me for failing to support you in your quest to dominate the femmunists, but I didn't say anything about whether researchers believe "hapiru" and "Hebrew" are related words. As it happens, some do, some don't, and I haven't the faintest idea who is more likely to be correct.
Now that's beyond the pale! Patricia indeed. I am a Jennifer Ruth.
I do not personally happen to prefer (for precisely the reasons you note) the hypothesis that Moses was an Egyptian, ethnically--that, if he existed at all, Moses or his family were not immigrants. But that notion has been proposed in a couple of books I read on the subject, so I thought I ought to oblige the original discussion (in Blue Ear Forum) by bringing it up as a possibility.
There is also no way at this point that it can be discounted or proven; not enough is known. It's like trying to guess where Kennewick Man's ancestors came from.
(The Indios themselves already know we don't all look just alike, but it would be nice to have scientific substantiation.) 
The divisions of Semitic have been simplified somewhat in order to avoid the anarchy and confusion of its many complicated ramifications into northwest semitic, south-central semitic, southeast semitic, etc.
No, I didn't mean that exactly. Look, there are a couple of things we may be failing to communicate to each other. When I say "origin of the Jews," I am referring not to an ethnolinguistic group "Jews" or "Hebrews" but to the point at which a coherent and distinct notion of religion-linked peoplehood emerged. If you've read the biblical account, you'll surely have noticed it did not really exist in Abraham's time.
The only theory relating to an Egyptian origin for the Jews that I find plausible is the one I related above--that a core of Egyptian priests from the Amarna period might've established a precursor to Israelite Judaism among some portion of Egyptians who were later swamped ethnically by others with whom they formed a community in exile. Other than that, Judaism (the people-cum-religion) could have arisen pretty much the way the book of Exodus says it did, with a collection of Hebrew/Levantine laborers, migrants, or even slaves getting the revelation from the One God via their leader Moses to take off out of Egypt for Canaan. (Stranger things have happened.) But the thing is, either way, the characteristics of coherence and distinction seem to have arisen in Egypt or at least under Egyptian religious influence. And as far as I've been able to discover, there's nothing particularly organized or civilizational about the Hebrew religion before the Exodus.
Yeah, but the DNA analysis hasn't, and perhaps won't, be done, for which I would like to shoot somebody.
Thanks for the book reference. Is Saenz-Badillos accessible?
Stop being such a fucking victim. Anyway, I think you've got cause and effect mixed up :
The Middle East will not find peace until you get your shit together.
I thought you'd up and left me.
(I mean Jenerator, not Jennifer-Ruth).
How does my shit have shit-all to do with the Middle East? You haven't bought into my I'm-the-center-of-the-world psychosis, have you?
Talk about the power of e-suggestion.
ALISTAIR... YOU ARE FEELING DROWSY...
YOU ARE GOING TO THE BANK...
YOU ARE MAKING A WIRE TRANSFER...
YOU ARE SENDING ME ALL YOUR MONEY... 
First Sgt. Moshe Hizkiyah was killed by a Palestinian human bomb yesterday.
I had just spoken to him - for the first and last time -two days earlier. He was on duty at the gate of the Wadi Ara police station. He knew who I was and gave me the feeling he liked what I stood for. He was an extremely nice guy and had an ultra-sweet, ultra-intelligent smile. He was shy but confident and he smiled a lot. The picture doesn't really do him justice.
He came out of the police mini-van to accost the bomber at the Umm el Fahm bus stop, where the bomber was waiting to board a bus. The bomber blew himself up.
Hook up with a crime family.
There's a real good one in Harish.
Where do the Bantu languages fit in to that tree, if at all?
The Kikuyu word for water is may. The Hebrew is mayim.
Tank shells took out the floor above his, covering him with dust, and the stairway leading down from his floor no longer exists.
I was laughing myself silly in the car this morning. 
Moshe Hizkiyah's mother at the funeral.
What small languages spoken in Kenya belong to the Cushitic branch? Maasai? Kalenjin?
He's reinstalled Arafat as a hero and martyr, just when he was finally, at long last, losing control of his people.
Last week, Arafat's new government was rejected by the Palestinian parliament. Not even the promise of elections could win them over : they'd had it with him and his corrupt cronies. Now, thanks to Sharon, they are obliged to close ranks behind him : back to business as usual.
I'm guessing they're waiting for Gulf War II to kick Hairy out of the WB&G for good (and bad).
An alternative explanation could be that Sharon and his cronies are not only opposed to Arafat's leadership of the PNA but to any leadership.
On the other hand, you are invited to read and comment on this article which suggests that Israel is giving Marwan Barghouti the Nelson Mandela treatment.
What are your circumstances in Harish?
The funny thing about this place is that people sit outside, on the sidewalk. They just pull a few plastic chairs and a table together and spend the afternoon and evening there. Some of these people would seem to be Arabs, others Caucasian Jews, and others - I don't know.
The Karaja crime family (arms, drugs) control the center of the main street. They sit on the sidewalks on both sides, but also on the grassy island between the two opposing lanes.
I've befriended them.
If that means a dozen or two Israeli victims per month, then that's a price he's prepared to pay.
Peace would make him look stupid and irrelevant.
The digs appear to be fine. Harish is 20 a km. drive from Katzir, though if there were a road directly connecting the two communities, it would be much shorter than that. Together, Katzir and Harish make up the Local Council of Katzir-Harish, which is the local level municipal unit here in Hebe-land. Harish's kids are bussed to Katzir's school, so my kids have school friends here and feel quite comfortable. The kids slept over tonight and I expect them to be coming here with the schoolbus directly from school and staying with me on 'my' days. Happily, it appears my wife is not trying to prevent them coming over or hamper our contact in any way, and is content with having driven me out of her immediate vicinity.
>>>
The total population of Katzir-Harish is about 3300, 800 of whom live in Harish. Of these 800, about 200 are Arab families, all of whom live in rented apartments.
Katzir was created as a village-type community. Harish is defined as, and intended to become, a town, or city (though Israeli concepts of cities may be different from American ones). However, development of Harish has so far failed, largely due to the council head's total incompetence. Harish's Israeli-born population has left it, mostly, leaving a lot of Caucasian Jews who have nowhere better to go, and the Arabs. The well-publicized presence of the Karaja family is a big deterrent to potential homebuyers. There have been a lot of car thefts here and some burglaries, and the place has a reputation of a shithole.
However, places like this are dreamlands for rabble rousers like me, I'm starting to think.
The Karajas are nice people, I find. I'm not sure what they do for a living is worse, morally, than what my wife's divorce lawyer does for a living. Besides, they seem to do their business outside of Harish. This is where they live and park their BMWs, and occasionally remind everybody who the boss is, by threatening the grocery store owner because he didn't personally hand them a plastic bag, or beating an old guy up for telling them not to drive their motorbikes on the grass. They are in protracted negotiations with the government about moving out of Harish and into land that they bought nearby, but this is expected to take at least another year.
>>>
...
However, places like this are dreamlands for rabble rousers like me, I'm starting to think.
Rut-ro.
Unlike the Arab incursion into Katzir, which involved the purchase of houses, intentional deception, various politically symbolic gestures and acts (like the sign I am accused of taking down, or the basketball game played during our Remembrance Day minutes of silence), inflammatory statements in the media and very highly publicized legal moves, and which I see as a politically motivated provocation, the Arabs who live in Harish are mostly just people who came here because they wanted to leave their villages for one reason or another (a feud, a divorce, etc.), not provocateurs. Plus, Harish is defined as a town/city, not as a village. Cities are by definition much more open and heterogenous than village communities.
So I have decided I am not against the Arabs living in Harish, though I do think the town should be divided into two neighborhoods - an Arab one and a Jewish one, for the sake of community identity and to lower friction. The trick will be to keep the two neighborhoods totally equal in terms of development and services, and to maintain friendly relations between the two neighborhoods.
Of course, this interpretation of things is quite handy for me on the survival level, as well: you guys realize that if I tried to continue to present my hard-right stands here in Harish, I would have found myself getting beaten up by the Arabs at a certain point. I am therefore quite deftly reconnecting with my humane, dare-I-say leftie side. But I think there is really no contradiction here.
>>>
The disgusting thing about Harish is this: the Arabs' children, from what I understand, are not allowed into the council's educational system. The Arabs' toddlers are not accepted into the nursery, their kids are not accepted into the kindergarten and school. The schoolkids get bussed to Arab schools in nearby Jat, but the babies and toddlers have no daycare solution.
There is a computer room with a lot of old, donated computers that Harish's kids play in after school, but the Arab kids (so I was told by a Jewish kid) are not allowed in, because 'they started making a mess and breaking stuff'.
So you see, I find this disgusting and this is my plan:
I want to organize a day care center for the Arab kids and I want to organize a computer room for them. I want to organize an action group and take the council to court over the discrimination issue. I want to get funding for this from the same leftie American-Jewish fund which funded my anti police brutality organization in 1988. I want to get the Arabs rooting for me and I want the Karajas to provide security for any potential political gatherings, etc.
At the same time, I am not changing my stance one whit wrt Katzir (Arabs should not be there, basically) and wrt buying that house in Umm el Fahm. I think the Jews have their rights and the Arabs have theirs. The Jews have no right to prevent Arabs from living in Harish and being treated as human beings, and the Arabs have no right to make war on Katzir and challenge Jewish-Israeli sovereignty in Wadi Ara.
If I succeed in turning Harish into a power base, I will be worth something politically. Then we'll see how to parlay that into a job, come erection time.
In the meantime, if I can just convince that leftie fund to give me a grant and a salary, for being the Harish Arabs' savior...
I reiterated my views on Katzir to the Arabs I spoke with here, and there is no point trying to hide those views anyways - they are well known. The only stand I find myself changing is my stand on Harish, which was not a well-informed or fair one (and could have cost me some broken teeth, as well).
Our council head was always considered to be on the hard right side of the map, a guy who spews anti-Arab jokes. But when the war came he turned out to be a quisling. I had Arab friends and Arab students in my computer school but when push came to shove I stood up for Jewish rights, and it cost me business. Things aren't as simple as they may seem to polyamorous sex thread hostesses.
That works on the national level, too: we drive out the Pals, who refuse to accept our existence, but the Israeli Arabs (and the Pals who remain after the expulsion) get full equality.
Excerpts:
[…] Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, I believe, has never had a plan for how to reach a stable accommodation with the Palestinians, is only interested in making the West Bank safe for Israeli settlers to stay, not to leave, and is going to lead Israel into a dead end - if he sticks to his present course - and will take America along for the ride.
[…] the Sharon response is not working. Months ago Sharon dismissed the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat as "irrelevant," smashed his security services and announced Israel's intention to assume responsibility for its own security in the West Bank. But when Palestinian suicide bombers from Hamas and Islamic Jihad then perpetrate more suicide bombings, Sharon attacks Arafat's headquarters as if Arafat sent the bombers himself.
.
If Sharon believes that Arafat sent these bombers, then he should evict him. If he thinks Arafat is irrelevant, then he should ignore him. But what makes no sense is to treat Arafat as if he's totally irrelevant and totally responsible. Because all that does is get Palestinians to rally around the feckless Arafat and abort any possibility of Palestinians producing a new leadership that would be relevant to negotiations and to Israeli security.
One has to wonder whether Sharon really isn't out to undermine the whole Palestinian national movement in hopes that one day some quisling Palestinian Authority simply surrenders to the Israeli occupation. He sure doesn't seem interested in nurturing a more responsible Palestinian Authority to cede land to.
.
Always remember, the leading Hebrew biography of Sharon is titled "He Doesn't Stop at Red Lights."
I haven't read your link yet, Pelle, but I sure wish I could find my post from six months or a year ago where I suggested this is exactly what the Israelis were going to do with Barghouti. Pike insisted I was an insane skirt or something, but I have been holding my breath for quite a while now...
I don't think you wear skirts. Do you?
Pelle:
I read the article. My reaction is - ho-hum, pass the saltines.
Sharon and the entire Israeli defense establishment hate Bargouti's guts. He was too high-level for assassination, so he was put on trial. That's the whole story. The bit about risking soldiers' lives to arrest him instead of bombing from the air is pure crap. There was no special risk in the operation and I don't think a shot was even fired. The theory that Sharon doesn't really call the shots, and Ya'alon and Dichter are as powerful as he - that is really an amazingly stupid thing to write, even for an Al Ahram correspondent.
Excerpts:
The brutal curfews and closings remained unchanged. Indeed, during this period the Isreali Defense Forces killed 75 Palestinians, most of them civilians, including children. Even more tellingly, Sharon chose this particular moment to announce his designation of Effie Eitam, the most outspoken advocate of the expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank, to take charge of Israel's settlements program. It is difficult to imagine a move better calculated to discredit Palestinians seeking to repudiate Hamas and Islamic Jihad and end the violence. No one has better captured Sharon's real intentions than Avi Primor, a former deputy director of the Israeli Foreign Ministry and now a vice president of Tel Aviv University. In an essay in the Sept. 18 issue of Ha'aretz entitled "Sharon's South African Strategy," Primor notes that it serves Sharon's purposes to be accused of lacking an overall strategy. It provides him with a cover. Primor recalls that in the 1970s and 1980s, the top echelon of Israel's security establishment sympathized with efforts of the white South African regime to solve its demographic problem by creating Bantustans for the black majority, which they called "independent states."
.
When in February of 1991 the then prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, invited Rehavam Ze'evi, the head of Moledet, at the time the only Israeli political party advocating the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, to join his government, one member of the Israeli Parliament issued the following "J'accuse":
.
"The transfer party's joining the government is a profound political, moral and social stain on Israel. Anyone who includes such a party in the coalition is in effect confirming UN resolutions that declare Zionism to be racism."
.
The author was Benjamin Begin, the Likud "prince" and son of Menachem Begin. It is a measure of the political extremism and moral obtuseness that now afflicts so many Israelis and friends of Israel that this sentiment would today be dismissed as "Jewish self-hatred."
What this article shows -apart from its factual contents - is that the criticism levied at Israel from Europe, which Sharonistas love to call "anti-semitic" is in fact a reflection of similar opinions voiced by Israelis themselves.
The report is by the Israeli Civil Administration, which, I understand, is a branch of the IDF, and was leaked to Haaretz by MK Yossi Sarid of Meretz.
Hmmmm. Just as I said previously in this thread.
Siegman is not at all wrong in this critique of the Israeli right wing, but keep in mind nevertheless that he is not exactly a balanced voice, having for too long made strings of ridiculous excuses for Arafat. These always seem to be more assured in print; whenever he gets interviewed on Charlie Rose, who tends to challenge him directly, Siegman suddenly gets mealy-mouthed about what he thinks.
As for Yurpeon views of Israel being reflections of what Israelis themselves think... yeah, just like one New York black man calling another "nigger" is simply a reflection of what my white Mississippi grandfather meant when he used the term.
Most Jews, not to mention Israelis, are rightfully suspicious of Euros critical of Israel, since a very large proportion of those are also convinced that Zionism itself is equivalent to racism and/or malignant nationalism on a par with Naziism. Even the anti-American crowd in Europe does not go so far as to suggest handing California and Texas back to Mexico on the grounds that 'Americanism' is genocide, or whatever. But when we're talking Jews, there are always unspoken opinions informing the Euro left's prescriptions.
You know, Pelle, I sometimes wonder. I'm a little worried that George W. is more driven by religious conviction than is ordinarily supposed.
In a massive mideast conflict involving the US, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Israel, I wonder whether this administration would demand that Israel give up anything at all. I have a feeling that W. himself, not counting his VP and advisors, would be content to allow some version of biblical prophecy to prevail.
Shocking, I tell you.
"Not so long ago, Sharon demanded seven days of quiet before returning to a political process. Six weeks of Palestinian quiet - a period also marked by an unprecedented Palestinian debate about the immorality and political bankruptcy of Palestinian terrorism -elicited not a single Israeli move away from its reliance on overwhelming military suppression."
This is bullshit. In the first place, the "debate" among Pals about the immorality of suicide bombing was extremely short lived, having been quashed in the name of generating consensus among the majority (of the intellectuals) who could at least agree that terrorism was politically counterproductive. Second, there have been scores of attempts to kill Jews in the last 6 weeks. It so happens they have been averted by Israeli security and pretty harsh military action. So, one wonders why military pressure should be expected to ease up.
On the other hand, one does expect diplomatic efforts to develop an alternative to the status quo. I don't see that happening in the right wing parties at all, but you should know that Meretz and the left generally are again getting active, staging demos, organizing against the Israeli right (even in the US), and developing new bids for power. So it's not like "Israel" is doing nothing to encourage salutary developments among the Palestinians.
I will be chairman and be in charge of the computer room as well.
Naturally, there will be some financial remuneration involved.
I listen to myself and I can't help feeling I sound like marj.
Iac, I am a bastard son of a hooker if I don't take the council to court soon. They have been spending money like crazy but have yet to pass the budget for 2002. Two council members were sacked - one of them completely illegally - after they and other council members initiated a process that could have led to the dismissal of the council head. There is evidence of fraud and corruption on a large scale, and the Interior Ministry appears to be keeping mum because Shas has been given a foothold in the council (in the form of a department of religion headed by the local Shasnik).
My dilemma is this:
For this move to be effective, the (seven man) council has to continue to refuse to pass the budget. For the council to continue to refuse - and withstand pressure from the council head to pass the budget - I have to show that there is a credible option for change soon, and/or apply pressure of my own in the opposite direction.
This pressure can come from Harish, which has been oppressed by the council head since day one. Two of the four remaining opposition councillors are from Harish. I have to work them. A third is susceptible to pressure from Harish - intimidation, pressure, whatever you want to call it. The fourth is pretty much untouchable and can be counted on to resist the council head's temptations, I'm almost certain.
>>>
So either I take the council to court like, next week -or I start organizing Harish. The second option will give me time to perhaps get a good lawyer to present the case rather than me doing it on my own.
A lot depends on Sarid. Sarid helped me organize my police brutality group 15 years ago (15!!! I'm a geezer!), and in hindsight that group was highly effective, even if we did wind up fighting publicly in a pretty embarrassing way. If I can convince him that this is a good cause - and if he can accept me despite my right-wing stands on Katzir (the harder part) - he can recommend me to the right funds and we can get a budget for this.
What this could wind up being is a grassroots political organization which unites Jews and Arabs without being leftie-beftie. That would be revolutionary.
I imagine that, at a certain point, there will be pressure on the Arabs not to go along with this.
But I sense that Israeli Arabs are ripe for peace. I think they have been suffering tremendously - mostly economically, partly as a result of an undeclared Jewish boycott of their villages and services - from the aftermath of the October 2000 riots. I think they realize those riots were a mistake, a trap they were led into by their sucky leaders.
Otoh, those same leaders - most notably Sheikh Ra'ed Salakh of Um el-Fahm, head of the northern Islamic movement - and of course, the Arab MKs, are trying real hard to pull off a remake of those riots, come the second anniversary (sometime real soon). We'll see how that goes. If it fails to catch, as I believe it will, I'm in business.
But there will only be one rally, in Kafr Manda, and I believe it will go rather smoothly.
The anniversary is being marked in Beirut, too: 
She says she started feeling sorry for me when I was taken away by the police, and felt it had all gone too far.
They did the hakafot - the ritual 'rounds' with the bible scroll, performed annually on simkhat torah - this morning, roaring out songs about Yahweh lording it over all the nations and stuff.
Nice. 
I bet the Karajas found it entertaining.
A mother in Haifa went to a nightclub and left her baby in a cage: 
Wrt concerned's link. I agree that with the opening premise. I didn't have time to read the whole statment.
America supporting Isreal is a root of muslim anger toward us.
I don't support the settlers, but I do support Isreal's right to exist. To hell with the arab terrorists who think otherwise.
So it is "Sharon's forces" now, not "our forces" or "the IDF"? Interesting.
Nestorianism was largely extinguished in central and eastern Asia after the conquests and depredations of Tamurlane and today survive primarily in Iran, Iraq and Syria. Michael Yuhanna, more famous to the world as Saddam Hussein's foreign ministre & deputy PM Tariq Aziz, is a Nestorian Christian.
Although the Mongolians and the Manchurians did not become Nestorians for the most part, there are apparently quite a few Semitic loanwords in Mongolian and Manchurian. One you would appreciate is the word for "divine law" in both languages: doro, obviously cognate to "Torah".
Oh, stop. I liked the sound of 'Sharon's forces' all of a sudden. It was a lot more epic-sounding: like 'Ceasar's forces' or something.
So let me get this straight - you guys think I'm a whore because I've decided to try and help Harish's Arabs?
Haven't I always said that my idea was to be basically OK with the Israeli Arabs (except for the sound knock on the head which I think they deserve to get) but expel the Pals?
You think I always have to be against all Arabs and for all Jews, in any situation, in order to be consistent?
Who thinks this? Do speak up.
Why did you move jexter's post? It was just a link.
