Posted on 03/27/2005 3:35:52 PM PST by Marguerite
This caught my eye because I thought the headline read, "Why create just one new Mideast state when you can have a Jew?". I know that makes no sense whatsoever, but that's how I read it.
I bet your interpretation is too truthful! Funny stuff!
More semitic speaking people followed them. Wave after wave of such people spread through the Middle East for thousands of years.
Languages get supplanted you know. It's usually a kind of impersonal process. At the moment English is rapidly extirpating hundreds of ancient tongues, and nobody particularly cares. I sure don't. Do you? Spoken Arabic expanded far beyond the core population in the Early Middle Ages, just as English is doing today. Many modern Arabic speaking populations have virtually no Arabic ancestry.
Are you telling me the Copts are not semitic?
Excellent post. Thank you. It is a mystery to me why we in the West accept the title of imperialist as an appropriate yoke for the crusades yet ignore the fact that most of the lands occupied by Arabs and Muslims today were Christian over 600 years before the charlatan Muhammad perpetrated his fraud on humanity, And the modern world? I suspect Ayatollah Khomeini found the Iran/Iraq war a convenient solution to the prospect of counter-revolutionary forces arising from the masses of disenfranchised young men whose dreams he would have been forced to destroy if he were unsuccessful in gaining their willingness for insane martyrdom in the name of his vain power grab. What idiotic dupes these people are.
The Copts' ancestors where Egyptian not Arabs. They converted to Christianity 600 years before Mahommed was born.
Mohammed was born in 570 AD. Are you saying the Egyptians converted to Christianity before Christianity existed? Before Christ was born? COOL.
COPTS ARE HAMITIC NOT SEMITIC. SINCE THEY ARE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS THEY ARE HAMITES
COPTS ARE HAMITIC NOT SEMITIC. SINCE THEY ARE THE ANCIENT EGYPTIANS THEY ARE HAMITES
This is not about the language, but about Arabs occupying non-Arab countries and subjugating non-Arab peoples, like Kurds, Sudanese, Berbers and Copts.
You have deliberately confused the point of the article.
I advise you to read it again.
LOL, picking straws?
Nationalism is one way to destroy Arab hegemony, as they were conquerors of peoples who will want to rediscover their ancient history. However, dividing the world into ever smaller, indefensible states does not make sense. If an area like Palestine, Lebanon, and Kuwait has no geographic barriers, and a small poor population it may not have the political or economic resources to be a sucessful state, even if it does have the ambition. I think we have carried nationalism too far, already.
Oh give it a break mussywhiner. Let the Egyptians have Egypt, Lebanese have Lebanon, Hebrews have Hebron and Persians have Persia back. Oh, and send the Araba back to Arabia.
They are all semites joker.
One must pick straws to construct a strawman to argue with.
The point is - when the Arabs speak about "occupied territories" and "refugees", they ignore the log in their own eyes - Copts, Kurds, Berberes, Sudanese, Kabyles etc etc...as well as 800,000 Jews expelled from their countries after 1948.
For years, the term "Arab Christians" was used to categorize the Christians in the Middle East. However, the concept instead of being precisely defined was intellectually misused and politically abused. Both Arab regimes and "Arabists" in the West attempted to libel all Christians living under the sovereignty of Arab states, as "Arab Christians."
This denial of identity of millions of indigenous non-Arab nations can be equated to an organized ethnic cleansing on a politico-cultural level. Similarly to the Turkish attempts to eradicate the ethnic identity of the Kurds, whom they call "Mountain Turks," and the Assyrians, whom they define as "Semitic Turks."
Arab-Islamic regimes in the region assert that all those Christians who live within the confines of "Arab borders" are "Arab." With Arab nationalism at its peak, and "Arabist" circles at the apex of their political influence in the West, the pre-Arab ethnicities of the Middle East became the real underdogs of the region.
http://www.arabicbible.com/christian/intro_arab_christians.htm
Blah-blah.
"Prior to the Arab Islamic invasion of the upper Middle East--the term invasion is crucial--most of the peoples of the region, with the exception of the ancient Israelites, were Christianized: Copts in Egypt, Assyro-Chaldeans in Mesopotamia, Nubian Africans in Sudan, Armenians in Asia Minor, Phoenicians (Arameans, Canaanites, Amorites) in Syria, and Lebanon. With the dispersion of the Jews by the Romans, limited number of Christians moved to Palestine from the north and the East. In Arabia, the majority was pagan, a large segment of Arab tribes converted to Christianity, and after the dismantlement of ancient Israel, the number of Jewish centers increased in the Peninsula. Therefore, prior to the Arab Islamic Conquest, the upper Middle East was not Arab, its overwhelming majority was Christian"
There have also been Arab Jews, and Jewish Arabs!
Did you wish to make a point?
Were you aware that the Persian Empire was NOT Christianized? That included vast stretches of what is now identified as Iraq!
Then there are the other people in the Middle East who have Egyptian ancestors ~ they are all over the place, even on the tops of mountains in Yemen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.