That, plus I didn't want my teeth knocked in.
I said I didn't want to see his posts anymore, after reading that peice about the children dying of thirst in their own vomit and urine.
Those children are screaming even now, as we post.
Very interesting stuff. That text looks very weeping willowish.
Uh-huh. Yes? Then what?
I agree with this...it has become chapter after chapter of As The Pike Squirms.
What does it mean?
And, what script do the Uighurs use now that they are Muslims?
I agree with this...it has become chapter after chapter of As The Pike Squirms.
Half of the world's population occasionally feels an irresistible need to have a pike squirming in it, from puberty onwards.
And, what script do the Uighurs use now that they are Muslims?
Uigghly script?
Read this:
"The leadership is acting in accordance with the general tone of the Arab public, which feels some sort of exhaustion and despair over the events of the past two years, that confrontation is not in its interest, and that they should play a different role in the Israel-Palestinian conflict," said Darawshe, a former director-general of the Democratic Arab Party.
I spoke to MK Sarid on Saturday. He was a bit cranky because I called during the siesta hours (I do that to people sometimes) but he told me to fax him the info and he'd help.
But his crankiness was probably also a reflection of the general despair the Israeli left is in. And Sarid also mentioned something about the fund that I wanted money from being in trouble.
If they're smart, they'll opt for a humane right-winger like me instead of sticking to their guns to the bitter end.
I'm thinking they simply seperate the three entities into their own category of worship. Do they have anything like that? I wonder?
In the 4th and 5th centuries the church was torn by doctrinal strife of the true nature of Christ. He was human but he was also divine. How can this be explained? There can obviously be many solution. Christ can be a man who is inspired by the divine to a unique extent. He can be a manifestation of God in human shape. But there are difficulties with these simple solutions. So the church went for the idea of a dual nature, but obviously this too is fraught with problems. Are the natures separate or intertwined and, if so, to what extent?
The Nestorians (named after Nestorius, (ca 381-451) went for the separate natures and proposed that Maria should be called Cristhotokos (the mother of Christ) rather that Theotokos (the mother of God) since she could not have begotten Christ's divine nature.
The Nestorians were condemned as heretics by a church meeting in Chalcedon in the mid 5th century.
Today I faxed a left-wing MK a request for help and spoke to an aide to another, right-wing MK. The aide said if I got a group of 25 Arabs to come to a meeting with the MK at my home or someone else's home, he'd come. She also said I could wind up running on that party's ticket for the municipal erections.
Another funny thing about these disputes is that they are quite Jewish in nature. Life of Brian is all about that - the way the Jews keep splitting up into factions of three, then two, then one. So maybe these splits were just a reflection of the fact that Christianity is a daughter of Judaism.
A: Two. One to attend, and one not to be caught dead attending.
The Arians held that Christ was entirely and completely human. Arianism was the official religious doctrine in Visigothic Spain and Vandal North Africa. Today it is extinct -- unless of course you consider Unitarianism a successor to Arianism, which Unitarians insist they are.
Finally, the Monophysites believed Christ was divine and divine only. Monophysitism is the official doctrine of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Egypt, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church . (The last should not to be confused with the Assyrian Orthodox Church, which is resolutely Nestorian.)
To sum up: The Arians were earthy Christians who believed Christ took a dump; the Monophysites, being a bit more ethereal, had a Christ who never ever took a dump and would not even dream of it. Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians believe Christ both eagerly defecated and refrained from defecating at the same time, while the Nestorians believe in a non-defecating Christ who nonetheless had a doppelgänger somewhere in Asia who took to heart the Gandhian dictum "the surest path to bliss is a proper bowel movement". The Jews think the Christians copied their squatting techniques, while the Muslims, for whom Christ is known as Isa bin Maryam and is the antepenultimate prophet of God, added that Christ was indeed human, but introduced the divinely inspired practise of always using the left hand for sanitary purposes.
When the Uighurs converted to Islam they of course adopted the Perso-Arabic script. This was abandoned in the 1930s in favour of two scripts --Latin and Cyrillic. But in the 1980s the Uighurs re-adopted the Arabic script with official Chinese approval. But this Arabic script was very different from the earlier one. The current version is a fully vocalised script.
The Wahabbis, irritated at the Sunni silence on the question of marriage before conception, added the innovation that betrothal contracts can be drawn up and signed even before conception, but marriage & consummation would have to wait until conception.
The Ismailis, followers of the Aga Khan, believe that by the very nature of their faith, they are already married to the Aga Khan and all the procreational activity amongst themselves, necessarily takes place in sin & betrayal.
When you ask a Shiite about the age of marriage in the Shia sect, he will explain that one may go to war at 5 but self-flagellation cannot start before 13.
The Druze keep all their practises a secret and their customs on the age of marriage are a mystery.
Although the Alawites, who presently rule in Syria, insist they are devout Muslims, this sect is considered heretical by most Muslims. Their beliefs make room for many Christian beliefs & practises, such as the Trinity and Easter. Their own syncretism has confused the Alawites, and consequently on the question of marriage they answer: Muhammed did not defecate before puberty, while Christ did marry a pre-pubescent Mary Magdalene.
"The Jews think the Christians copied their squatting techniques..."
You're crazy! Nowhere do the rabbis advise that Jews should turn the other cheek. We shit proudly with both at once, and unlike Muslims, may wipe them freely with either hand.
I think.
Wasn't Mohammed supposed to be the last prophet and Isa the penultimate prophet? If Jesus was the antepenultimate, who's considered the prophet in between him and Mo?
Meaning the vowels are written out?
(2) "vocalised" means that there are discrete letters for each and every vowel, a quality which is absent from the Arabic script (just as from the Hebrew script).
And this seemed sort of reasonable on some level, since vowel sounds could be considered closer in a way to musical notes than they are to consonants (which I guess are more analagous to percussion). But it struck me as an interesting peculiarity that both melodic notation and vowel notation should be relegated literally to the edges of Hebrew writing.
Naturally, I've always wondered whether Islamic chants are similarly notated--I can't imagine they aren't tropic.
Yes, I am aware of that. But vowel markers for learners don't count. Arabic has the same thing: vowel markers are used, but only in dictionaries and the Qur'an.
I believe even some consonants in Hebrew aren't "marked". For example, in the dictionary, a dot on the right side distinguishes the letter Shin from the letter Sin, which has got a dot on the left side. But in normal Hebrew writing the dot is simply left out of both letters.
It's cruel enough that you don't indicate vowels in most texts, but how much crueller it is not to indicate some consonants as well !!!
The article explains the various -- schisms and mistaken schisms -- in hilarious detail.
The tone of the article is best summed up by this:
... the fallacy "No one can bring forth a son older than herself."
ANYWAY
What I really wanted to comment on was Jung's attempt to sort out the meaning of the moon in Judaism. He suggested that the moon goddess was wife of the God. And that the moon goddess is the basis for the Christian Holy spirit.
Unfortunately, I could not find any reference to this on the Internet, but here is an interesting article:
Hebrew Goddesses and the Origin of Judaism
FINALLY
Pierre A Rinfret
I am 77 years of age;lived through the great depression,and WWII to say nothing of the cold war. Witnessed the evil of Hitler, Mussolini Stalin and all the petty despots and murderers in Africa and Asia (including the Vietnam holocaust)from my childhod until today. The middle east is a disaster and the killing will never stop.
Mankind is basically mad.
Who is Rinfret:
1990 New York Republican gubernatorial candidate Pierre Rinfret had some difficulty establishing voter name recognition. A New York Times informal survey of voters identified Pierre Rinfret as an artist, a perfume, a drug dealer, a movie star, a fashion designer, a chef, the French ambassador to the United States, and a goalie for the New York Rangers.
Also a Ph.D. in economics and advisor to US presidents. His site is messy but very worthwhile digging around in.
A classic site -- possibly one of the best on the Internet.
I guessed as much. However, I should say that the incidence of Hebrew vowels being used in common parlance may be greater than that of Arabic vowels--sometimes I see vowels used in newspaper ads--and if so is probably a result of the fact that Hebrew is not at this point in history a first language for lots of its speakers.
"I believe even some consonants in Hebrew aren't "marked". For example, in the dictionary, a dot on the right side distinguishes the letter Shin from the letter Sin, which has got a dot on the left side. But in normal Hebrew writing the dot is simply left out of both letters."
Yes, Shin/Sin is the most glaring example of this admitted cruelty. But then there's also the dots in the middle of consonants that harden sounds--F to P, V to B, Kh to K... and Ch to hard C. (I think the only distinction between the latter two pairs is that the K/Kh is a final letter, whereas the C/Ch can occur in the beginning or middle of a word--but Pike would know better than I.) What the seemingly superfluous dot in the middle of a mem does for it, I have no idea.
Most insidious perhaps is the vav that, if it's got a dot next to it, makes the oo sound as in "tool." Ordinarily the vav would be a fucking consonant (V). Sometimes the "oo" vav is dispensed with and the "incomplete" version of the word is written with a backward-leaning stack of three dots (the vowel notation for "oo) beneath the relevant consonant. But then these dots are dispensed with in common script, so I don't know how anyone knows what the hell is going on.
But it isn't really that bad, I'm sure, if one is fluent in the language. No worse, I guess, than the plethora of insane English homonyms and various worthlessly archaic spellings, for instance.
Ah, that explains everything.
The use of V / W as both a consonant and a vowel (O & U), and the use of Y as both a consonant and a vowel (long I), are distinguishing characteristics of Semitic languages.
But Hebrew and Arabic have it easy. In Urdu, the V letter can mean /v/, /w/, /o/, /u/, or /au/.
"Ch to hard C. (I think the only distinction between the latter two pairs is that the K/Kh is a final letter, whereas the C/Ch can occur in the beginning or middle of a word--but Pike would know better than I.)"
Don't you mean the letter tsadi can represent the /ch/ sound in addition to the normal /ts/ sound? There are three letters of this class:
tsadi = /ts/ or /ch/
zayin = /z/ or /j/
gimel = /g/ or /dz/
Malaysian flat bread and curry chicken. Laughing worked up my appitite.
That's a new one on me (which means little). Can you provide an example?
I am also unaware of gimel producing the sound "dz". I thought it was strictly a "g".
Now, see, that's just perverse.
zayin = /z/ or /j/
gimel = /g/ or /dz/"
I assume these are adaptations to accommodate foreign language pronunciation?
Religiously, it appears that the Hebrews were a bit more....catholic...than is commonly admitted:)
The stuff in the link posted by Transient mostly rings true, based on everything I've read about the Hebrews/Israelites--with the exception that its author scarcely mentions the central myth or event of Israelite history: the Exodus.
Either it occurred or it didn't. But I can't figure out what would have motivated a bunch of Canaanites to have insisted that it did, unless some contingent of them had had some sort of defining experience in, or in relation to, Egypt.
Personally, I'm interested in the connection between Persian or Babylonian and Canaanite royalty legends and Indian ones. But I haven't yet stumbled on a discourse comparing the two (particularly ca. 500-600 BCE). Which is surprising to me, since there's a perfect parallel between the stories of David and Saul and a homily told by the Buddha, ostensibly to quell a power struggle among his disciples. Both accounts may have been written down around the same time, so I don't know which preceded the other, or whether they derive independently from a third source.
Pe is talking about what happens to zayin, tzadi and gimel when an apostrophe is attached and yes, this is a modern way of coping with foreign language sounds.
When Ando wrote 'ch' she meant 'kh'. She meant 'ch' like in ach, Hans, not like in 'chihuaha'.
That guy's site you linked is cool.
I'm jealous that he has money. 
Sgt. Ari Weiss, 22, of Ra'anana, KIA in Shkhem.
Andonly,
The Exodus story has gone through yet another revision -- hopefully, the final one. (Prior to this one, the theory I remember was that the "Hebrews" conquered Egypt and were subsequently expelled.)
ANYWAY
This theory is summarized:
Scholars say Bible's version of Exodus probably isn't true
Today, the prevailing theory is that Israel probably emerged peacefully out of Canaan --modern-day Lebanon, southern Syria, Jordan and the West Bank of Israel -- whose people are portrayed in the Bible as wicked idolators. Under this theory, the Canaanites who took on a new identity as Israelites were perhaps joined or led by a small group of Semites from Egypt -- explaining a possible source of the Exodus story, scholars say.
...........
In a new book this year (2001), "The Bible Unearthed," Israeli archeologist Israel Finklestein of Tel Aviv University and archeological journalist Neil Asher Silberman raised similar doubts and offered a new theory about the roots of the Exodus story. The authors argue that the story was written during the time of King Josia of Judah in the seventh century B.C. -- 600 years after the Exodus supposedly occurred in 1250 B.C. -- as a political manifesto to unite Israelites against the rival Egyptian empire as both states sought to expand their territory. The young Israeli king's growing conflict with the newly crowned Pharaoh Necho, the book argues, was metaphorically portrayed through the momentous and probably mythical struggle between Moses and the pharaoh.
Dever argued that the Exodus story was produced for theological reasons: to give an origin and history to a people and distinguish them from others by claiming a divine destiny.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is an interesting view of Moses as being Akhenaten:
Moses
Note the origin of the word 'Amen':
The cult of the amorphous god Amun (meaning "hidden" or "unseen"(7) and source of the ending to Christian, Jewish and Muslim prayers - Amen)(8) was champion of the 17th Dynasty Pharaohs who drove out the Hyksos and reunited Egypt. Amun was established as the supreme state god and was gradually endowed with the natures of other important Egyptian deities.(9) By the beginning of the 18th Dynasty, traits of the solar god Ra (alternatively spelled Re) had also become assimilated.(10) Amun-re had become the unequaled "King of the Gods," and possessor of a temple complex with a staff of thousands.
That's interesting. I had allowed for a similar notion myself, and wondered whether anyone serious had worked out a real hypothesis along those lines.
I can buy that "Aten" and "adon" share some provenance, but this is probably insignificant as an indicator that the Jews came out of Egypt. Similarly, if the name Amun and the word amen are linguistically related, it's probably because the Egyptians (who worshipped Amun as a chief deity) were a dominant cultural and political power throughout the Levant. If the name Amun were uttered routinely by Egyptians to seal oaths, it could have become a common colloquialism for "so be it" among Canaanite peoples without them having any idea who Amun was.
The implication in the link you cited that Moses was Akhenaten is not supported by any evidence, nor taken seriously by anyone, as far as I know, although the idea apparently used to have some currency among fabulists.
More plausible, perhaps, is the possibility that Moses was, or was a figure based on, Akhenaten's high priest, Osarseph (who would have suddenly become unemployed after Akhenaten's death, whereupon Amarna was abandoned and the heretical monotheism Akhenaten established evidently purged). Who knows, perhaps Osarseph was also part of the inspiration for the biblical character Joseph.
A fascinating detail about Akhenaten is that he appears in most artistic representations physically deformed, with a bulging abdomen, a long cranium, and certain almost feminine features. It has been speculated that he suffered from a genetically inherited condition brought on by inbreeding, or possibly Marfan's, but the genetic work done on mummies of some of his relatives indicate he wasn't actually the product of inbreeding. His own mummy has never been located.
Maybe instead of an 'interesting' view. I should have said 'curious'.
The Net is full of curious theories with their authors being 'highly selective' in their choice of information.
IN ANY CASE
A book is due out on this topic shortly:
Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus
by Ahmed Osman
First North American Edition of
Moses: Pharaoh of Egypt
ISBN 1-59143-004-6
Bear & Company
280 pages, 6 x 9
8-page b & w insert
Paper, $18.00 (CAN $28.95)
It will be interesting to see how it is reviewed.
AND
Here is the thesis that Moses was an Egyptian priest:
The Moses Mystery
Don't have the time or the inclination to try to follow up on this.
Iran has been supplying the [Hizbullah] guerrillas with thousands of missiles for an attack on Israel that apparently would be timed to disrupt a possible U.S. strike against Iraq, a senior Israeli official said Friday in Jerusalem.
We're in for a hell of winter, eh?
I'm thinking the relative quiet on the Pal front is probably just a reorganization and regrouping, in preparation for the One Big One.
You're a propagandist for a man who has a special jail for killing children. I will not have you posting in my thread. Not even short posts.
Didn't jasper recently reveal that he has a prof named Osman?
That, in fact, he - jasper - is this Osman guy's star pupil?
Osman is not an uncommon Muslim name. I think it's from the same word as Ottoman.
Osman is the Turkish variant of the Arabic Uthman, the name of the third Caliph. Turks can't lisp, so they said Usman or Osman. The English word Ottoman comes from an Italian corruption of the Arabic original. Like the Turks, the Italians can't lisp, but unlike the Turks the Italians interpret Th as T. Thus, Ottoman.
Arab Christians of all denominations -- Maronites, Catholics, Syrian Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox --use the word Allah to say God.
I'm not sure whether Judaeo-Arabic speakers from Yemen, Morocco and Egypt also used the word "allah" in ordinary conversation (as opposed to religious ceremonies). But I do know that Iranian Jews and Bukharan Jews, whose language is Judaeo-Persian, refer to God in ordinary conversation as "Khuda", which is the Persian word for God / god. ( I know because I've asked them.)
I should add that in the case of the Syrian & Coptic Orthodox Christian Arabs, they say Allah in ordinary conversation, not in religious services which would be conducted in Aramaic and Coptic, respectively. Maronites and Arab Catholics hold services in Arabic, so they say Allah always.
pseudoerasmus,
I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case. The noun lah simply means "god" and is cognate to the Hebrew el. Thus "al - lah" is not a proper name at all but simply the common noun preceded by a definite article ("the god").
Others differ:
Who is Allah? The Institute of Islamic Information and Education
It is a known fact that every language has one or more terms that are used in reference to God and sometimes to lesser deities. This is not the case with Allah. Allah is the personal name of the One true God. Nothing else can be called Allah. The term has no plural or gender. This shows its uniqueness when compared with the word god which can be made plural, gods, or feminine, goddess. It is interesting to notice that Allah is the personal name of God in Aramaic, the language of Jesus and a sister language of Arabic.
ANYWAY
This comes via the stupid Saudi, so it must be wrong.
Well, maybe not:
Is the Word Allah Similar to Elohim?
The intent of this article is to examine the etymology of the word Elohim and Allah. Although some of the definitions may be repetitive, our aim is to document the meanings from various sources.
Allah is the name of the Supreme Being in the Arabic Language. The word Allah is never used for any other being or thing.
Well maybe you are simply wrong. Only Allah knows.
I said three things.
(1) The word "allah" simply means "the god" in Arabic. You can look up any Arabic dictionary and confirm that it is a combination of the definite article "al" and the common noun "lah". Even Transient's own citaiton from plim.org confirms this is so.
(2) I said the words "Allah" and "El" (or "Elohim") are etymologically cognate. Nobody disputes this point.
(3) Finally, I said that the word "Allah" is used to mean "God" by Arabic speakers of any religion, including Christians.
Khaval Alazman, whose family includes Judaeo-Arabic speakers from Yemen and Morocco, informs me that Arabic-speaking Jews also indeed say "Allah" for God in ordinary conversation.
This is equivalent to say God is the personal name of the one true God.
You stated:
Message # 547
I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case.
But it is NOT the case -- or, at least, for Muslims.
The etymology of Allah has no bearing on its current meaning. That's the way language works.
Therefore your 'logic' is simply wrong.
AND
The people who "mistakenly suppose" are correct.
It is NOT not the case --
"Whilst it has become the custom of many translators of the Qur'an to leave the Arabic word allah untranslated, this practise is semantically ill-advised. In classical and scriptural Arabic, allah is the syncopated form of al'illah which can refer equally to the one God and to any one of the many gods of the pre-Islamic pantheon. Lexical distinctions between the true God and the false pagan gods were achieved in the use of the plural form or through apposition... "
[ W. M. Thackston, An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic ]
The Shahadah, the Muslim confession of faith, is usually translated into English as "there is no god but God and Muhammed is his prophet".
pseudoerasmus,
The "simple grammatical fact" is still a point of contention. [Please read the second reference ( Is the Word Allah Similar to Elohim? ) I gave carefully.] So what you claim is grammatical is, in fact, etymological.
If a group of individuals agrees and uses 'pseudoerasmus' to mean 'long-winded and illogical' then, to that group of individuals that is its meaning. And to argue otherwise is silly.
So your argument in:
Message # 547
I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case.
is simply silly -- because Moslems claim otherwise.
No, the point is grammatical, not etymological. Please consult any Arabic grammar.
"The "simple grammatical fact" is still a point of contention. [Please read the second reference ( Is the Word Allah Similar to Elohim? ) I gave carefully.] "
Transient1a has always been undemanding about the quality of the sources he reads and cites, but why does he believe a website called plim.org (PLIM = "power latent in man") which among other things discusses "paranormal experiences", should be reckoned to trump the opinion of the esteemed Arabist, Semiticist and Iranist Professor W. M. Thackston?
"because Moslems claim otherwise."
Not at all. See, for example, http://99-names.com/Allah.shtml.
Weird. Encyclopedia Britannica does NOT use 'grammaticologically':
Encyclopedia Britannica Micropedia (Vol. 1; p. 250) states the following about Allah. "Etymologically, Allah is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-ilahh, "the God," although the Aramaic Alaha has also been proposed. The origin of the name can be traced to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was Il or El, the latter bring in the Old Testament synonym for Yahweh. Know to Arabs even in pre-Islamic times, Allah is standard Arabic for God And is used by Arab Christians as well as Muslims."
MAYBE
Because you are simply wrong.
Sorry about that. But that is the way it is.
The second reference I gave contains the above quotes.
Sorry about that. But that is the way it is.
How juvenile can you get?
allah = al + lah <=> god = the + god
is simply standard Arabic grammar. Look up "definite article" in any Arabic reference grammar and you will see it is so.
Besides, on the main point of what "allah" means, Britannica seems to agree with me:
"Known to Arabs even in pre-Islamic times, Allah is standard Arabic for God And is used by Arab Christians as well as Muslims."
Tut. Tut. A trifle judgemental and adolescent.
How juvenile can you get?
MAYBE
Message # 555
Transient1a, you are a deeply stupid man...
ANYWAY
All I was doing was adding emphasis.
I assume that your have enough native intelligence to draw your own conclusions.
And note: no name calling.
BUT
Then maybe to you that is adult.
ANYWAY
Enough trivia for one day.
pseudoerasmus,
1
Sorry, but references on Arabic grammar and lexicography trump Britannica.
This is your opinion.
You would have to ask W. M. Thackston exactly how he would define the etymology of the word Allah.
Perhaps he would agree the Encyc. Brit. or not --- this is a matter of conjecture.
Even if he disagreed this would not make EB 'wrong'. This would only demonstrate that there is disagreement on the usage of the term etymology between two experts.
2
You stated:
Message # 555
I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case.
What I have referenced demonstrates that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam. That is simply the way the word Allah is used.
It really does not matter if the best grammatical interpretation of Allah is "the god". Usage defines the word.
I guess I find it very frustrating that I cannot seem to communicate this point to you.
Message # 547
It only disagrees with me in saying that "al lah" means "the god" etymologically, as opposed to grammatically, semantically and mechanically.
The question of what "allah" means can be found in any Arabic-English dictionary. One need not actually ask Professor Thackston.
"Even if he disagreed this would not make EB 'wrong'. This would only demonstrate that there is disagreement on the usage of the term etymology between two experts."
Do you even read what you quote? There is no disagreement on usage between anybody, because Britannica does not discuss usage, except insofar as Britannica says "Allah" is standard Arabic for "God", which supports me and not you.
"What I have referenced demonstrates that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam. That is simply the way the word Allah is used. It really does not matter if the best grammatical interpretation of Allah is "the god". Usage defines the word."
Of course usage defines the word. And what is the Arab usage in referencing the Supreme Deity? To put a definite article ("the") in front of the word for "god" !!!
It seems it doesn't penetrate your abnormally dense cranium that when an Arab says "Allah" he is well aware that "lah" means "god", as in "false gods" or "pagan gods". Suppose then that a group of English speakers decided to call the supreme deity "The God". Our village idiot Transient1a would apparently observe that this phase "The God" is a name, a proper name, analogous with Yahweh or Vishnu or Zeus.
What an idiot.
Now be a mensch and admit you were wrong.
Allah is not the personal name of God in Islam in the sense that Yahweh or Zeus or Vishnu is.
Message # 570
Allah is not the personal name of God in Islam in the sense that Yahweh or Zeus or Vishnu is.
The information I posted from Islamic sites claimed that Allah is the name of God.
Here is information from yet another site, Allah, the unique name of God :
Contrary to popular belief, the word Allah is NOT a contraction of al-ilah (al meaning 'the', and ilah meaning 'god').
Had it been so, then the expression ya Allah ('O Allah!') would have been ungrammatical, because according to the Arabic language when you address someone by the vocative form ya followed by a title, the al ('the') must be dropped from the title. For example, you cannot say ya ar-rabb but must say ya rabb (for 'O Lord'). So if the word Allah was al-ilah ('the God'), we would not be able to say: ya Allah, which we do.
Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (which is based on classical Arabic dictionaries), says under the word Allah, while citing many linguistical authorities:
"Allah ... is a proper name applied to the Being Who exists necessarily, by Himself, comprising all the attributes of perfection, a proper name denoting the true god ... the al being inseparable from it, not derived..."
Allah is thus a proper name, not derived from anything, and the Al is inseparable from it. The word al-ilah (the god) is a different word.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The word Allah is unique among the names of God in all the languages of mankind, in that it was never applied to any being other than God. The pre-Islamic Arabs used it to refer to the Supreme Being, and never applied it to any of the other things they worshipped. Other names of God used by mankind, such as "lord", "god", "khuda", etc. have all also been used for beings other than God. They have meanings which refer to some particular attribute of God, but "Allah" is the name which refers to the Being Himself as His personal name.
The Holy Quran itself refers to the uniqueness of the name Allah when it says:
"Do you know anyone who can be named along with Him?" (19:65)
Arabic is the only language, and Islam is the only religion, that has given the personal name of God (as distinct from attributive names such as lord, god, the most high, etc.) There are clear prophecies in previous scriptures (the Bible, the Vedas etc.) about the man who will come and give the name of God, which in previous religions was regarded as a secret.
So Allah is the personal name of God.
And I guess you still think you are right? Allah has hardened your heart -- in old sense where it was thought to be the organ respsonsible for consciousness and logic.
.......THE AHMADIS, a Pakistani religious sect, considered heretical by Muslims, who recognises a prophet after Muhammed. The Ahmadis are to Islam what the Mormons are to Christianity. Would one consult the Mormons on the word for God in Greek? No, one would ask Greek Orthodox or Greek-speaking Christians.
So once again Transient displays his inimitable talent for blindly and ignorantly mining quack sites on the internet.
After all this time, the only person who has quoted from a serious source is yours truly. I quote again the following:
"Whilst it has become the custom of many translators of the Qur'an to leave the Arabic word allah untranslated, this practise is semantically ill-advised. In classical and scriptural Arabic, allah is the syncopated form of al'illah which can refer equally to the one God and to any one of the many gods of the pre-Islamic pantheon. Lexical distinctions between the true God and the false pagan gods were achieved in the use of the plural form or through apposition in the latter."
[ W. M. Thackston, An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic ]
"It is appropriate to use the word 'God' rather than the transliteration 'Allah'. For one thing it cannot be denied that Islam is an offshoot of the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and for another the Christian Arabs of today have no word for 'God' than 'Allah'.
[ Cambridge History of Islam, volume 1a, pg. 32.]
I will also quote from the link I provided in Message # 557. The website is run by the Al Haramein Foundation, an Islamic scholarly organisation with official status in Saudi Arabia -- i.e., they are not Pakistani Ahmadis whom Transient prefers to quote, but Muslim Arabs: Some of the biggest misconceptions that many non-Muslims have about Islam have to do with the word "Allah". For various reasons, many people have come to believe that Muslims worship a different God than Christians and Jews. This is totally false, since "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" - and there is only One God. Let there be no doubt - Muslims worship the God of Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus - peace be upon them all. However, it is certainly true that Jews, Christians and Muslims all have different concepts of Almighty God....
First of all, it is important to note that "Allah" is the same word that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use for God. If you pick up an Arabic Bible, you will see the word "Allah" being used where "God" is used in English. (Click here to see some examples of the word "Allah" in the Arabic Bible.) This is because "Allah" is the only word in the Arabic language equivalent to the English word "God" with a capital "G". Additionally, the word "Allah" cannot be made plural or given gender (i.e. masculine or feminine), which goes hand-in-hand with the Islamic concept of God. Because of this, and also because the Qur'an, which is the holy scripture of Muslims, was revealed in the Arabic language, some Muslims use the word "Allah" for "God", even when they are speaking other languages. This is not unique to the word "Allah", since many Muslims tend to use Arabic words when discussing Islamic issues, regardless of the language which they speak. This is because the universal teachings of Islam - even though they have been translated in every major language - have been preserved in the Arabic language...
More importantly, it should also be noted that the Arabic word "Allah" contains a deep religious message due to its root meaning and origin. This is because it stems from the Arabic verb ta'Allaha (or alaha), which means "to be worshipped". Thus in Arabic, the word "Allah" means "The One who deserves all worship"....
There are some people out there, who are obviously not on the side of truth, that want to get people to believe that "Allah" is just some Arabian "God", and that Islam is completely "other" - meaning that it has no common roots with the other Abrahamic religions (i.e. Christianity and Judaism). To say that Muslims worship a different "God" because they say "Allah" is just as illogical as saying that French people worship another God because they use the word "Dieu", that Spanish-speaking people worship a different God because they say "Dios" or that the Hebrews worshipped a different God because they sometimes call Him "Yahweh".
The point about Dieu and Dios is actually quite cogent: "Allah" is to "God" as "Dieu" or "Dios" is to "God".
Frankly I don't understand how "Allah" could be a name like Zeus or Vishnu if Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews also use the word "Allah" to say "God". That would be like Roman Catholics worshipping Jupiter.
[MEMRI] Special Dispatch - Egypt/Arab-Israeli Conflict
October 3, 2002
No. 425
Egyptian Court Rules to Disband the Cairo Association for Peace
The Egyptian opposition weekly Al-Usbu' reported on an Egyptian administrative court's decision to disband a voluntary Egyptian organization that was founded to strengthen the peace process. The article's author, journalist Muhammad 'Abdallah, described the court's decision as "a new blow to the advocates of normalization." The following is a translation of the report.
"After four years of litigation in the administrative court, the report of the state attorneys on Case No. 1796, regarding the disbanding of the Cairo Association for Peace and the abolition of all decisions stemming from the decision [to establish it] has been published."
"The report, which is considered a mark of honor... for the Egyptian court, silenced the tongues that sought to sell out the reputation of the Egyptian legal [system] and to hint that pressure [was applied] on the administrative court so that it would not publish a decision in this suit, on the pretext that the political circumstances of the Arab homeland do not permit confrontation with Israel or its supporters."
"On September 17, 1998, a suit was filed in the administrative court by attorney and Ambassador Ibrahim Yusri, former director of the Foreign Ministry's Department of International Law and Agreements. The suit sought the disbanding of the Cairo Association for Peace, Registry No. 392, 1998, and the suspension of all its activity and the abolition of all decisions concerning it."
"This was because this association's activity is not subordinate to the clauses of the Law of Associations, and is even considered political party activity. Similarly, considerations of public interest require caution towards any activity that concerns Israel, out of fear for the well-being of the land and [for the sake of] state security. This matter makes the decision to [found] the association null and void..."
"The report states that conducting research, holding conferences and scientific conventions to disseminate the culture of peace in the full meaning of the term, and the exchange of visits with similar groups from Israel are not considered cultural, scientific, or religious services for which the association was established, in accordance with the sense set out by law."
"Similarly, none [of these activities] are included in the areas specified in the statutes of the Law of Associations and private institutions or those for which a ruling is issued by the Minister of Social Affairs..."
"The plaintiff attorney, Ibrahim Yusri, stresses that the ruling is not unusual in the Egyptian legal system… which does not surrender to pressure, and that the other party [the defendant] tried to hint that pressure was applied to prevent the publication of this report. He stressed that the political circumstances of the region, Israel's acts of aggression, the siege of the Palestinian president, and the slaughter of dozens of defenseless Egyptian [sic] people on the occupied land, all call for the non-recognition of anybody calling for normalization of relations or making contact with the Zionist enemy."
"Similarly, the so-called peace movement in Israel has made no concessions and has not called for such concessions as have been called for by the forces of submission in Egypt. Ambassador Ibrahim Yusri noted that public opinion polls in Israel show the absence of influence of these forces [for peace] in every decision made on the part of the State of Israel."
The Ball is in the Court of the Associations Opposed to Normalization
"Now that the committee of the state attorneys published its ruling [on] abolishing the Cairo Association for Peace, the ball is in the court of the associations opposed to normalization, who awaited a verdict of this kind so that they could focus public opinion in Egypt and in the Arab world on resistance to the associations of surrender, which apparently do not feel pain at the sight of the blood of Palestinians being shed by the oppressing occupation."
In popular usage, perhaps; etymologically, no. Perhaps your point ought to be that other deity names also may have begun as phrases that meant "the god," or "supreme god," or whatever.
"The word al-ilah (the god) is a different word."
That may be the case. The word is in use, and probably among Arabs. For what it's worth, a song by a popular group wose lead singers are Israelis of north African descent begins with the lyrics, "El norah alilah, el norah alilah," which Pike once translated (and my dictionary confirms) as "El, terrible god."
Interestingly, in Hebrew the word elil (aleph-lamed-lamed, as opposed to the aleph-lamed-lamed-hey of "alilah") means "idol."
Following your links
More importantly, it should also be noted that the Arabic word "Allah" contains a deep religious message due to its root meaning and origin. This is because it stems from the Arabic verb ta'allaha (or alaha), which means "to be worshipped". Thus in Arabic, the word "Allah" means "The One who deserves all worship".
So much for no argument over etymology.
NOW
In Message # 576 you state:
This is because "Allah" is the only word in the Arabic language equivalent to the English word "God" with a capital "G". Additionally, the word "Allah" cannot be made plural or given gender (i.e. masculine or feminine)
So you agree with me!
Unless, of course, you wish to state:
I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that God is the the name the deity in English speaking countries, in analogy with Zeus or Yahwey or Vishnu.
To echo your:
Message # 555
I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case.
I could go on and on -- but this is becoming ridiculous.
"So you agree with me!"
??? I don't follow you.
_____________________________
Yes. My position is unchanged: Allah is not the name of a deity in analogy with Zeus or Vishnu. Every source indicates that "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God"; and this is supported by the fact that Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians also use the word "Allah" to mean "God". If "Allah" was a personal name like "Zeus", why on earth would non-Muslims use that word?
??????????????????????????????
Is that really you!
If so, I am more than astonished.
And please try reading what I write in context.
Thanks.
I really do not know how I get into ridiculous arguments.
Well. Maybe I do. I should not try to correct obvious errors pseudoerasmus propagates.
The etymological derivation of "Allah" as a contraction of "al-ilah" is "popular" etymology and surely not historic. It would be rather strange that especially the "i" should have been disappeared due to neglect of the speakers, since the syllable "il" is the most important in "al-ilah": "il" or "el" is the semitic word for God since times immemorial.
Instead, the word "Allah", as a lot of other words, especially words of the religious sphere, was imported from the Syriac (Aramaic) language: "alaha" - with three long a-vowels -, is the Aramaic word for the (Christian) unique God. The last (long) "a" characterizes the status absolutus in the Aramaic language and was duly omitted by the Arabs like case endings in the Arabic vernacular, whereas the understanding of the first syllable of "alaha" as an article was a common misunderstanding for instance in "al-Iskandar" from Greek "Alexandros" etc. The doubling of the "l" is irrelevant, since the doubling sign is a very late invention of Arabic orthography, centuries after Muhammad.
Christoph Heger
"Some of the biggest misconceptions that many non-Muslims have about Islam have to do with the word "Allah". For various reasons, many people have come to believe that Muslims worship a different God than Christians and Jews. This is totally false, since "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God" - and there is only One God....
First of all, it is important to note that "Allah" is the same word that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use for God. If you pick up an Arabic Bible, you will see the word "Allah" being used where "God" is used in English....
This is because "Allah" is the only word in the Arabic language equivalent to the English word "God" with a capital "G". Additionally, the word "Allah" cannot be made plural or given gender (i.e. masculine or feminine), which goes hand-in-hand with the Islamic concept of God. Because of this, and also because the Qur'an, which is the holy scripture of Muslims, was revealed in the Arabic language, some Muslims use the word "Allah" for "God", even when they are speaking other languages. This is not unique to the word "Allah", since many Muslims tend to use Arabic words when discussing Islamic issues, regardless of the language which they speak. This is because the universal teachings of Islam - even though they have been translated in every major language - have been preserved in the Arabic language...
In other words, "Allah" just means "God" and is not the personal name of a deity like Zeus or Vishnu.
Gee.
Now I get it.
God is not a deity.
How stupid of me.
I see you have changed your mind on etymology of Allah.
My dictionary (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary):
Deity
1 a) the rank or essential nature of god b) supreme being God
2 a god or goddess
3 one exalted or revered as supremely good or powerful
To me a deity is a deity. God is a deity. Allah is another name for God.
Other gods are also deities.
I am unsure what you trying to convey by 'personal name'.
I never said God is not a deity. You are hallucinating.
"I am unsure what you trying to convey by 'personal name".
A name cannot be translated, only transliterated. A word can be translated.
My point in a nutshell has been that in any translation of an Arabic text into English, the correct one for the Arabic noun "Allah" is "God", just as the correct translation for the French word Dieu into English is "God". Thus, God is to Allah as Dieu is to Allah.
God is to Allah as God is to Dieu.
If you fall out of a plane and land among hostile Arabs, ask their leader how many children he has and then say Allah yekhalihum.
Classes in Chomskyian linuistics were like that. Chasing after one's own tail, trying to define stuff, tripping on one's own definitions.
It all comes down to how forgiving and inclusive a non-Muslim is towards the Muslims, I believe. If he is forgiving (and believes in God himself), his tendency will be to say "the Muslims believe in God, but they call Him by a different name". If he isn't, his tendency will be to say "the Muslims don't believe in God. They believe in a fictional character called Allah".
It also comes down to a willingness on the part of the non-Muslim to imagine two dieties fighting it out, so to speak, which is what a lot of us do when we talk about the subject. I imagine that most religious monotheists would find that difficult. People who basically see God as a creation of man find that easier.
But like I said, it's all very Nestorianish. Some people would say you can't believe in God if you don't call Him by his right name and attribute the proper qualities to Him, and follow the proper book. Others would say you can.
I have to get T7 up and dressed for school. Ciao.
The question could be rephrased as:
When the Qur'an is translated into another language, should the word "Allah" be merely transliterated, or translated into the word for "God" in that language?
My answer:
Since Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians say "Allah" for "God", so the word "Allah" in the Qur'an and other Islamic contexts should be rendered "God" (or "Dieu" or "Gott" or "Dios") in translation.
In other news - The NYT interviews Col. Noam Tibon, governor of Nablus, but for some reason is prevented from mentioning his name.
Fear of an international tribunal, perhaps.
"The last (long) "a" characterizes the status absolutus in the Aramaic language and was duly omitted by the Arabs like case endings in the Arabic vernacular..."
This makes a bit more sense to me because I don't see, intuitively, how you get from El to a derivation lah, unless 1) there is simply no connection between the Syriac El and the Arabic la, and 2) Heger is wrong and "Allah" is not derived from the Aramaic import alalah at all, but is indeed an indigenous Arab term for "the God." (In which case his deconstruction of alilah makes no sense.)
But if "the understanding of the first syllable of "alaha" as an article was a common misunderstanding for instance in "al-Iskandar" from Greek "Alexandros" etc.," then it appears Allah, derived as it is from El, is indeed the proper name of God--or was, before the Arabs confused El with "the".
(Anyway, what sort of person is this Christoph Heger, who refers to "the (Christian) unique God"? Sounds a bit pre-mid-20th-century-theologian.)
If al-ilat or al-lat meant "the goddess," in such a way as to indicate that the goddess was unique, then surely the term would not have applied to more than one deity. Likewise allah, which some argue was originally a masculine Semitic moon deity, but one of many gods. (Also, allatu apparently was the Sumerian word for an attribute of the deity Ereshkigal, and meant "goddess". Perhaps -lah and/or -lat were Sumerian suffixes indicating gender? If -lat indicated the feminine and a -u siuffic was the possessive plural, as it is in Hebrew, the "allatu" would have meant "our goddess.")
If the name Allah derives from Arabs' polytheistic period, then I don't see why supposing a derivation of al- from El is not preferable to the notion that al in the word "Allah" means "the".
It is, "Hayah, haya." The prefix ha-means "the." And I'm guessing -yah comes from the same root as the -yeh in "yihyeh," which means "it will be." So I guess the Yah- in "Yehouah" indicates the fundamental is-ness of the Hebrew deity. What the reminaing vav-hey is for I can't imagine, unless the deity was originally female.
Which I guess, given all those old fertility figures found in Canaan, isn't out of the question.
Is Bundy a diety?
Was the original form alilbundy?
Help me out here.
Interestingly, I stumbled on the Hebrew for Elohim's enigmatic statement about his identity, "I am that I am."
It is, "Hayah, hayah." The prefix ha- means "the." And I'm guessing -yah comes from the same root as the -yeh in "yihyeh," which means "it will be." So I suppose that, assuming they are interchangeble, the Yah-/Yeh-in "Yehouah" indicates the fundamental is-ness of the Hebrew deity. What the reminaing vav-hey is for I can't imagine, unless the deity was originally female.
Which I guess, given all those old fertility figures found in Canaan, isn't out of the question.
I gave you guys a Yahweh tutorial once.
The root heh - vav (waw) - heh refers to being, or isness. YHWH looks like a future form of that root, if pronounced yehweh. If pronounced yahweh it doesn't look that much like a future form of a verb - more like a proper noun if anything. If pronounced yehovah then it does look a bit feminine.
The Hebrew for God's statement is not at all what you wrote. It is ehyeh asher ehyeh - 'I shall be what I shall be', or, in Popeye's words, 'I yam what I yam'.
A bush burning in the middle of the desert (go away, Technicolor Charlton Heston imagery!) and some guy telling Moses, ehyeh asher ehyeh.
A stele is dedicated to Qos-allah, 'Qos is Allah' or 'Qos the god', by Qosmilk (melech - king) is found at Petra (Glueck 516).
If the form Qos-allah meant "Qos the god," then why is it not paralleled in Qos's other apellation, Qosmilk (Qosmelekh)? Where's the definite article before "king"? Shouldn't we see Qosalmilk or Qoshamilk?
Qos is identifiable with Kaush (Qaush) the God of the older Edomites. The stele is horned and a seal from Edomite Tawilan near Petra [the famous ancient city in Jordan] identified with Kaush displays a star and crescent (Browning 28), both consistent with a moon deity. It is conceivable the latter could have resulted from trade with Harran (Bartlett 194). There is continuing debate about the nature of Qos (qaus - bow) who has been identified both with a hunting bow (hunting god) and a rainbow (weather god) although the crescent above is also a bow. There is no reference to Qos in the Old Testament, but Seir is one of the domains of Yahweh, suggesting a close relationship. His attributes in inscriptions include knowing, striking down, giving and light (Bartlett203). Attempts have been made to also explain the existence of this scarab in the light of trade with Harran for which evidence has been found in cuneiform tablets (Bartlett 194).
Don't Muslims at Ramadan go round a big, squarish black stone known as the Qaba'a or something? There's some business having to do with stones in the OT, too--characters made oaths on piles of stone, and parts of the Temple were to be constructed exclusively from chunks of rock that had not been hewn.
The Nabateans had two principal gods in their pantheon, and a whole range of djinns, personal gods and spirits similar to angels. These deities were Dhu Shara, or Duchares and al-Uzza. Duchares means Lord of Shera (Seir), a local mountain and thunder god who was worshipped at a rock high place as a block of stone frequently squared, just as Hermes was the four-square god. Suidas in the tenth century AD described it as a 'cubic' black stone of dimension 4x2x1 (Browning 44). All the deities male and female were represented as stones or god-blocks.
Yes. But I have now dropped that argument in light of Heger's persuasive derivation. So I now rely exclusively on my other argument: that the Bible in Arabic has "Allah" where there is "God" in English; and that Arabophone Jews and Christians say "Allah" where one would mean "God" in English. Heger notwithstanding, as Transient says, it is usage, not etymology, which gives a word its definition.
Because in Arabic the "al" in "allah" is treated grammatically like a definite article. For example, the preposition li- (to, for) is proclitic (attached directly to the front of the word) and causes the noun to be declined in the genetive case. Thus,
bint = girl
li-binti = to/for a girl
But when the noun has got a definite article, then the alif (aleph) in the definite article is dropped:
li + al + bint = lil-binti = to/for the girl
allah = God
li + allah = lil-lahi = to/for God
This last phrase, lil-lahi, occurs in the second line of the Qur'an. Another rule in Arabic is that when the definite nominative ending -u or the definite genitive ending -i is followed by the definite article al, the alif is dropped again. Thus:
al-mamlakat = the kingdom
al-arabiyyat = Arabia
al-mamlakatu-l-arabiyyatu-ssaudiyah = the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
khalq = mercy
allahi = of God, God's
al khalqu llahi = God's creation
ism = name
bi + ism = b'ismi = in the name
bi + ism + allah = b'ismi-llah = in the name of God
Now, in view of what Heger said, all this occurs not because "allah" means "the god" (al-'ilah) but because the Arabs misinterpreted the Syriac "alaha" as "al-ah(a)", in line with what they have done with other foreign words beginning in AL or L, such as Alexander or Lawrence (al-'orens).
In the Wake of the Failed Seige - Ha'aretz
Yes, but the Quran was written long after the Allah was in use. How can one be sure Al-lah, meaning El-the-something-or-other) did not become Al-lah, "the God," simply because the Arabic article for "the" corresponded with the Semitic name for the mountain god and in usage became confused? From that confusion would have descended all ordinary usage consonant with "al" meaning "the," as well as the conviction that "al" does and has always meant "the".
It would be interesting to know if there is some old Semitic word "lah" or "lat" which could have served as a modifier for El. El the shining, El the bountiful, El of the people, something along those lines.
I'm not sure it's moot. The point is that "allah" may have been a name derived from El at one time, and thus a personal name of God. But by Mohammed's time, it meant something else: "the God". So these different definitions of the word are not mutually exclusive, as you and Transient have implied in your arguments.
Second, even if Allah can be translated as "the God", it is how the word is used that determines if it is a name. This is true of many words. You can say, "My father works on the railroad" and the word father is just a noun. If you say, "Father, you work on the railroad," the word father is being used as a name. Same word, two different uses.
To go a step further, go to any book of baby names. Most of our names mean something in one language or another. Then name Alexander is Greek for helper and defender of mankind.
So this argument is all well and good, but as is so often the case around here, it misses the point.
I see.
the two "l"s in "Allah" are written in Arabic as one "l". In Arabic, if the letter is pronounced twice after each others such as the "m" in "Muhammad", then it is written only once, and a special punctuation called "al-shaddah" is applied on the top of the letter to indicate that it is a double pronunciation. So the point is, the Arabic "Allah" is written with one "l" and not two "l"s. Perhaps the old Aramaic thousands of years ago was like that too, and maybe that's why "Allah" is written with one "l" in Aramaic.
If this is so, it indicates still further that Allah was originally El-something, not "the god."
You are misinterpreting what your site says.
Below is how "Allah" is written in a pointed text: 
"Pointed" means that all the markers for vowels & consonants (the equivalent to the "dots" of Hebrew) are present in the text in order to guide in correct pronunciation.
Pointed text usually appears only in the Qur'an and in lexicographic references. In newspapers and other ordinary text, "Allah" would simply appear as: 
The bare-bones spelling for "Allah" in unpointed Arabic is ALLH.
In the pointed text, the little mark which looks like a W is the shadda, which indicates that the consonant below it is doubled in pronunciation. The little line above the shadda is the vowel marker for short A. The other other line at the end is the vowel marker for short U.
Thus, according to the way it's pointed, the full rendering of the Arabic "Allah", showing both the letters and the markers, is ALLLAH.
Heger's point was that the shadda was a late addition and can be safely disregarded. Thus, we arrive at ALLAH.
But in Arabic, the only time a letter appears twice in succession is when the definite article AL is followed by a word beginning with L, such as al-laylat. Otherwise it is never doubled. Thus, Muhammad is always written MHMD.
I mentioned the Qur'an only because the particular grammatical phenomenon I cited, appears in its very second line. The grammatical phenomenon itself is much older than the Qur'an or Islam.
"How can one be sure Al-lah, meaning El-the-something-or-other) did not become Al-lah, "the God," simply because the Arabic article for "the" corresponded with the Semitic name for the mountain god and in usage became confused?"
If "allah" is directly derived from "el" ( instead of first having been borrowed from "alaha" which itself was derived from "el" ), then the /h/ is explicable as a transference of the same phoneme evident in the variant "eloh-", "elohim".
We now have three theories of the etymology of "Allah":
The first is untenable for the compelling reasons given by Heger. The third is less likely -- I opine -- than the second because Arabic would have had extensive contact with Aramaic for a longer period than Hebrew.
alexandros => alexein + andros => defend + human
Please take note that I am the bearer of this name in both its western and eastern variants.
Al-Muhaymin: The Protector, The Vigilant, The Controller
Al-'Aziz: The Almighty, The Powerful
Al-Jabbar: The Master of the Fade-Away Jump Shot
That's three L's.
These are reduced to two by Heger's observation that the shadda is a late embellishment.
According to the Manicheans, Jesus, who was subject, like all of us, to the interplay of heavenly Good and earthly Evil, alternately shat and abstained from shitting. Approaching his death, he attained the final degree of perfection, renouncing meat, sex, and, presumably, defecation.
And then he died. There must be a lesson there.
For "alaha", please read my Message # 585. (pseudoerasmus has already forgotten it.)
In Message # 547 you stated your argument:
I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case. The noun lah simply means "god" and is cognate to the Hebrew el. Thus "al - lah" is not a proper name at all but simply the common noun preceded by a definite article ("the god").
Your argument is that Allah cannot be the name of the deity in Islam because it is not a proper name at all.
In Message # 549 I disagreed, quoting evidence to show that Allah is the accepted Islam common name for God.
In Message # 555 you argued that:
. I merely cited a simple grammatical fact: the Arabic definite article is al and the Arabic word for "god" is lah.
This was the "solid chair" on which your faulty argument stood with a noose around its neck.
In Message # 567 pseudoerasmus fabricates the truth to support his contention:
when an Arab says "Allah" he is well aware that "lah" means "god", as in "false gods" or "pagan gods".
In Message # 572 I cited a reference to show that Allah is the proper name of God:
Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon (which is based on classical Arabic dictionaries), says under the word Allah, while citing many linguistical authorities:
"Allah... is a proper name applied to the Being Who exist........
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In my Message # 585 I give a quote indicating that Allah may stem from "alaha".
Amazingly, you, in Message # 588, agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thus you agree, that even from an etymological point of view, Allah is the proper name of God!!!!!!!!!!
You have knocked the chair out from under you argument stating Message # 547:
"Thus "al - lah" is not a proper name....."
killing it.
Yet you go on to proclaim you are right and introduce the 'personal' name of god.
Weirdly you end up arguing my point and claiming it was your point all along.
Surely, this is the strangest exchange I have ever had!!!
Uniquely, your logic confounds yourself. Truly, you are a formidable debater!
BTW
Your Message # 630 is a masterpiece.
I wonder how a Hindu would define a "personal name" of a deity?
May you could elucidate? Many thanks.
Goddamned Arabs, eternally adding superfluous L's and L-substitutes. (See below.) What will they want next, world domination?
It would certainly seem so, wouldn't it? Except that, in Hebrew at least, I think you might need an additional letter (vav) before the hey, for the /o/ in "Elohim". In other words, I don't think you could go from Ala(h) to Elohim directly by simply adding the pural suffix, even if you were a Semite with a native contempt for vowels.
But let me check, maybe Elohim is spelled without a vav...
...and indeed, it is. No vav. Just a superscript dot indicating the vowel sound /o/.
So, yes, the Aramaic alaha, which seems to make sense as a forerunner to Allah, is possibly also related to Elohim.
I guess if you're a speaker of Aramaic and you say "El-ha" (the God) fast enough, you can get to "alaha" pretty easily, since the initial vowel might have altered in speech from the short /e/to the long /a/, and an extra /a/ following the /l/ makes the /h/ easier to enunciate.
On the other hand, if you were a Syriac referring to a deity who was associated with El, but not El, then perhaps you would alter it and call it "Al." Alaha would mean "the god," but not "the God." If you then dropped the Aramaic definite article -ha, you'd have had ala(h).
If you're an Arab whose definite article is "al," and if you've forgotten all about El, you could come to believe you needed an extra L to make a word for god ("lah")that followed "al-". Thus, Allah.
Here's a novel take on YHWH. (The pronoun "he" in Hebrew is indeed "hu".):
The name "YHWH" came into use simply because the Torah was destroyed and re-written so many times. ... There were people who knew there was a God, a divine creative force or principal Creator, and these people were devoted to this belief. Unfortunately, they did not know who this Creator was, or how to call on Him. When they needed guidance, help, provision, etc., while praying, they were all calling on Him and saying, "Oh He! Who created the world..., "Oh He! Who created us..." "Oh He! Give us guidance..." "Oh He! Help us..." "Oh He! Protect us..." What is this "Oh He?" Now listen! "Ya Huwa! Who created the world..., "Ya Huwa! Who created us..." "Ya Huwa! Give us guidance..." "Ya Huwa! Help us..." "Ya Huwa! Protect us..." Now, take away the vowels and what do you get? "YHW" with the additional "H." Both in Hebrew and Arabic, this word means the same.
Pssssssst. Alaha. See Message # 585
Nah. Just keep going.....................
Message # 614
Read it a long time ago.
Great to read it again -- in its proper context.
"it should also be noted that the Arabic word "Allah" contains a deep religious message due to its root meaning and origin. This is because it stems from the Arabic verb ta'allaha (or alaha), which means "to be worshipped". Thus in Arabic, the word "Allah" means "The One who deserves all worship"."
Sorry, I'm no linguist but this strikes me as ridiculous. The likelihood that a noun such as "Allah" (God) would "stem from" a verb "ta'allaha" (to be worshipped) or especially the Arabic "to deify" (as in "huwa alaha"=he deifies) sounds back-assward to me.
The word "alaha" is ARAMAIC as well as Arabic. In Aramaic, it is a noun which means "the god." Your source provides NO plausible reason that "Allah" should derive from the Arabic alahah, which is only a single verb form of "to deify"--there being 19 others--and not the Aramaic noun meaning nearly exactly the same thing as "Allah."
Regarding those who insist that "Allah" is a name of God, I quote once again the Islamic scholarly authority from Saudi Arabia, earlier quoted in Message # 576:
...."Allah" is simply the Arabic word for "God"... because the Qur'an, which is the holy scripture of Muslims, was revealed in the Arabic language, some Muslims use the word "Allah" for "God", even when they are speaking other languages. This is not unique to the word "Allah", since many Muslims tend to use Arabic words when discussing Islamic issues, regardless of the language which they speak.
Transient continued:
Message # 639: " [PE] I merely cited a simple grammatical fact: the Arabic definite article is al and the Arabic word for "god" is lah. [Transient] This was the "solid chair" on which your faulty argument stood with a noose around its neck."
But what I said is true. You can look up "lah" or "ilah" in an Arabic-English dictionary and find the word defined as "god". And "al-" is the definite article in Arabic.
This is not a fabrication. It is the truth. One of the most important phrases in Islam, "bismi-llahi rahmani" contains the word "lah". The phrase means "in the name of God the Lord".
Message # 640: "Thus you agree, that even from an etymological point of view, Allah is the proper name of God!!!!!!!!!!"
Etymology is irrelvant to the present-day meaning of "Allah", which depends on usage. As I said to you early on, I was not making an etymological argument at all.
I am, however, having a very interesting and separate etymological discussion with Andonly.
I find it inconceivable that it is not related, so I can't understand why you say "possibly also related".
The final A in the "alaha" is the definite article, according to Heger.
Absolutely. And modern day Jews learned from Jesus's mistake. The Shulchan Aruch explicitly prescribes multiple daily defecations.
The Talmud, moreover, requires that a man service his wife on a regular basis. Since the Torah (of which the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch are interpretations) was given to us in order that we might live well, long, and happily on earth, and not because we needed to be saved from damnation, it is obvious that Jesus's crucifixion was a natural consequence of his silly, hubristic attempt to promulgate a faddish alteration of sound advice.
But personally, I think Jesus was strung up because he hoarded his sperm.
Sorry.
BTW
pseudoerasmus found that information, state it was from a reliable source and quoted it in his Message # 577.
At the time, he did not appear to realize that it conflicted with his etymology of Allah. And this why I repeated the quote in my Message # 585
I thought this was the information that changed his position on the etymology of Allah which he stated in Message # 588
AND
It was this change in position that completely self-demolished his claim in Message # 547 that:
"Thus "al - lah" is not a proper name at all but simply the common noun preceded by a definite article ("the god")."
which he and I were debating.
So I do find your comments a curious footnote.
(1) "allah" = al + lah
(2) "allah" is also used by Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians.
I recognise that I was wrong about #1 and I recognised because of Heger's linguistic argument, which I myself supplied to this thread. Allah is not the same as al 'ilah".
But my overall argument is not "self-demolished" as #2 remains indisputable and robust.
I almost posted a detailed explanation for my timorousness over this but was bumped offline a half second before hitting the post button.
Will explain at length later tonight or tomorrow, but the core of my question revolves around the plural form -im, which would not ordinarily in Hebrew follow a noun with the ending -ah.
I have a reason for believing it might, however, in this case; but the reason is not strictly etymological.
Later...
Message # 649
Does this mean you do not read your own quotations?
BECAUSE
You mentioned the connection between "allah" and "alaha" first in your Message # 577
We were not debating 2.
You keep dragging in red herrings -- like 'personal' god that are only reside somewhere in the handful of neurons in head.
Message # 648
This is not a fabrication. It is the truth.
But it is out of the context of what you trying to demonstrate.
This is a wonderful demonstration of the adage:
The truth -- cleverly told -- is the biggest lie.
Have you followed any of the details of this conversation at all? The "alaha" refereneced by Heger -- a Syriac word -- is not the same as the "alaha" mentioned in #577.
Message # 658: "We were not debating 2. You keep dragging in red herrings."
We were debating whether "allah" is a name, as opposed to a word. Both #1 and #2 were arguments in that debate. The fact that you fixated on #1 and ignored #2 because #2 was inarguable and irrefutable, is hardly my problem.
....like 'personal' god that are only reside somewhere in the handful of neurons in [your] head."
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Message # 660: "But it is out of the context of what you trying to demonstrate."
I said Arabs are aware that "lah" means "god". You called that a fabication. It was not a fabrication. Then you say it was out of the context of what I was arguing. Given that many constructions in Arabic involving the supreme deity of Islam use the term "lah", my words were eminently in context.
For the Aramaic "alaha" to get to the Hebrew "Elohim" seems to require two things. First is an alteration of vowels. Second is appendage of the plural suffix -im.
Offhand, I don't see how -im, and not -oht, should form the plural of a version of "alaha", unless the -a on the end of alaha could be easily dropped (which I think it could, because it is the definite article in Aramaic, but not in Hebrew, whose definite article is the prefix ha-). But that would still leave a feminine form, "Alah."
I've read that some Muslims pronounce Allah, "Allawh" in certain circumstances, so that this "awh" sounds like the /o/ in the word "ought". (In fact, I have heard this myself in various recorded liturgical material and wondered whether it was done for some sort of spiritual emphasis.)
What if Aramaic speakers pronounced "alaha" the way Arabs pronounce "Allawh"? In that case, you might say, "ALAWHa," which begins to edge into "Eloha." In fact, one could argue it is Eloha. In any case, drop the suffix "the" and you then have Aloh-, which I'm pretty sure is no longer a feminine form. To make it plural in Hebrew, one would add -im.
The qustion is, why would Alaha (or ALAHa or ALaha) become Elawha/Eloha? I have no difficulty understanding a natural transition from al- to el- and back, between peoples. But the -ah to -awh/-oh I don't know about. Maybe it could simply happen in usage. But in that case, where are all the other -awh sounds in Hebrew? And are they not nonexistent in Arabic aside from the "Allawh" instance?
So it occurs to me, what if "alaha" became "eloha" as a part of a concious effort to masculinize a term referring to deities? What if the linguistic change followed a trend toward a preference for excusively male gods, which seems to have occurred in both early Judaism and, much later, Islam?
Just a wild speculation.
So, considering that final short /u/, would you not in fact come up with something that sounded like Allauh or Allawh (an Arabized Eloh)?
Message # 647
You claim Message # 630 leads to the final and definitive explanation of why "Allah" is not a name of God but is a word meaning "God"
CONSIDER
1
A word is usually thought of as a speech sound or series of speech sounds that sybolizes and communicates a meaning without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use.
2
A name is usually thought of a word or phrase that constitutes a distinctive designation of a person or thing. Basically, it is a verbal identity tag.
THEN
By definition, Allah is not only a 'word' but also a 'name' used to designate a deity with specific properties (although those properties need not be invariant in time or from person to person).
Also, by definition, God is not only a 'word' but also a 'name' used to designate a deity with specific properties (although those properties need not be invariant in time or from person to person).
Some people, who are not Muslims, may have been brought up in a culture where they are taught that their 'God' and Allah are sufficiently close in properties that the two words are interchangeable.
Even so there are obvious differences between Allah and, say, the Christian God. For example, the latter has a son named Jesus.
THUS
pseuoeramus's conclusion:
"Allah" is not a name of God but is a word meaning "God"
is simply meaningless --for a word meaning "God" is just another way of designating another name of "God".
In a similar fashion, the fruit we designate as an apple has another name in a different language.
You're right. I donno, maybe it was a promo for the show then. The line was "be there, aloha". There was a kid in my class, Bob Unger, who always used to say that. Him and a friend of his.
Well, I would guess "alaha" and "eloh-" are probably just cognates sharing a common ancestor in Proto-Semitic.
First is an alteration of vowels.....The qustion is, why would Alaha (or ALAHa or ALaha) become Elawha/Eloha? I have no difficulty understanding a natural transition from al- to el- and back, between peoples. But the -ah to -awh/-oh I don't know about.
No big deal. Sound shifts happen all the time. Nothing says that a sound must change to another sound that is somehow "close" to it, as from al to el.
In historical phonology, no sound shift, no matter how radical, is improbable as long as it is evident in a regular pattern across many words. Thus, Latin nominal forms ending in -tio/-tion became -ción in Spanish, -zione (pron. -tsione), -tion in French (pron. -sion), -ção in Portuguese, etc.
The same principle could be illustrated with the word farangi, which is an Arabic corruption of the word "Frank". Meaning "European" or "westerner", the word was borrowed by all the languages of Islam from Turkish to Malay and some non-Muslim languages like Thai. It also supplied the clan name of the former Christian president of Lebanon Suleiman Franjieh, as well as the name of a nasty race of aliens on Star Trek.
Again, not a problem. Languages typically borrow a lexeme but not the rules of inflexion governing that class of lexeme. Thus, in Arabic, the word for 'student' is talib and its plural is tulub. But when non-Arabs borrowed this word, they just took talib and applied their own languages' rules of pluralisation. Thus, talib, taliban.
Message # 666: "So, considering that final short /u/, would you not in fact come up with something that sounded like Allauh or Allawh (an Arabized Eloh)?"
In Classical Arabic, citation-style stand-alone words are uninflected. Thus, al-bint (the girl). But as part of a phrase or a sentence, words are inflected. Thus, "bintun" (a girl), al-bintu (the girl). The -u is simply the nominative case ending for words preceded by a definite article. One always says "allahu akbar". You would only actually say "Allah" without an ending of some kind only if it stood alone unaccompanied by any other word.
I said earlier that a name is something which one does not translate. Mexican newspapers say el presidente Bush, not el presidente Zarza. If you have a child, rename him Moonbeam and send him to France. I assure you not even the Frenchman most chauvinistic about his language will insist on calling your child "Rayon de Lune".
But Arabophone Jews and Christians do the equivalent of that. Yemeni Jews don't say Elohim; they say Allah. Christian Arabs don't say Theos, which is the word used in the original of the New Testament; they say Allah. If Theos is a name, why don't they just say Theos instead of Allah? Hindus speaking English say Vishnu or Ram. Mexican newspapers say Bush and not Zarza.
So substituting the Greek New Testament "Theos" for the Arabic New Testament "Allah" is precisely like substituting "pomme" for "apple", i.e. a translation. And a name is not translated. Thus in the Arabic language, Allah is a word meaning "God", not a personal or proper noun.
You're right, I carelessly got sidetracked by a trash source.
I have read in somewhat better places that "ehyeh asher ehyeh" has a parallel in ancient Egypt: "nuk pu nuk," which translates to "I am the I am" or something to that effect, and is supposedly an attribute of Osiris. And there's this from the Egyptologist Jan Assmann:
"Reinhold [in 1788] traces the divine names of Jehovah and Isis to the same concept of an all-encompassing being. According to Exodus 3:14, 'Jehovah (translated in the King James as I AM THAT I AM) means 'I am the being one,' and an inscription at Sais passed down by Plutarch and Proclus proclaims Isis as 'all that was, is, and shall be.' The addition 'no mortal has raised my veil' was generally interpreted as a reference to the concept of 'natural mysteries' (secreta naturae), much aired at the time ... Moses, then, had translated into Hebrew the idea of God that he had attained in the last stage of his initiation. And the God of Moses was none other than the all-encompassing, all-creation, and all-preserving Being whose veil cannot be raised."
Yes, I know, that's just my point: if the imported word were alah or alaha, Hebrew speakers would have employed their own pluralization rules to produce "alahot," not "elohim". So it must first have been changed to sound like "Eloh."
"One always says "allahu akbar". You would only actually say "Allah" without an ending of some kind only if it stood alone unaccompanied by any other word."
OK, that takes care of my notion. I was supposing the indicated /u/might have fallen before and not after the final /h/ in Allah. (Allauh, not Allahu.)
Oh I see. You have been arguing that Hebrew borrowed from Aramaic. I have been misunderstanding you then. Sorry.
Hebrew almost certainly didn't get elohim from Aramaic alaha. As I said before, elohim and alaha are probably cognates, meaning that each results from an independent evolution of the same root found in a language ancestral to both Hebrew and Aramaic. English didn't derive the word "bread" from the German "Brot", or vice versa. They are cognates.
But if there was borrowing, it would almost have to be from Hebrew to Aramaic, since Hebrew was replaced by Aramaic as the speech of Jews and that would have introduced many Hebrew words into Aramaic.
At first I considered that alaha/elohim were cognates, but what then is the root source that contributes the second syllable? El was of course a Syriac deity worshipped probably before Hebrew existed. In considering the second syllable I reasoned "backward" (Aramaic to Hebrew) because I couldn't see why the Hebrew plural for El-gods would be Elohim instead of Eliym, and I knew the Aramaic "alaha" existed, therefore it seemed that it might be the source of the derivation.
But you're right, there's probably a much more parsimonious explanation that simply depends on knowing the source of the cognate, and it makes little sense to presume an Aramaic-to-Hebrew derivation.
I refer you to John bin Lennon formerly of El B'Aheetli of Al 'I-ver-Bul. I am not sure I understand it either, but it sure sounds deep.
Sto, you're a funny guy.
In other news, a person I greatly respect tells me if you can't defeat something, you sometimes just have to feed it until it sort of explodes. Do you agree with this?
Precisely. Together with Yussuf Khar-ibn-son and Ringullah al Sta' al-hallah they formed El B'Aheetli, also known, affectionally, as Al-Fab Fa'hur.
And all they wanted was to be like al-Wis Barasali. Yes?
In Arabic and other languages of Islam, Greece is Yunan (or Yunanistan in Turkish), which is simply a corruption of "Ionian", a reference to the Greeks who inhabited the eastern coast of the Aegean Sea. But can Yavan be the same thing? The word is first mentioned as the son of Yaphet in Genesis 10.
Since Yavan is spelt Yud, Vav, Nun, could it have something to do with Zion which is spelt Tsadi, Yud, Vav, Nun?
Ion, Tsion....?
Last week I read Myths and Facts: A Guide Book to the Arab-Israeli Conflict, which is published by the Arab-Israeli Co-operative Society (or something like that). It is not exactly balanced; but as some Amazon reviewers pointed out, it isn't proganda or hateful towards Palestinians, either. It contains plenty of information and, for me, not knowing much about the hisatorical background of the conflict, it was good historical background.
I am looking for other books on the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle East in general, and am considering Said's The Palestinian Question to read next -- I know, I know, many here have reservations about Said, but I am curious about this one (and promise to read it with a critical eye). I am also likely to read one of Bernard Lewis' books, but my usual bookstore didn't have much of his work in stock. As always, book suggestions are much appreciated.
Martin Van Creveld has written an excellent (and highly critical) history of the IDF (The Sword and the Olive Tree). Some parts of it make the reader wonder who was less competent, the Israelis or the Arabs. He is extremely trenchant on what the occupation and the Intifidas have done to the IDF as a fighting force.
Am I totally off course, Rustler?
It couldn't have been, because then I would have remembered it. Also, I wouldn't have recommended a book I haven't read, because that's not how I am, normally. And I know I haven't read that one, because I am sure I would have remembered it if I had. I think. But I forget. Anyway, thanks for recommending it (back?), I would love to read it, but I know I won't for the foreseeable future. Therefore, I would also appreciate any effort at summarising here and I am looking forward to comments from the resident Middle East cognoscenti here.
Message # 671
In other words, you are trying to win this argument through semantics, i.e., by muddying and obscuring the distinction between "name" and "word" (or between what English teachers call "proper noun" and "common noun"). According to your reasoning, the English word "God" is also a name of the supreme deity.
It is not According to (MY) reasoning, the English word "God" is also a name of the supreme deity .
"God" is simply the accepted designation or name in English of the one, only and supreme deity.
For example, Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary gives:
God: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness whom men worship as creator and ruler of the universe.
Thus when Christians pray to God such as in: Please God help me. Or, in breaking the second commandment when they exclaim: God damn it. They would be very surprised to learn that they were not using the name of the supreme deity.
Maybe you can explain exactly what they are doing?
UNFORTUNATELY
The best that can be said of your 'argument' is that you are confusing the customs of people for semantic meaning.
BTW STATING
By "name" you meant "proper noun" and by "word" you meant "common noun" simply illustrates that your nomenclature is as muddy and meaningless as your argument.
If the distinction is valid, then my argument is not "muddy and meaningless" at all. And it is obvious that by "name" I have always meant "proper noun" since in the very beginning, and thereafter, I said "Allah is not a name in analogy with Zeus and Vishnu".
I asked you elsewhere, but I haven't seen your answer if you gave one: Is anti-semitism strong in Turkey?
One could make an argument for a drastic reduction in the size of Israel's land forces, perhaps using reserves for defense of external borders only, while creating a paramilitary force that is trained and equipped to handle civil unrest and internal security. This force would also have SWAT and Commando units, as well as an air component. It would be under the operational control of the Ministry of Internal Security rather than Defense.
Message # 693
" I have always meant "proper noun" since in the very beginning,
Yet in your precise method of reasoning you failed to use it and instead used "name".
Cunning.
As I already stated your distinction is not valid. You are confusing custom with semantics.
AND
You did not answer my question posed Message # 692.
Anyway: enough is enough.
Have fun.
All the best, David
According to Sanford J Shaw in The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic, the Turks have always had a special relationship with Jews, even before the founding of the secular Kemalist republic. Since the minorities recognised as a "problem" (separatist, irredentist, etc.) by the Ottomans were Christians, the Jews were seen as loyal allies against this threat. And indeed they were. Ottoman Jews, many of them beneficiaries of the asylum given them by the Sultans when they were expelled from Iberia, were certainly the most loyal non-Muslim subjects of the Ottoman sultan.
Jews in the West were also highly pro-Ottoman. In Bernard Lewis's very interesting essay "Pro-Islamic Jews", he describes how the political rivals of Disraeli, including and especially Gladstone, interpreted his policy toward the Eastern Question (the slow demise of the Ottoman empire) as motivated by his Jewish background. Disraeli was indeed one of those "pro-Islamic Jews" who had a soft spot for the Ottoman empire. Bernard Lewis's student, Martin Kramer, edited a book called The Jewish Discovery of Islam, whose main thesis is that while European orientalism might have been hostile or condescending to Islam in some ways, the work of Jewish orientalists in Europe was profoundly sympathetic to Turks, Arabs and Islam. Thus, the book contends, the romantic image of "Jewish-Muslim harmony" in mediaeval Islam, particularly Islamic Spain, was created and exaggerated by European Jewish scholars as part of their political agenda to fight antisemitism in Western Europe.
Thanks for the recommendation. I will be getting to your other economic history recommendations soon (I hope).
stostoso,
Ha-hah. It must have been Andonly, then. I will attempt a comprehensive review when I am done.
But I suppose this is straying from the topic you asked about. Shaw has another book, unread by me, about the role of the Turkish republic in rescuing Jews from Europe during the second world war. Apparently there is a Turkish equivalent of Raoul Wallenberg.
All the same, I have the impression that there will be more antisemitism in the future in Turkey on account of the growth (compared to 20 years ago) of the Islamist movement. On the other hand, it would surley not be as virulent as you find in the Arab countries.
But the last 75 or so posts in this thread have reminded me why I do check this site out always always always. It's not addiction if the object brings gut-level hilarity, no?
thanks, that's very interesting. I find myself being more and more intrigued by the Jewish people and their turbulent history. I know it's probably one of the most heavily studied and written about subjects, but could anyone recommend a good sweeping introduction?
Please continue to goad our man for our common entertainment. Besides, the bloke needs it.
Start with Josephus.
I actually have a good friend who is a classical scholar and who translated the Josephus work into Danish a couple of years ago. But, it's a massive volume, and it's necessarily limited in time. I am looking for comprehensive but concise. One thing I would be curious to see is a map of Jewish migrations, with dates and indication of population size. Why and how and when did so many Jews end up in Russia and Poland, by the way?
There's an old book from the seventies (?) I've been meaning to get to, by Nasser's confidant (Michael Oren refers to him as Nasser's apologist) Mohammed Heikal. I think it's called either "The Road to Ramadan," or "The Road to Damascus".
I had put off reading it because, after the Oren, I was half afraid I'd find myself wading through a novel of Nasserite propaganda; and time is short. But I'm still sort of curious to read precisely what Egypt told itself and the west, just in case something Heikal asserts might persuasively contradict Oren's convincing account of Nasser's intentions, or what Egypt believed about Israeli intentions.
I haven't read the book. I have only read Bernard Lewis's review of Heikal's book, and Lewis agrees with Heikal's opinion on why the Islamists killed Sadat.
Other details remembered from the review:
(1) The review essay begins with the fascinating observation that one of the conspirators in the assassination plot, after he was arrested, declared "I have killed Pharoah" in front of the media.
(2) Lewis also observes that while the left-wing Egyptian intelligentsia was opposed to the peace treaty with Israel, the Egyptian masses were in favour. Which if true, means there's been a big change in attitude since the late 70s /early 80s.
(3) According to Lewis, Heikal constantly baits Sadat for being black. (His mother was Sudanese.)
"Why and how and when did so many Jews end up in Russia and Poland, by the way?"
Good question.
The short answer is that they were courted, at some time in the 13th-14th centuries, while they were being expelled from parts of the Med. At that point Poland and Russia were attractive destinations for Jewish refugees.
By the way, a recent genetic study of Pakistani populations has found no evidence for the folkloric claim that Pashtuns are descended, in part, from Jews.
What's your theory, bub?
As for Poland, many Jews who wound up there apparently came via Germany beginning in the mid-1300s,and successive migrations and expulsions established them in numbers by the start of the 16th century.
The Jews who had settled in Germany prior to that began migrating to the Rhine area from southern Europe (Italy, France) at least by the 9th century, and I think there was another sustantial migration to the region in the 11th, which, I've read, re-established religious customs that had assimilated away or been forgotten.
This timeline may prove somewhat useful. Sorry not to be able to recommend a comprehensive history.
I just read that quote in a recent New Yorker article about the history of Ayman Zawahiri.
Not that anyone was losing any sleep over it, but that's interesting. What were they using for genetic markers?
I read that article on Zawahiri -- which was very good, I thought. The other intriguing detail about the asassination mentioned in the article was the description of Sadat standing, stoically, in full salute, waiting for the inevitable gunfire and death.
And thanks for the great recommendation of Six Days of War. Sorry to have confused you with stostoso --not that that is a bad thing, of course.
I seriously think I need to dig up some foundation-laying reading.
Your hunch wrt yavan is spot-on. That is what I was taught - that it was originally yon.
“Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan”: Eighteen binary polymorphisms and 16 multiallelic, short-tandem-repeat (STR) loci from the nonrecombining portion of the human Y chromosome were typed in 718 male subjects belonging to 12 ethnic groups of Pakistan. These identified 11 stable haplogroups and 503 combination binary marker/STR haplotypes. Haplogroup frequencies were generally similar to those in neighboring geographical areas, and the Pakistani populations speaking a language isolate (the Burushos), a Dravidian language (the Brahui), or a Sino-Tibetan language (the Balti) resembled the Indo-European–speaking majority. Nevertheless, median-joining networks of haplotypes revealed considerable substructuring of Y variation within Pakistan, with many populations showing distinct clusters of haplotypes. These patterns can be accounted for by a common pool of Y lineages, with substantial isolation between populations and drift in the smaller ones. Few comparative genetic or historical data are available for most populations, but the results can be compared with oral traditions about origins. The Y data support the well-established origin of the Parsis in Iran, the suggested descent of the Hazaras from Genghis Khan’s army, and the origin of the Negroid Makrani in Africa, but do not support traditions of Tibetan, Syrian, Greek, or Jewish origins for other populations.
”Two populations, the Kashmiris and the Pathans, also lay claim to a possible Jewish origin. Jewish populations commonly have a moderate frequency of haplogroup 21 (e.g., 20%) and a high frequency of haplogroup 9 (e.g., 36%; (Hammer et al. 2000). The frequencies of both of these haplogroups are low in the Kashmiris and Pathans, and haplogroup 28 is present at 13% in the Pathans, so no support for a Jewish origin is found, and the admixture estimate was 0% (table 3), although, again, this conclusion is limited both by the small sample size available from Kashmir and by the assumption that the modern samples are representative of ancient populations.”
This is hardly definitive, so it would be interesting to see what Tudor Parfitt, one of those who did the Lemba study, comes up with. He’s announced he’s going to do a study of the Pashtuns.
Weirdly, while looking for something I chanced upon this:
Allah
ALLAH is the proper name of God among Muslims, corresponding in usage to Jehovah (Jahweh) among the Hebrews. Thus it is not to be regarded as a common noun meaning 'Gods' (or 'god'), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity. Similarly, no plural can be formed from it, and though the liberal Muslim may admit that Christians or Jews call upon Allah, he could never speak of the Allah of the Christians or the Allah of the Jews. Among Christians, too, a similar usage holds. In the current Arabic Bible versions, 'God' (myhla) is uniformly rendered Allah, but when 'the Lord God' (myhla hA'hy.) occurs, it is rendered ar-rabbu-l-ilahu, 'the Lord, the Ilah,' where 'the Ilah' is an uncontracted form, retaining its force of a common noun with the article, from which Allah has been shortened through usage. The Muslim, too, who usually derives and explains Ilah as meaning 'worshipped,' uses it and its plural Aliha in the broadest way, of any god, explaining that such is possible because worshippers believe that their god has a claim to worship, and 'names follow beliefs; not what the thing is in itself' (Lisan, xvii. 358). But more ordinarily, in referring to the gods of the heathen, a Muslim speaks simply of their images or idols, asnam, authan.
[Although Duncan B. Macdonald died in 1943, his book ' Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and ConstitutionalTheory' is considered sufficiently important to be available at http://www.muhammadanism.org/.]
Guess he never got around to considering your 'logic'.
Is Allah angry?
pseudoerasmus,
Weirdly, while looking for something I chanced upon this:
Allah
ALLAH is the proper name of God among Muslims, corresponding in usage to Jehovah (Jahweh) among the Hebrews. Thus it is not to be regarded as a common noun meaning 'Gods' (or 'god'), and the Muslim must use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own peculiar deity. Similarly, no plural can be formed from it, and though the liberal Muslim may admit that Christians or Jews call upon Allah, he could never speak of the Allah of the Christians or the Allah of the Jews. Among Christians, too, a similar usage holds. In the current Arabic Bible versions, 'God' (myhla) is uniformly rendered Allah, but when 'the Lord God' (myhla hA'hy.) occurs, it is rendered ar-rabbu-l-ilahu, 'the Lord, the Ilah,' where 'the Ilah' is an uncontracted form, retaining its force of a common noun with the article, from which Allah has been shortened through usage. The Muslim, too, who usually derives and explains Ilah as meaning 'worshipped,' uses it and its plural Aliha in the broadest way, of any god, explaining that such is possible because worshippers believe that their god has a claim to worship, and 'names follow beliefs; not what the thing is in itself' (Lisan, xvii. 358). But more ordinarily, in referring to the gods of the heathen, a Muslim speaks simply of their images or idols, asnam, authan.
[Although Duncan B. Macdonald died in 1943, his book ' Development of Muslim Theology, Jurisprudence, and ConstitutionalTheory' is considered sufficiently important to be available at http://www.muhammadanism.org/.]
Guess he never got around to considering your 'logic'.
Once again, if this is so, why do Arabophone Jews and Christians say Allah? Why don't they something else? Your MacDonald is not logical.
Thus it is not to be regarded as a common noun meaning 'Gods' (or 'god')
Of course it's not a common noun meaning "Gods" (plural) or "god" (any old god). It is a common noun meaning "God", the English word for the supreme deity.
"In the current Arabic Bible versions, 'God' (myhla) is uniformly rendered Allah, but when 'the Lord God' (myhla hA'hy.) occurs, it is rendered ar-rabbu-l-ilahu, 'the Lord, the Ilah,' where 'the Ilah' is an uncontracted form..
The second line of the Qur'an: al-Hamdu-l-illahi rabbi-l-"aalamiin. In other words, when the Qur'an says "praise be to God" (al Hamdu-l-illahi), the word for God is rendered in the same way as the Arabic Bible renders "the Lord God".
ALLAH is the proper name of God among Muslims, corresponding in usage to Jehovah (Jahweh) among the Hebrews...."
Once again, if this is so, why do Arabophone Jews and Christians say Allah? Why don't they something else? Your MacDonald is not logical.
Thus it is not to be regarded as a common noun meaning 'Gods' (or 'god')
Of course it's not a common noun meaning "Gods" (plural) or "god" (any old god). It is a common noun meaning "God", the English word for the supreme deity.
"In the current Arabic Bible versions, 'God' (myhla) is uniformly rendered Allah, but when 'the Lord God' (myhla hA'hy.) occurs, it is rendered ar-rabbu-l-ilahu, 'the Lord, the Ilah,' where 'the Ilah' is an uncontracted form.
The second line of the Qur'an: al-Hamdu-l-illahi rabbi-l-"aalamiin. The same contraction is there.
You can always reread my Message # 667:
Some people, who are not Muslims, may have been brought up in a culture where they are taught that their 'God' and Allah are sufficiently close in properties that the two words are interchangeable.
Think about custom -- or, if you want, characteristic sociolinguistic properties.
And, I am sure, things will fall into place for you and you will come to realize that both Allah and God are proper nouns.
Goog luck!
Good luck!
bi + ism + allah
So the same form occurs again.
What you're saying is not logical at all. Since Arabophone Christians have no other word for "God" than "Allah", there is no second word for them which is interchangeable with "Allah". Therefore, your point is totally vitiated.
"And, I am sure, things will fall into place for you and you will come to realize that both Allah and God are proper nouns."
I am sure things will fall into place for you and you will come to realise that it doesn't make sense to be talking about two interchangeable when there is only one word.
When you refer to one word you are neglecting that Allah and God are words in different languages.
""Some people, who are not Muslims, may have been brought up in a culture where they are taught that their 'God' and Allah are sufficiently close in properties that the two words are interchangeable."
Well, as I have already told you, Arab Christians, who are not Muslims, have been brought up in a language where the only word for God is Allah.
Hopefully this helps.
The Christian God and the Jewish God have, at least some, different characteristics. For example, the Christian God has a son named Jesus.
Yet in English speaking 'Christian' countries, many Jews use the word God.
And, perhaps, after, say, 100 years of living in the US or UK it would not be unreasonble for those Moslems to also use the word 'God'.
But, just as the Jews are aware that there are significant differences between the Jewish God and the Christian God, so the Moslem would realize that their God is different.
This is the phenomenon which you seem to find so puzzling that you wish, in some way, to reflect it in the classification of the word for designating the name of the deity. However, culture and custom do not necessarily follow clear logical rules.
Put another way:
When a serious schism occurs with a religious society which of the two divergent sects gets the 'logical' right to keep the name of deity.
PE, you are rigidly ruling out the possibility that two seemingly contradictory facts may coexist. I know it's fun beating up on Transient, but the point he is trying to make, however spastically, is that the descriptive term "Allah," which in Arabic usage means "the one and only god," becomes in common parlance the proper name of God for Arabs, just as "God" becomes the proper name of God for Anglophones. No one sits around debating whether "God" is God's name precisely because most English speakers unconciously assume, and speak as though, it is--in English. I have a hard time believing Arabic speakers conceive of the noun/name "Allah" any differently: they speak and think about the word as though it is God's proper name in Arabic.
cont.
I should add that I even came across a website yesterday in which some imam was arguing that Arabic speakers themselves must be reminded that Allah is not a proper name. Moreover, that when proselytizing to English-speakers, better care should be taken to use the term "God" and not "Allah," so as not to alienate potential converts. (The writer's complaint was that Arabs in his experience disliked using a term other than Allah; he charged that this tendency came out of Arab nationalism, not Islam.)
Perhaps a better test of your contention would be to see whether Muslims who do not speak Arabic refer less often to "Allah" than to nomenclature in their own language meaning "The One God". But ultimately, unless you can get inside the heads of 4 billion Muslims and dissect just what they're thinking, I'm not sure you're ever going to be able to rule out that many of them do consider Allah a proper name.
"But, just as the Jews are aware that there are significant differences between the Jewish God and the Christian God, so the Moslem would realize that their God is different. And, perhaps, after, say, 100 years of living in the US or UK it would not be unreasonble for those Moslems to also use the word 'God'."
This is idiotic. You seem to believe that all Muslims always say "Allah" even when they are not speaking Arabic or other languages of Islam. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No one in my family in Pakistan, when speaking English, says "Allah". They say "God". In fact even when they're speaking Pashto, they say "khoda" (the native Persian-Pashto word for "God") just as often as they say "Allah". Phrases such as "insh'allah" (God willing) are common ways of expressing or intensfying the future tense, and vey often (though not always) these get translated into English when they're speaking English.
When North Africans are speaking French, they don't say "Allah". They say "Dieu". They never ever say "Allah" in French. I spent most of August in Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria, where French is widely spoken and that was the only language I could use; and I did not once hear the word "Allah" in a French sentence. But I did hear phrases like "grâce à Dieu" (thanks to God), "le bon Dieu" (the good God), "Dieu seul le sait" (only God knows), "s'il plaît à Dieu" ("God willing"), etc. These are all French translation of common Arabic-Muslim expressions.
I also used to have Moroccan neighbours in an apartment next to mine, with whom I communicated in French. They would frequently talk about religion, yet they never ever said "Allah". Only "Dieu".
"No one sits around debating whether "God" is God's name precisely because most English speakers unconciously assume, and speak as though, it is--in English. I have a hard time believing Arabic speakers conceive of the noun/name "Allah" any differently: they speak and think about the word as though it is God's proper name in Arabic....But ultimately, unless you can get inside the heads of 4 billion Muslims and dissect just what they're thinking, I'm not sure you're ever going to be able to rule out that many of them do consider Allah a proper name."
Andonly, as I have said about 500 times now, the issue of whether "Allah" is a name or a word is for me an issue of TRANSLATION. The semantics of what is a word and what is a name interests me less than whether "Allah" should be rendered "God" in translations from Arabic into English. As far as I'm concerned, the act of rendering "Allah" as "God" is an act of translation -- because proper names don't ordinarily get translated.
So this whole issue should be thought of as "should 'Allah' be rendered as 'God' in translation from Arabic into English"?
"...the descriptive term "Allah," which in Arabic usage means "the one and only god," becomes in common parlance the proper name of God for Arabs, just as "God" becomes the proper name of God for Anglophones."
Therefore, "God" is a translation of "Allah".
Fair enough. But surely the answer will depend on a given translator's intentions, which one would hope would surrender to the preponderance of usage.
But if not, who is a prescriptivist to say that the rendering of Allah as Allah in languages not Arabic is incorrect? It might be deliberate and politically motivated, or simply chauvinist, but that in itself would not make it wrong as translation, if you follow me.
You: "Therefore, "God" is a translation of "Allah"."
Sure, insofar as "God" has many names as well as a designation "The One God" in every language. The point is, translating Allah to God can't be wrong, but not translating it can't be wrong either.
Also, I'm not sure you can apply the rules distinguishing ordinary nouns from proper nouns when discussing the unitary deity (which in liturigical as opposed to common usage only retains its names in Hebrew) created from a pantheon of deities and bearing many names, some of which nevertheless probably simply meant "god" at some point.
Say for instance that YHVH does indeed derive from "I am that I am." Well, "I am that I am" is not a name, and its abbreviation isn't, either, it's more of an acronym--a signifier once removed from a name. I'm not sure that "Dieu," "God" or "Allah" today are any different. Nu, the One Deity has multiple signifiers and some ancient Hebrew proper names. The signifiers are certainly interchangeable; but despite the fact that the Jewish God, the Christian God, and the Muslim God are all supposed to be one being, none of the actual names of this God/Dieu/Allah/Etc. are used by anyone but Jews.
But if there is such a clear distinction to be made between the applicability of names and God-designations between the Abrahamic faiths, so that designations should be translated but names should not, how come Muslims do not call Allah "Yahweh", "Elohim", or "El-elyon"?
So the One Deity has multiple signifiers (God, Allah, etc.) and some ancient Hebrew proper names. The signifiers are certainly interchangeable; but despite the fact that the Jewish God, the Christian God, and the Muslim God are all supposed to be one being, none of the actual names of this God/Dieu/Allah/Etc. are not commonly used by anyone but Jews (and a few Christians).
Well, there you go. Are you going to argue with them about what can be translated and what can't? I might as well argue with a Lubavitcher over whether it's alright to utter "Yaoueh".
For some questions there can be no universal answer, even if you're "just" concerned with translation.
What language or languages do the Makrani speak?
The Makarena.
Iac, the rift between Pe and transient is exactly what led to the various splits in the Christian churches over the centuries. Some guy like Pe comes along and says something few people can even understand. Then some guy like transient decides to pick that bone. Then Ando joins in. You never really get an answer to the original question, but you do get three churches: the Church of Pseudoerasmus (pronounced the worst kind of heresy by Less-Than-Pious IV, adherents drawn and quartered, sliced into very thin sheets and fed through a Lexmark printer), the Transient Church (whose followers can still be found living in subway stations and sewers throughout the northeast) and the Church of Andolea (whose followers wear no underwear and have large breasts. Needless to say, this is the only movement which has thrived).
By the way, are you a fan of Daud al-Buw'i?
That's a fascinating assertion. Can't say I've heard it made elsewhere.
Daud al-Buwi was an excellent singer, and still occasionally does something halfway OK. The geezer is still a regular act at Rick's Place in Marrakesh (is that where Rick's was?). If you sit real close you can get an occasional glimpse of his varicose veined scrotum - looks like a third knee, with pubes dyed pink - from under his galabiya!
A translation should be more objective than that, by which I mean a translation should be descriptive of usage and should, as much as possible, match the usages between the one language and the other. That's why what Arabophone Jews and Christians say is important. If a Palestinian Catholic hears at mass the word "Allah", then the word "Allah" in Arabic is, according to usage, "non-denominational" and non-sectarian. It can be rendered as whatever word signifies the unique supreme deity in any language which has such a concept.
This passage seemed much less stupid the first time I read it than the second time. What am I supposed to find puzzling? I don't find anything puzzling. You are the one over-rationalising human behaviour. I am saying that persons with different conceptions of God nonetheless use the same word for "God" when they are speaking the same language. Your ruminations about the Christian God and the Jewish God having slightly different characteristics, are irrelevant. The rice that the Japanese are primarily familiar with -- glutinous short-grained white rice -- is not quite the same as the rice that westerners are primarily familiar with -- medium-grained non-glutinous. Yet "rice" is still translated as "okome" and vice-versa in Japanese-English dictionaries. The camel known to the Arabs --the dromedary -- is not quite the same as the camel known to Central Asians --the Bactrian. Yet the Arabic "gimel" is still translated as the Persian "shotor" (in Tajikistan anyway). There is a simple reason for this: in ordinary language no one gives a fuck about the minor details; what counts is the basic idea.
You're sodomising history. Jews began using foreign words for "God" when they adopted those foreign languages as their own native first language. That is, they began using foreign words for "God" because they adopted foreign languages, not because of some schismatic contest over what name for God would prevail. Likewise with the Christians of the Middle East: they started saying "Allah" when they became Arabic speakers. I doubt they had debates over whether the word for "Allah" was the correct for them. They just used the word when they became assimilated into the Arabic linguistic culture.
I guess I try to leap ahead too fast.
A
In your Message # 740 you suggested that I was "trying to pull a fast one" when I stated:
Some people, who are not Muslims, may have been brought up in a culture where they are taught that their 'God' and Allah are sufficiently close in properties that the two words are interchangeable.
Note that I put that I used 'God' not God. This was to indicate that it was their concept of their deity and not a different word.
B
For me, it would be useful to clarify what I think you mean.
In Message # 547, you stated that Allah was different from Zeus, Yahweh or Vishnu in that the latter are names of a deity but Allah was not because of its grammatical construction as 'the god'. And further because of its usage Jews and Christians. So Allah was not a "proper name".
After you were mistaken and that Allah was not simply "the god" you stated Message # 594 that Allah was not a 'name' because::
A name cannot be translated, only transliterated. A word can be translated.
My point in a nutshell has been that in any translation of an Arabic text into English, the correct one for the Arabic noun "Allah" is "God", just as the correct translation for the French word Dieu into English is "God". God is to Allah as God is to Dieu.
So Allah, God and Dieu are not names.
>>>>>>>>>>
In your Message # 630 you repeat your argument:
I mean by "personal name" a designator which is to be transliterated but not translated. I have been holding that "Allah" is a translateable word because it refers to the same thing that the word "God", "Dios", "Dieu", etc. refers to in the Jewish and Christian contexts. By contrast, Zeus and Vishnu have no equivalents outside Graeco-Roman and Hindu religions, respectively. Therefore, I reckon these two are personal names while "Allah" is a word.
So that Allah, God and Dieu, Dios are not names.
In Message # 647 you stated:
"Allah" is not a name of God but is a word meaning "God"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In Message # 671 you clarify what you were trying to convey by name and word:
Message # 667: In other words, you are trying to win this argument through semantics, i.e., by muddying and obscuring the distinction between "name" and "word" (or between what English teachers call "proper noun" and "common noun"). According to your reasoning, the English word "God" is also a name of the supreme deity.
So 'name' is 'proper noun', and 'word' is 'common noun'. And God is a word or common noun.
In Message # 693 you state:
So you do or do not recognise a distinction between "proper noun" and "common noun"?
If the distinction is valid, then my argument is not "muddy and meaningless" at all. And it is obvious that by "name" I have always meant "proper noun" since in the very beginning, and thereafter, I said "Allah is not a name in analogy with Zeus and Vishnu".
Stressing that "name" is "proper noun".
In my post Message # 735 I state:
And, I am sure, things will fall into place for you and you will come to realize that both Allah and God are proper nouns.
To which you respond Message # 738:
I am sure things will fall into place for you and you will come to realise that it doesn't make sense to be talking about two interchangeable when there is only one word.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C
IN SUMMARY
Your argument is that God is not a proper noun.
Therefore, if God is a proper noun, then your argument fails.
But God is a proper noun (See Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania ).
So your argument fails.
AND
Allah, being in the same catagory, must also be a proper noun.
BTW
Unfortunately, you misconstrued the intent of my posts Message # 741 and Message # 742. They were intended to explore the logic you were employing -- not to be a commentary on concrete examples.
If this exchange continues, the issues in those posts may be raised again.
I suspect that what motivates transient to exhibit his flawed mental acrobatics in public is a refusal to acknowledge that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same supernatural entity.
Message # 768
1
What does it all mean?
pseudoerasmus is claiming -- by a long and involved argument --that Zeus, Yahweh and Vishnu are proper nouns; while God, Allah, Dieu and Dios are common nouns.
This is NOT correct --all the words are proper nouns.
2
I suspect that what motivates transient ............ is a refusal to acknowledge that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same supernatural entity.
Is this supposed to be a joke?
If you answer no, please elaborate on how you came to arrive at this suspicion.
Thanks, in advance, for the courtesy of a response.
2. Do you agree that Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same supernatural entity?
Message # 770
1
Maybe you should read
Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania )
and, perhaps, you will have a second thought.
2
Since I have absolutely no idea whether or not supernatural entities exist and even less an idea what their characteristics could possibly be, to me this question is completely meaningless.
Maybe you could enlighten me?
From Transient's link to the U. Penn Linguistics website (NPR here stands for "proper noun"):
"In adjective-noun pairs, like ALMIGHTY GOD, the adjective is not considered part of the name, as long as the head noun is, by itself, a proper noun (or part of a noun-noun compound). ...GOD, CHURCH etc. are NPR when alone..."
Transient's thinking may be fractured unto inscrutability, but I'm nearly certain you have jumped to an unfair assessment of his motives.
Shades of Lawrence!
The authors say this explicitly: "Our primary goal has been to create an annotation system that facilitates automatic searches, not to give a correct linguistic analysis of each sentence".
I repeat: Transient1a lacks the least discrimination in his linking and searching. He will find something, without examining what it is, what its provenance is, or even what it actually says. Does this Transient even own books? Or does he just google?
Aramaic-Greek Bible is translated as "Allah" in the Arabic Bible, then the word is being used and treated, grammatically speaking, like a common noun. Don't consider the religious aura surrounding the word "God". Consider the descriptive linguistics of the translation.
Message # 777
Consider the descriptive linguistics of the translation.
proper nouns are not usually translated
Vast numbers are. Names of countries, cities, planets, stars, etc.
You are not thinking!
BTW
My 'Handbook of Current English' (1983) lists God as a proper noun -- but it is nice to be give people a source they check.
I collect books. The house is full of them -- besides boxes full of them in storage. Last week I gave away 9 boxes of books.
Message # 755
Thanks for the good laugh!
I think it's more of a demonstration of how Greek philosophical schools evolved in an atmosphere of sophistry, argumentative keenness and an abundance of spare time.
By contrast, descriptive linguistics restricts itself to describing what ain't means, how it's used, when it's used and other characteristics associated with the phenomenon. Descriptive linguistics is silent on whether ain't is correct or incorrect. In fact, linguists dismiss the very idea of "incorrect" grammar.
It is true that some toponyms (names of cities, countries, rivers, oceans, planets, etc.) are translated from one language to another, yet are considered proper nouns by style manuals. But style manuals distinguish common nouns from proper nouns in order to prescribe the rule that the latter must be capitalised while the former must not be. That rule is of course irrelevant in those many languages like Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Hindi that have no such thing as capitalisation.
In descriptive linguistics, a "proper noun" is any word in one language referring to any single, particular member of a class of objects which define a nominal ("RustlerPike" refers to a single, particular member of a class of objects known as "person" or "human being" or "Israeli"; which word is not, or cannot be, conveyed by an equivalent in another language; and which word is therefore either transliterated with as accurate a representation of the sounds of the original as possible, or simply transferred unmodified in the original form.
This is exactly the same with the names of persons. Legendary persons' names often get translated: Columbus is Colon in Spanish, the Mona Lisa is La Giaconde in French, Julius Caesar is Giulio Cesare in Italian, Alexander the Great is Al-Iskandar in Arabic. But these names have a long pedigree and the persons represented by the names were linguistically assimilated into those languages long ago. That NEVER happens with non-legendary names or persons. "Rustler Pike" is "Rustler Pike" in any language, no matter how legendary he has become in our hearts and minds.
Yes, but the point of Transient's link should be to point out that in common usage endorsed as a matter of course by linguists, God is a proper noun. He then brings up the Handbook of Current English, which, however prescriptivist it may be, is also an indicator of standard usage, and lists God as a proper noun.
Perhaps "Allah" (maybe I should leave it uncapitalized from now on) is never a proper noun, but "God" often is.
Anglophone hegemony strikes again.
So it's more a case of the school of Pseudus vs. the teachings of Andulus and the followers of Transientus?
Mine says I'll die Thursday, July 22nd, 2038.
Which is hardly of any relevance.
At the very beginning, I said "Allah is not a proper noun in the way Zeus or Vishnu is", which is correct, given that "allah" is translateable while "Zeus" and "Vishnu" are not.
...given that "allah" is translateable while "Zeus" and "Vishnu" are not."
How did the Romans speak of Zeus and the other Greek Gods in Latin?
In English, when speaking of the Roman deities, we refer to Zeus as Jupiter, Hermes as Mercury, Hera as Juno, etc.
Is this distinction maintained in Latin when speaking of the Greek gods?
Or are those Greek names tranliterated into Latin as you earlier argued?
1
I think your attempt to reclassify nouns was misguided.
CONSIDER
Everyone on the planet is dies from an extremely virulent form of AIDS except for the majority of several Mormon communities living in Utah who happened to have specific genetic mutation which confers immunity to the disease.
Now, by your definition, God is miraculously transformed from a common noun to a proper noun.
Yet, for the Mormons, nothing about the word God has changed.
2
The classification of proper nouns is not ’logical’.
For example, the days of the week are proper nouns; but the seasons are not -- probably because the days of the week of day are named after the god who ’owned’ the day.
3
Much more interesting is the topic of Proper Names and Naming .
Note the concept of Empty Proper Nouns:
One example given is Santa Claus -- the minor deity that rewards good children, who believe in him, with presents. Sadly as the children grow older, their belief fades and he becomes an empty proper noun.
For me, the same unfortunate transformation happened to God.
Etymology of the Word "God"
Anglo-Saxon God; German Gott; akin to Persian khoda; Hindu khooda).
God can variously be defined as:
* the proper name of the one Supreme and Infinite Personal Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, to whom man owes obedience and worship;
* the common or generic name of the several supposed beings to whom, in polytheistic religions, Divine attributes are ascribed and Divine worship rendered;
* the name sometimes applied to an idol as the image or dwelling-place of a god.
The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to." From different Indo-Germanic roots (div, "to shine" or "give light"; thes in thessasthai "to implore") come the Indo-Iranian deva, Sanskrit dyaus (gen. divas), Latin deus, Greek theos, Irish and Gaelic dia, all of which are generic names; also Greek Zeus (gen. Dios, Latin Jupiter (jovpater), Old Teutonic Tiu or Tiw (surviving in Tuesday), Latin Janus, Diana, and other proper names of pagan deities. The common name most widely used in Semitic occurs as 'el in Hebrew, 'ilu in Babylonian, 'ilah in Arabic, etc.; and though scholars are not agreed on the point, the root-meaning most probably is "the strong or mighty one."
Allah as a proper name:
Allah
The name of God in Arabic. It is a compound word from the article, 'al, and ilah, divinity, and signifies "the god" par excellence. This form of the divine name is in itself a sure proof that ilah was at one time an appellative, common to all the local and tribal gods. Gradually, with the addition of the article, it was restricted to one of them who took precedence of the others; finally, with the triumph of monotheism, He was recognized as the only true God. In one form or another this Hebrew root occurs in all Semitic languages as a designation of the Divinity; but whether it was originally a proper name, pointing to a primitive monotheism, with subsequent deviation into polytheism and further rehabilitation, or was from the beginning an appellative which became a proper name only when the Semites had reached monotheism is a much debated question. It is certain, however, that before the time of Mohammed, owing to their contact with Jews and Christians, the Arabs were generally monotheists. The notion of Allah in Arabic theology is substantially the same as that of God among the Jews, and also among the Christians, with the exception of the Trinity, which is positively excluded in the Koran, cxii: "Say God, is one God, the eternal God, he begetteth not, neither is he begotten and there is not any one like unto him." His attributes denied by the heterodox Motazilites, are ninety-nine in number. Each one of them is represented by a bead in the Moslem chaplet, while on the one hundredth and larger bead, the name of Allah itself is pronounced........ Let it be noted that although Allah is an Arabic term, it is used by all Moslems, whatever be their language, as the name of God.
You know about the Jewish habit of avoiding writing or pronouncing the names Yahweh or Adonai, except in prayer. I think "Adonai" simply means "the Lord", but the rabbinical tradition holds that Jews are to avoid even getting near the edge of breaking the Law. Presumably, as soon as "Adonai" became popularly perceived as a proper name for God, it was made off-limits.
The need to have some designator for the deity resulted in "Adoshem," which I think translates to "the name of the Lord," and "Hashem," which means "the name". These apellations are indisputably not proper names for God; in fact, they are conciously devised not to be.
I don't know if any such workaround exists in Arabic. As a translation, "Allah" would seem to stand in, more or less, for the unpronounceable "Adonai". But in English, observant Jews, in addition to avoiding the names of God mentioned in scripture, never use the word "God" in casual conversation, and in non-liturgical writing always alter the spelling of it thus: G-d.
Therefore, for observant Jews, it is clear that the English "God" is sufficiently near to a proper name that it can't be spoken or written in full.
I have no idea whether Arabic-speaking Jews abbreviate or decline to pronounce "Allah"; the custom might be primarily Askenazic anyway. Then again, for Arabic-speaking Jews perhaps "Allah" simply is never considered a proper name of God. I also don't know whether French-speaking Jews say or write out "Dieu."
It could be that "Allah" is not a proper name of God for anyone except Islamist zealots, whereas "God" is a proper name to all observant Jews and quite a lot of Christians.
Let it be noted that although Allah is an Arabic term, it is used by all Moslems, whatever be their language, as the name of God.
PE's personal account of his family's usage of other terms belies that.
It is certain, however, that before the time of Mohammed, owing to their contact with Jews and Christians, the Arabs were generally monotheists.
Not according to what I've read. Whoever wrote this apparently has a wishful stake in Arabs having been monotheists for as long as everyone else.
If you went to the URL's, you would see that my last two posts were from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
As you may be aware, I do NOT endorse their viewpoint.
A case of ecumenism run amok, then.
I think this is probably because George W. made a speech in which he urged both sides to opt for a peaceful settlement. So we are doing just that: creating a new, peaceful settlement. See?
I know, not funny. Sorry: it's late and I'm tired. The old landlord is giving me hell over stuff that needs fixing, and I still have to move the A/C out. Everyone agrees that moving is one of life's most depressing tasks.
I'd have hated to be a nomad, I think. But maybe it's different when everyone gets uprooted together.
Languages without capitalisation may have other standards for distinguishing proper nouns from common nouns, but the only standard that can be applied across all languages for the distinction between common and proper nouns that is objectively manifest in usage, is translateability of that word. If a word is translateable from language A to language B, as opposed to merely transliterateable, then it is a common noun in both languages.
[The Latin name of Zeus was Iouis; Iupiter is a corruption of "iouis pater", Jove the Father.]
In early Roman writings, such as those of Ennius, Greek gods are regarded as separate and distinct from the Roman gods, and Greek gods' names are transliterated. This is because the gods of the Roman pantheon were, originally, indigenous Italian deities which had evolved independently from the deities in Greece. But in later Roman writings, the Roman deities are simply identified with the Greek gods, and all the attributes of the Greek gods are simply assigned to the old Italian gods which were plausible counterparts of . This was a deliberate political attempt to confer prestige and legitimacy on the activities of the Roman state through the cachet of a classical "superior" civilisation. But not all Greek gods were identified with Roman gods. There was no Italian god which had attributes comparable with those of Apollo, so "Apollo" was simply transferred to Latin from Greek.
But still Romans still must have known that Zeus was not exactly the same thing as Iovis. In Suetonius's Life of Caligula, Caligula declares himself Zeus and rejects Iouis. This was picked up in Robert Graves's novelisation of Suetonius as well as on the BBC television series.
All the same, if people insist that Iovis is a translation of Zeus, I could have just said "Allah is a translateable word, unlike Vishnu or Huitzilopochtli".
I did not "reclassify" anything. I simply gave the definition of the term "proper noun" according to descriptive linguistics.
"Everyone on the planet is dies from an extremely virulent form of AIDS except for the majority of several Mormon communities living in Utah who happened to have specific genetic mutation which confers immunity to the disease. Now, by your definition, God is miraculously transformed from a common noun to a proper noun. Yet, for the Mormons, nothing about the word God has changed."
I have not the slightest clue about what you're talking about.
"The classification of proper nouns is not ’logical’."
Irrelevant. You appear to be talking about what is subjectively perceived by people to be a proper noun or a common noun. I'm talking about an objectively visible distinction in the ways people use certain nouns.
"For example, the days of the week are proper nouns; but the seasons are not -- probably because the days of the week of day are named after the god who ’owned’ the day."
Days of the week and the names of the months are "proper nouns" (i.e., they are capitalised) only in English, not in any other language I'm aware of except German, where every noun is capitalised. In French, Spanish, Russian or Greek, days of the week and the names of the months are not capitalised.
Message # 804
Your rule:
If a word is translateable from language A to language B, as opposed to merely transliterateable, then it is a common noun in both languages.
So both Allah and God are common nouns.
How about the names of stars, planets, rivers, countries, cities, etc.?
I already gave the example:
Everyone on the planet is dies from an extremely virulent form of AIDS except for the majority of several Mormon communities living in Utah who happened to have specific genetic mutation which confers immunity to the disease.
Now, by your definition, God is miraculously transformed from a common noun to a proper noun.
Yet, for the Mormons, nothing about the word God has changed.
And the significance of this just washes over you.
I am curious, why do think no else has ever put forward your method of classification?
Could it possibly be because it is meaningless?
All the same, if people insist that Iovis is a translation of Zeus, I could have just said "Allah is a translateable word, unlike Vishnu or Huitzilopochtli".
I ran into Huitzilopochtli on the street the other day. He's thinner and grayer, like something bad has happened to him.
I was gonna go "hey Huitz, huitzhappenin, man?" but thought better of it.
We both just pretended we didn't see each other. 
From Arutz 7.
BTW
Names for the Planet Venus in Other Languages (Starting with the Mayan name)
Or why the word Venus cannot be a proper noun by your method of classifying nouns.
Transient1a will have to explain to me the meaning of his opaque Mormon example.
If "Venus" is translateable, then it's translateable.
All I was doing was demonstrating that
Your rule:
Message # 804
If a word is translateable from language A to language B, as opposed to merely transliterateable, then it is a common noun in both languages.
is meaningless twaddle.
As I said, my primary concern is translation, not categories of grammar.
The concept that words can be translated from one language to another is neither new or novel.
Throughout this whole exchange your logic has been hopelessly muddled.
Now you claim you were not really interested in producing your rule at all.
I guess you will say any nonsensical thing to protect your easily bruised ego.
Where Israel, as opposed to Jewish history in general, is concerned, you might find interesting "The Zionist Resort to Force" by Esther Shapira. It chronicles the ideological trends and policies of the Zionist movement, vis-a-vis Arab Palestinians, and describes in some detail how hardliners emerged in response to Arab violence and the waffling responses of the British. They ultimately prevailed for a while over the predominant cautious Zionists who believed appealing to the Brits by demonstrating restraint was the key to survival.
Surah 25, known as "an-furqaan," is ordinarily understood to mean, "Blessed be He who sent down the [Qur'an] on His servant that he might be/become a warner for the worlds." But according to Heger, it originally was rendered, "Blessed be He who sent down the redemption on His servant that he might be/become a sacrifice for the worlds."
He's rather persuasive.
I say "meta-" because of a separate refutation it comments and elaborates on, but which is too hysterical to be taken seriously.
That depiction of Hairy and Saddam is really the most succinct possible summary of the way I see these two guys, and pretty much always have. I'm convinced Hairyass has a crush on Soddom, both personally and politically.
You know he's a fruitcake, right?
Enough with the theology, please.
I'm starting to miss jexster.
Is that why he can bear to stay away from his lovely wife for such periods of time?
OTOH, is that why he permits the persecution of Palestinians for being gay?
He's a self-hating fairy?
Hairy Fairy?
Sorry, RP. You can't have just a 'little' jexster. It's all or none.
I knew Egyptian gaysters were persecuted. I didn't know about the Pal ones.
And yes, I assume that's why he never married until real late, was never seen with women, then finally married an ugly witch and hardly ever sees her. I remember hearing these stories (intelligence? rumors?) from other IDF reporters about him getting boinked by his bodyguards in his hotel room, and the sounds of his screaming being heard throughout the corridor, back in the 80s. It always seem to fit the image he projected.
But you have a better gaydar than me, you should be able to tell us if you see any blips from the fucker.
Ando: fruit, OK. It does matter because it affects his political behavior wrt Sadie, imo. No doubt who's on top in that couple.
I never said it was new or novel.
"Now you claim you were not really interested in producing your rule at all."
What, exactly, are you talking about?
"Throughout this whole exchange your logic has been hopelessly muddled."
What I've said is eminently and coldly logical, and my pointed was stated at the very beginning in Message # 547: "I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case at all."
Despite all the arguments, the single decisive point of mine remains unblemished: unlike Vishnu or Quetzelcoatl or Thor -- names which have no equivalents outside their own cultural-linguistic contexts -- the Arabic word Allah is translateable and translated from Arabic into other other languages.
But Transient1a either cannot understand that the crux of the issue is translateability because he is intensely stupid; or does understand it but, smarting from many a bashing I've given him in the past six years, must pretend to be incomprehending and keep arguing red herrings about the names of planets in order to be a vindictive gadfly.
Transient does not even understand that the statement, 'Allah is a proper noun', cannot possibly have the same meaning in the Arabic context -- which is the issue -- as in the English context, because Arabic has no concept of capitalisation, which defines the proper noun in English.
What books do you recommend on the sharia? (this was asked in the Religion/Philosophy thread.)
'Cause Bahíans never could convert to shia
They won't dump the bossa nova
Nor for Allah nor Jehova
They would much prefer a spate of gonorrhea.
(Ho-hum).
smarting from many a bashing I've given him in the past six years
A braggart with false memory syndrome. Curious.
in the Arabic context -- which is the issue -- as in the English context, because Arabic has no concept of capitalisation, which defines the proper noun in English.
What! The discussion centered on was English -- until you just tried to switch the topic. But that's one of the problems you just keep changing the topic.
After many maneuvers you summed up your final position in the form of a new rule, PE's rule Message # 804:
If a word is translateable from language A to language B, as opposed to merely transliterateable, then it is a common noun in both languages.
By this reasoning you claimed that God, Allah, Dieu, and Dios were all common nouns.
Using by this reasoning the name of the second planet from the sun, Venus must be a common noun since it has other
different names in other languages.
Now you state Message # 26:
Despite all the arguments, the single decisive point of mine remains unblemished: unlike Vishnu or Quetzelcoatl or Thor -- names which have no equivalents outside their own cultural-linguistic contexts -- the Arabic word Allah is translateable and translated from Arabic into other other languages.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So what.
The statement can be equally true if reworded:
Despite all the arguments, the single decisive point of mine remains unblemished: unlike Vishnu or Quetzelcoatl or Thor -- names which have no equivalents outside their own cultural-linguistic contexts -- the English word God is translateable and translated from English into other other languages.
Or
Despite all the arguments, the single decisive point of mine remains unblemished: unlike Vishnu or Quetzelcoatl or Thor -- names which have no equivalents outside their own cultural-linguistic contexts -- the English word Venus is translateable and translated from English into other other languages.
Making Venus, along with Allah and God common nouns.
Which, of course, must be the case by PE's Rule.
Well, either your Rule is nonsense or it is a new discovery.
Do you really feel PE's Rule has any merit?
Last chance to be a mensch.
I really must develop sufficient patience to proof read.
Tuesday October 8, 2002 12:00 AM
Here is a list of Israeli attacks on Palestinians that caused extensive civilian casualties.
- May 18, 2001: An Israeli F-16 warplane attacks a Nablus jail, killing 11 people, mostly policemen, and wounding 30 people. The target of the strike was the prison's only inmate, Hamas militant Mahmoud Abu Hanoud. He escaped with light injuries.
- March 4, 2002: Israeli tank shells hit a pickup truck in Ramallah, killing the wife of an Islamic militant and her three children. A second car is hit by shrapnel, killing two children. The target was the owner of the truck, Hamas leader Hussein Abu Kweik. He was not in the vehicle.
- July 23, 2002: An F-16 warplane drops a one-ton bomb on an apartment house in Gaza City, killing Saleh Shehadeh, head of the Hamas military wing, and his bodyguard. Thirteen bystanders, including nine children, are also killed.
- Sept. 26, 2002: Two Hamas militants are killed in a helicopter missile attack in Gaza aimed at Hamas bombing mastermind Mohammed Deif. At least 15 children are among 35 people wounded, and Deif was also wounded.
- Oct. 7, 2002: Fourteen people are killed in an army raid on Khan Younis, a town in the central Gaza Strip. Eleven died when a missile slammed into a large crowd. Palestinian officials said all the dead were civilians, while the Israeli army most were armed men killed in battle.
What an idiot. The statement of mine that you disputed was: "I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case". In what way then is the Arabic language not the issue and in what way is the English language the issue?
Message # 833: "Despite all the arguments, the single decisive point of mine remains unblemished: unlike Vishnu or Quetzelcoatl or Thor -- names which have no equivalents outside their own cultural-linguistic contexts -- the English word Venus is translateable and translated from English into other other languages'.
Yes! Thank you.
"Making Venus, along with Allah and God common nouns. Which, of course, must be the case by PE's Rule. Well, either your Rule is nonsense or it is a new discovery. Do you really feel PE's Rule has any merit?"
Firstly, once again, it's not my rule. Secondly, the non-translateability criterion is the only definition of "proper noun" that is applicable to all languages. Thirdly, you seem far more interested in the superficial issues of semantics and grammatical classification than in the actual substance of the "Allah" question that I introduced, viz., whether it should or must be translated as "God" in an English-language context. Thirdly,
UNITED NATIONS, Oct. 7 —(Reuters)--The United Nations warned on Monday that a deadly Israeli missile attack on a crowd of Palestinians in Gaza could lead to an escalation of the Middle East conflict.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was ''particularly concerned by reports that a missile from an Israeli helicopter gunship was fired into a crowd of civilians in reckless disregard of the obligation under international law to protect the civilian population,'' said a statement read by chief U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard.
''Such actions have no legal or moral justification,'' Annan's spokesman said, calling on both Israelis and Palestinians to ''halt all violent and provocative acts.''
The missile attack was part of a raid on the Gaza Strip town of Khan Younis that killed 14 Palestinians and wounded another 80. Israel said the missile was launched as covering fire after its troops came under attack. It said it regretted any civilian deaths in what it called a raid to root out ''terrorists.''
But Palestinian U.N. Observer Nasser al-Kidwa, in a letter to Ambassador Martin Belinga Eboutou of Cameroon, the Security Council president for October, called the raid a ''war crime,'' part of ''a pattern of behavior by Israeli occupying forces.''
Al-Kidwa appealed to the 15-nation Security Council to take measures to protect the Palestinian people, such as dispatching international observers, a plan Israel strongly opposes.
''Actions like those carried out this morning do not promote Israeli security. Rather, they could lead to a further escalation while increasing the sense of vulnerability and insecurity among both Palestinians and Israelis,'' the U.N. spokesman said.
KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip, Oct. 7 — The Islamic militant group Hamas threatened new attacks Monday after Israel fired a missile into a crowded Gaza street and killed 11 Palestinians. The United States said it was ''deeply troubled'' by the raid in which three other Palestinians died and 110 were wounded.
Israeli said its troops were searching for Hamas militants when they raided Khan Younis with 40 tanks backed by helicopters shortly after midnight Monday. Most of the dead fell victim to a missile fired into a crowd. The Palestinians said they were civilians. Israel said most were fighters killed in battle.
''Everyone should know that as our people were not safe in Khan Younis, so Israelis will not be safe in Tel Aviv,'' said Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a Hamas leader. ''We will strike everywhere.''
In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher couched U.S. criticism of the operation with a restatement of American support for Israel's right to self-defense.
''We're deeply troubled by the reports of Israeli actions in Gaza over the weekend,'' he said, while adding: ''We've always respected Israel's right to defend itself, including going after armed groups and armed men in some of these areas.''
Javier Solana, the European Union's visiting foreign policy chief, said he was shocked by the number of casualties. ''I think that it is even more dramatic because of the efforts that the Palestinian people were making in order to get out of the way of violence in recent weeks,'' he said.
Israel's deputy defense minister, Weizman Shiri, regretted the loss of civilian life. ''But what can we do?'' he said. ''It's war.''
(continued)
The Israeli military said Khan Younis is a stronghold of the Islamic militant group Hamas, which has killed hundreds of Israeli civilians in suicide bombings. It said during the raid, troops arrested a wanted man carrying a homemade explosive device.
But there was no indication of a specific target, as in previous strikes against wanted militants that also claimed civilian casualties.
As the raid began, the military said soldiers exchanged fire with armed Palestinians, killing two. Doctors said a 45-year-old woman also died. The missile was fired in a densely populated neighborhood as the Israelis were pulling out.
Brig. Gen. Yisrael Ziv, the army commander in the area, said troops met heavy resistance from Palestinian gunmen and many armed men gathered in the streets as the Israelis withdrew.
''They fired a lot and threw grenades. There was a battle there,'' he said. ''The helicopter aimed at this armed group and hit them.''
Palestinian witnesses gave a different account.
Wissam Abdeen, who was hit by shrapnel in the arm, said as troops withdrew, residents emerged from homes to inspect the damage, and there were no gunmen in the crowd. Another witness, Walid Sabah, whose 17-year-old son Abdullah was killed by the missile, said there were armed men in the street but they were not shooting.
Ziv said the battle was filmed from a pilotless plane; the army has not responded to an Associated Press request to see the footage. Ziv said none of the dead Palestinians were on Israel's wanted list.
Most of the dead and wounded — including children as young as 9 — were taken to the city's Nasser Hospital. There, as more than 500 people gathered outside near the morgue, shots from Israeli machine guns and assault rifles hit the courtyard.
Ziv said the shooting by Israeli forces was prompted by mortar fire from a nearby position; at the hospital, two explosions were heard before shooting began.
People ran for cover behind trees and walls. A 27-year-old man was killed and three were wounded, including a 14-year-old boy hit in the neck. One bullet narrowly missed an AP reporter, who was hit in the shoe by a small bullet fragment.
The dead, wrapped in Palestinian flags, were taken from the hospital on stretchers, carried by gunmen firing in the air and shouting ''revenge, revenge.''
Israel withdrew from the devastated Ramallah compound under U.S. and United Nations pressure last week, and there have since been signs of a fledgling Palestinian campaign to move to a strategy of nonviolent resistance to Israel's occupation.
''Every time we witness efforts to revive the peace process ... like those being exerted now by Solana, the Israeli government moves to conduct such war crimes ... because the end game of the Israeli government is to resume full occupation'' of the West Bank and Gaza, said Palestinian Cabinet Minister Saeb Erekat.
Raanan Gissin, an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said Palestinian militants were to blame for the many deaths. ''We try to keep civilian casualties to a minimum, but we can't say that because there are civilians there, we will not take action against the terrorists,'' Gissin said.
— A 42-year-old Palestinian man was shot by Israeli soldiers between two roadblocks near the West Bank city of Nablus, witnesses said. The man died in a hospital. The Israeli military had no comment.
— Palestinian gunmen disguised as police at a fake checkpoint kidnapped and killed the chief of Palestinian riot police, Col. Rajeh Abu Lehiya. Palestinian officials blamed Hamas. In the aftermath, four Hamas supporters were killed in clashes with Palestinian police in Gaza City and the nearby Nusseirat refugee camp.
— A Palestinian convicted as an accomplice in the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi a year ago was sentenced to life in prison by an Israeli court. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a radical PLO faction, took responsibility for the killing.
— Three Israeli Arabs have been arrested on suspicion of planning bomb attacks, the government said. A statement said the three were recruited in March by Hamas master bomb-maker Mohammed Deif, who was wounded in an Israeli strike on Sept. 26.
Your original statement Message # 547:
I have noticed many people mistakenly suppose that Allah is the name of the deity in Islam, in analogy with Zeus or Yahweh or Vishnu. But that is not the case. The noun lah simply means "god" and is cognate to the Hebrew el. Thus "al - lah" is not a proper name at all but simply the common noun preceded by a definite article ("the god").
Your argument was grammatical. After abandoning this approach, you chose to differentiate between “name” and “word’ -- which you subsequently claimed were “proper noun” and “common noun”, respectively.
Then you claimed that God, Dieu, Dios and Allah must be common nouns by the because Message # 804:
If a word is translateable from language A to language B, as opposed to merely transliterateable, then it is a common noun in both languages.
Since Venus is obvious in this category, then it must also be a common.
But, in English, these words are proper nouns and so your argument fails.
Or do still feel that:
If a word is translateable from language A to language B, as opposed to merely transliterateable, then it is a common noun in both languages.
is valid?
And, if you did not originate this rule, where can it be found?
"Then you claimed that God, Dieu, Dios and Allah must be common nouns..."
Yes, by the translateability/non-translateability criterion, these are all common nouns.
You are still more interested in the classifications of nouns than in the substantive issue of whether the words "God", "Dieu", "Dios" and "Allah" are equivalent terms in different languages.
"Since Venus is obvious in this category [of translateable nominals], then it must also be a common noun."
I have no problem with such a designation.
"But, in English, these words are proper nouns and so your argument fails."
No, "Venus" is a proper noun only in prescriptive grammar, because English teachers wish you to capitalise the name of a planet.
But you are still obsessed with a side issue. The substantive question is and has always been, should the Arab "Allah" be rendered "God" in English?
"And, if you did not originate this rule, where can it be found?"
It's not so much as a rule as an observation. I read about it in the essay "Internal and External Evidence in the Identification and Semantic Categorisation of Proper Names", part of the book The Translation Studies Reader, ed. Lawrence Venuti and Mona Baker.
I apologize if you feel that I misquoted you with malice.
No, "Venus" is a proper noun only in prescriptive grammar, because English teachers wish you to capitalise the name of a planet.
The point is that if there was only language in the world you would claim that "Venus" is a proper noun.
But if someone suddenly discovered a previously unknown group of people speaking another language and with another name for Venus then you would claim that Venus had become a common noun.
This makes little sense.
ANYWAY
The translateability criterion implicitly requires at least two languages to be present, so the distinction between "proper noun" and "common noun" be would be meaningless.
I have spoken.
I understand how the criterion works; however, I think that it leads to a pointless differentiation.
BTW
RustlerPike,
Don't you realize that many Jews will automatically lose their proper name status if this criterion is applied.
All it is is an informative report, but the information contained within has changed the way I see the Middle East. Rather, I see it much more clearly now.
Thinking out loud: if Saddam is thinking of the most creative way to use the Pals for attacking Israel, what would that way be? Can chemical weapons be lobbed by mortar from Gaza, for instance?
Wombat, you're an expert on things military.
It is with great respect and humility that I say to you: last chance, before I transient your butt over to religion!
I have spoken.
Chemical/biological weapons lobbed by mortar from Gaza and the West Bank.
Btw, latest shabak reports are that, predictably, Hamas has started creating bomb workshops in Israeli Arab villages, seeing as the West Bank bomb centers are in trouble and The Wall is becoming a reality.
In theory, yes they can. They can also be fitted to Katyushas, and whatever missiles the Palestinians allegedly possess in Gaza.
Sounds like we'll have a fun November, and even more fun on December.
Will Israel retake southern Lebanon once the attacks start in earnest?
To answer Ronski's question, the article suggests that Israeli action in southern Lebanon is an almost certain eventuality in the event of war in the area. The bigger question it seems, is how to respond to Syria. Hopefully the secon part will address these issues in greater detail.
I can hear it also (am using Windows Media Player).
Druckman discusses parashat hashavua - the weekly bible passage read in the synagogues - which relates to Noah.
He talks about the flood, which is referrred to somewhere in the scriptures as
Turns out the sages have treated this question. They say that the reason is that while Abraham and Moses pleaded with God not to punish their generation, Noah just took care of his own ass after being informed by God of the impending flood. So while he was definitely a tzadik - a saintly, uprighteous man - he was not a father or leader figure, not a man of the stature of Abraham (known in Judaism as Avraham avinu - Abraham our father) or Moses (known as Moshe rabenu - Moses our rabbi).
He quotes from some other passage from some other sage, of the hasidic movement, who defines a hasid as one who cares for his own generation. There is a term, says Druckman - 'a fur hasid'. What is a fur hasid? Say it is a very cold night, explains Druckman. A true hasid will light a fire to make the room warm for everyone. A fur hasid will wear a fur coat and take care of his own butt.
The conclusion of the near 30 minute sermon relates to the present day. Our generation is a very problematic one, says Druckman - morally, spiritually, politically. The temptation is to 'build an ark' and take care of ourselves only (the righteous, the believers). But we must not do that. We must pray for our generation, be involved, try to change it. The way to chase away the darkness, he concludes, is by making as much light as possible.
I like it.
I don't know what will happen in Lebanon but I can say this: the Lebanese front has always been a less important front than Israel's other fronts. No matter what they do to us from Lebanon, it is never truly life-threatening. They bleed us and terrorize us but Lebanon is weak and has never been a threat in and of itself. The Hizbullah is an annoyance - an extremely annoying annoyance - but not more. It is in Israel's interest not to open a full scale front there, and it is also in Syria's interest, so I doubt there will be a full scale war there, ever.
So keep that in mind. They'll definitely try to distract us from the north - and I have no idea how the IDF will respond - but no matter what happens, the real front will never be in Lebanon.
I agree that reoccupation -- or, at least, not an extended reoccupation -- is not a viable Israeli option, from what I have read. Some sort of action does seem inevitable to me, however; given that the Hizbullah does seem to have the run of southern Lebanon these days (at least, according to the New Yorker article I referenced above) and appears determined to take advantage of any conflict in the Middle East by further punishing Israel. The article mentions that Israel is in a tough position -- as usual -- in that, re-occupation will breed terrorism and anti-Israel hate; but any failure to respond to Hizbullah terrorism will be regarded as weakness that further breeds terrorism. The really tricky issue, it seems, is dealing with the states most actively funding, sheltering and arming the Hizbullah -- namely: Iran and Syria (it seems that it is unrealistic to talk of a Lebanese government, given that said government is apparently a mere puppet of Syria). Anyways, that is my armchair analysis, at this point -- fwiw and it may be worth zero.
And thanks for paraphrasing the sermon, which brings a question (likely naive): How does the influence of the rabbinate in Israel compare to the influence of the calliphate in Islamist countries, like Syria say? Do certain rabbis have more influence? How much is government policy influenced by rabbinic opinion?
1) Syria is not an Islamist country.
2) The Syrians have horrifically massacred Islamists within, look up the destruction at Hama.
3) There is no caliphate.
4) The religious right in Israel has considerably more influence on the politics and daily life of Israel than it does in any number of Arab countries including Iraq, Syria and Egypt.
I am still interested in the influence of rabbinical opinion in Israel -- on politics and popular opinion -- especially as it compares to that of caliphs in other, predominantly, Muslim parts of the Middle East.
Certain caliphs have a great amount of influence in certain parts of the Middle Eastern Muslim world, no?
There are mullahs, and there are other religious leaders with various spheres of influence. The most powerful one in the Arab world is probably the head of Al Azhar in Cairo, one Sheikh Tantawi. This bloke is a progressive person in most matters, for instance he was far more amenable to the UN's Population Summit's findings a decade ago than was the Pope or the American fundies.
But yes, Tabouli, you are also misusing the word Islamist and in this you are very far from alone.
Caliph means approximately 'successor', i.e, successor to the prophet Muhammed. There can only be one successor at any given time. Currently there is none. The last one to claim the title was the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.
Don't know why the term caliph came to mind. I meant mullahs.
Again, just curious here about the different role of religious leaders in the Middle East.
I didn't mean to use the term Islamist loosely. (And, won't chime in on the rather fractious, Mote, debate re: the appropriate use of the term).
One of the things most Americans are unaware of is the extent that civil society in Israel is influenced by the local religious right. There are all kinds of symptoms of this powerful influence, one egregious example is marriage, but you can find many more including the ongoing war over who exactly is a Jew and who is not.
I would not say what exists in Syria is religious freedom. Syria is ruled by the Alawites -- a small religious sect that fuses Christian and Islamic elements and is considered heretical by most Muslims. In order to stay in power, the Alawites have tried to balance the Sunni majority by relying on support from the Shiites, the Christians, the Druze and other minorities that fear a Sunni-dominated Syria.
I cite Dalrymple because his is the best big-picture survey I can think of specifically covering Syria and its approach to religion. Yes, he does find that the Turks are markedly worse than the Syrians in protecting their Christians, but that is only part of the picture.
Dalrymple travels through Turkey and the Levant to examine what remains of their ancient Christian past. He finds that Turkey hasn't much left of it while Syria has quite a bit --because the Armenians and the Greeks who used to live in Anatolia are no longer there.
Dalrymple's purpose is not to analyse the current state of religious freedom in the modern republics, but to examine the historical treatment of Christians in the Middle East. In the history of Muslim-Christian relations, Turkey obviously comes out looking the worse, while Syria comes out looking better.
Dalrymple also notes that while Syrians preserve Christian buildings, the Turks tend to tear down old, now disused Armenian churches (though not Greek or Assyrian ones). That's a cultural tragedy but hardly relevant to the question of religious freedom.
Because his mind is on vacation?
Ah. A progressive commitment to population control must be why Tantawi did a 180 and, like both the Egyptin grand mufti he just fired, and the mufti he hired to replace him a few months ago, now endorses suicide bombings in Israel:
The great Imam of Al-Azhar [University], Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, demanded that the Palestinian people, of all factions, intensify the martyrdom operations [i.e. suicide attacks] against the Zionist enemy, and described the martyrdom operations as the highest form of Jihad operations. He says that the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all.
[Sheikh Tantawi] emphasized that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat …
In other ways, Tantawi is also quite progressive. For instance, he bucked more reactionary voices in the religious establishment to attempt to permit Egyptian TV watchers to enjoy the delights of "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?".
Isn't freedom grand?
Dalrymple's focus is on the Christians of the Middle East, to the exclusion of the other major religious minority, the Jews.
If we rewrote Dalrymple's book with a focus on the Jews of the Middle East, the Turks would come out looking like pretty good and the Syrians like evil villains.
1) Syria enjoys a degree of religious freedom today that is quite unlike many of its neighbors. Yes, there are expedient reasons because of the Alwaite origins of a certain elite but that does not alter the result.
2) Sheikh Tantawi is indeed quite progressive on most matters, quite unlike the mullahs and imams of popular American imagination. Citing an edict on suicide bombing in Israel is silly, Arabs in general will support anti-Israel actions, whether they be Christian, Muslim or irreligious Baathist.
I don't disagree. But then, there are almost no Jews in Syria and the reason isn't the regime but the fact that they all buggered off after 1948.
His description of an Israeli society controlled by Religious Extremists is also absurd. He should check out the Tel Aviv beaches on Friday night.
Israel's religious right exerts an undue influence on civil society, and on the structure of the legal framework of that country. Forget the beaches of tel Aviv (where I've cavorted on every night of the week) and focus on the nitty-gritty of marriage laws. You want to get married not under the strictures of the Orthodox Rabbinate in Israel? Too bad - go to Cyprus. That is a great deal more influence than the Muslim religious right has on marriage in Syria.
Getting your feet wet in the hurly-burly of politics again? FYI, my marriage (reform Jewish) would not be recognized in Israel. While Marj overstates as usual, Israel's religious life is controlled by Orthodox Judaism. The religious right also plays a disprortionate role in Israeli politics. It is an unhealthy situation, that cries out for separation of powers, as in the US.
This is more a judgement than a fact; and I seriously doubt Syria would be judged by many as exercising more religious freedom than the Turkish Republic today (as opposed to the 1920s- 1940s).
Message # 892: "But then, there are almost no Jews in Syria and the reason isn't the regime but the fact that they all buggered off after 1948."
(1) Well, there are almost no Christians left in Turkey, either. except for an Assyrian minority.
(2) The Jews didn't exactly leave Syria (or Yemen or Iraq) in the happiest of circumstances at the time Israel was founded.
(3) There are at least 3000 Jews left in Syria today, and everthing about their behaviour is restricted, starting with the right of emigration (not allowed).
The adverb 'very' only applies, of course, because Jordan is a majority Muslim country.
Sheikh Tantawi, a state-appointed cleric, is indeed more progressive than the mullahs and imams that enflame Arab public opinion in the real world, not merely in American popular imagination.
"Citing an edict on suicide bombing in Israel is silly, Arabs in general will support anti-Israel actions, whether they be Christian, Muslim or irreligious Baathist."
Which is exactly why Tantawi changed his tune. But it is a notably immoderate position. A year prior, he had condemned "all" terrorism, which anyone with an ear could tell was intended to include Israeli military occupation in the definition of term. Which was well fine, entirely to be expected. At least he had come out against the argument that Israeli children should be targeted because they all grow up to be soldiers.
But then he reversed himself dramatically to capitulate to the passions of the rabble. And now the most powerful religious figure in Egypt, who is, again, an appointee of a secular state fromally at peace with Israel, endorses suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.
I'm not surprised you think it "silly" to bring that up in the context of a discussion about Islamic power within predominantly Muslim states. (I wouldn't be surprised, either, were anyone here to continue thinking of you as 'Spanky the Terror Apologist'.)
Actually, Israel and Syria have precisely the same policy on the question of marriage and divorce. Syrians maintain the Ottoman milat system: each sect or religious group gets its own personal law. Thus, marriages and divorces for Sunnis are governed under Sunni Sharia courts, those for Greek Orthodox under Orthodox ecclesiastical courts, etc. I understand this is the same in Israel.
I think most everyone in Israel agrees. Damned coalition government.
There is no church in Saudi Arabia, do you all know that? By church I mean a building, a physical church. There are tens of thousands of Christians working in this US-allied country but no church.
--
Yes, the circumstances of the Jewish exodus in 1948 and slightly after were very unpleasant.
Kindly acquaint yourself with the differences in the modern Jewish observance.
I agree but what does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything?
Of course Christians in Syria and Iraq have far more rights than in Saudi Arabia. So what?
?
You said in Israel one must get married under the religious law, that is true. Jews get married under Jewish law, Muslims get married under Sharia law, Christians.....etc.
This is the same in Syria.
It is a position I have come to support, by the way, despite serious misgivings. The main opposition to these laws comes from the Bajrang Dal and other rightists.
But the situation in India is not dire, the laws will change but it will take a different time and a slightly different civil society to enact the changes.
---
Now, I'm off. I will check in later to see what is being said about what.
A result of this is that although I could emigrate to Israel under the Law of Return (I have at least one Jewish grandparent), because only Orthodox conversions abroad are recognized by the religious authorities in Israel, and because my mother converted (in 1955, in Mississippi, for god's sake) under Reform aegis, she is not considered Jewish, nor would I be. Nor would my children.
Getting your feet wet in the hurly-burly of politics again? FYI, my marriage (reform Jewish) would not be recognized in Israel. While Marj overstates as usual, Israel's religious life is controlled by Orthodox Judaism. The religious right also plays a disprortionate role in Israeli politics. It is an unhealthy situation, that cries out for separation of powers, as in the US.
Marj said "daily life", which is absurd. You are correct that I should think twice before wading into these discussions, but Banks' knee-jerk, anti-Israeli exagerations and outright falsehoods get under my skin, which is his intent.
I completely agree with the other points you are making. The US could use some more separation too.
My kids would not be considered Jewish either, as my wife is a lapsed Catholic.
Au contraire, you should dive right in. I have missed your contributions from the sane slightly-to-the-left-of-center.
When divorcing--that is another matter. A horrendous other matter.
Falwell hasn't said anything much more exceptionable than what Mark Twain wrote of Arabian Muslims for American newspapers after his tour of the Holy Land: They "never invent anything, never learn anything. . . . They are a stupid population . . . all beggars by nature, instinct and education."
What a fucking pussy!
1) That quote is misrepresentative.
2) The quote is most likely, given the context, an outright lie, and thus par for the course for the rightwinger scum who generated it.
3) I can guarantee that Concerned has not read Twain's account.
Having read all of Twain's report of his journey around the world on lecture tour (especially paying attention to the bit that includes the Orient)
Twain was not in the Holy Land on a 'lecture tour' (who would he be lecturing before? The Tiz el-Nabi branch of the Ottoman Women's Organization for the Protection of Endangered Species?). He was there with a group of fellow Christians and wrote about it for the American papers that ran his column, as I recall. The result is a book called The Innocents Abroad. It's a good read. He describes a largely barren and uninhabited land, teeming with robbers.
As for TJ's original questions wrt Israel's religious right and the rabbis: there are more influential rabbis, to be sure, but the religious right in Israel is a small faction in the Knesset. Sharon can live with or without Efi Eitam's NRP. Unlike Arab countries - or the US, for that matter - where the leaders practice Islam or Christianity, the Israeli Prime Minister never goes to synagogue. The largest part of the populace here is not just non-religious: it is quite anti-religious.
>>>
The general elections are scheduled for next October, and could be held earlier. I'm positive the hard right will take the Knesset by landslide, but it won't just be the religious right: Avigdor Lieberman's Russian immigrant based faction is not religious, and parts of (the assassinated) Ze'evi's faction are not either (both the Ze'evi and Lieberman factions are united in one party, which is presently filling Israel's highways, bridges and bus stops with posters openly calling for a 'transfer').
The religious minority in Israel is a highly fractured one - between Sephardi and Ashkenazi, ultrareligious and national-religious, etc., - and there is a limit to the influence it can wield. I don't think this will change, essentially, in the next Knesset. To answer your implied question - I doubt there will ever be one rabbi, or even a group of rabbis, who can decide or even seriously influence the government's policy on issues of war and peace.
Well, 'agnostic' back then and agnostic now are slightly different things. Twain was certainly well versed in Scripture: his account of the Holy Land is full of these observations of how crummy looking the actual land is in comparison with the biblical accounts.
Twain may have been agnostic, if you say he was, but he was also a man of his country, his times and his people, and his country, times and people were religious.
FYI, Twain did indeed go around the world on lecture tour (including India), the compilation of his accounts is published under various names and I have one called Crossing the Equator.
The whole set appears online here. I assumed the twisted quotes posted here were from that book (in which he recalls his previous trip to your part of the world) but maybe they're being misquoted from Innocents Abroad after all.
I highly recommend Twain's bits on Oz and NZ (in which he lambasts the colonialists) and also the long bits on India in the link I provided (in which he similarly lambasts the colonialists, especially hammering their missionary activity).
This is indeed India! the land of dreams and romance, of fabulous wealth and fabulous poverty, of splendor and rags, of palaces and hovels, of famine and pestilence, of genii and giants and Aladdin lamps, of tigers and elephants, the cobra and the jungle, the country of a hundred nations and a hundred tongues, of a thousand religions and two million gods, cradle of the human race, birthplace of human speech, mother of history, grandmother of legend, great-grandmother of tradition, whose yesterdays bear date with the mouldering antiquities of the rest of the nations - the one sole country under the sun that is endowed with an imperishable interest for alien prince and alien peasant, for lettered and ignorant, wise and fool, rich and poor, bond and free, the one land that all men desire to see, and having seen once, by even a glimpse, would not give that glimpse for the shows of all the rest of the globe combined. Even now, after the lapse of a year, the delirium of those days in Bombay has not left me, and I hope never will. It was all new, no detail of it hackneyed.
I'm sure he was on that lecture tour but I doubt it included the Holy Land.
Sorry. I just feel like that sometimes, since the latest trauma and the move to Harish.
Thought I'd share.
Today was the second time I spun out of control and took out my aggressions and rage on the kids. I apologized right afterwards but it's scary. I just fly into a blind rage, and totally lose control. I don't think it was ever quite that bad before.
You need to get the fuck out of Dodge, go somewhere else