Oppositions to Arabs

[Zero]

Originally posted by Cidifer
wow your gasping at straws now buddy, I mean please, like you weren't implying that I was badering you. I said you acted like I was, the implication of an act is all it takes for you to try to get sypathy by acting like I'm some big mean bully and your a helpless little kid or something. Also lol, you've been saying read carefully long before you ever directed anything at me READ CAREFULLY

Also you completely supported my areguement


booya, I said you didn't support it well in the following 2 posts, discussion over, thank you for admitting it, I'm glad we both agree that I was right. I don't undestand why you didn't just say "your right I didn't support it well, that's because it wasn't worth it." Also I think you were being too sensitive. That's it for me now good night, you can get that last word in, I'm done, I just hope it's not another essay reply for your own sake.

Are you kidding me? You must be bullsh!tting me!

you told me last two posts were stupid. All you did was prove that my post about the list was stupid. (the 2 post is not post about list!) Which I admittedly did say was stupid since I didnt even consider it seriously. Do you not get that? So why did you call my other 2 post stupid? You didnt even accuse me of my list of feared leader post in the beginning!

So you just claim victory because you are right about a totally seperate issue that I have been acknowledging was wrong. But read your own word again. Thats not the post you have been accusing as being stupid. You havent yet even talked about the 2 post!!

[Zero]

Do you just like badgering me? I get that feeling. I hope thats not the case!

Am I accusing you!? (or acting like) No I beleive I clearly stated that I get the feeling that you are!

[sabrewolf]

ok guys, let's keep the personal attacks down. we've reached the 300 posts mark and this thread is off topic ever since the first page. so i can bet you, the admins have an eye on this thread... so it's for everyone's best to keep down the tone

otherwise: one of the most interesting threads around, thanks to all participants

[Traelin]

Originally posted by roalan
A nuke in a ship will do just as nice as on a rocket.I agree most likely Saddam will not use nukes etc. because of retaliation but one can not pretend to know the mind of a nut case. Don't forget there are a lot of people in that region that think nothing of blowing themselves up for their cause and becoming a marter. Sadamm doesn't give a hoot about his country or its people only himself.

That's really ironic that you mentioned the "nuke on a ship" theory. Did you see that recent special on Discovery channel about Hussein? Apparently it was discovered that Hussein had been attempting to develop a bomb that could be delivered via ship to Israel. They said that the size of the planned bomb would cause a crater approximately the size of Israel and would take out most of the Palestinians too. Coming from a station that is politically aligned in the center-left, it's pretty believable. I guess it goes to show us hoe much Hussein really cares about the Palestinians too.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Sonic
Also, I did no said Sadam is good, I just said he is not that bad to order people be at home at US attacks.

Anyway, he doesn't considers Kurds his own people just as Israel doesn't consider Palestinians it's own people. We ussually don't say "Israel kills it's own citizens" when Israeli army kills innocent Palestinians, but "Israel killed Palestinian" instead.

Well Israel isn't using chemical weapons against the Palestinians, either.

Originally posted by Sonic
Also, UN sanctions are more or less responsible for bad living standart in Iraq.

I would agree with that. IMHO the U.N. has all but outlived its usefulness. Economic sanctions do nothing but hurt the general populace. It was proven in Haiti since the '80s, it's been proven in Africa, it's been proven in many situations. That's why I have zero tolerance toward foolish dictators. Note: my opinion on the U.N. is unwavering, so there's no need to argue about it.

Originally posted by Sonic
Also goodness/badness of leaders is very personal. For example, if I'd have to choose someone from great leaders to rule Lithuania, I'd choose Saddam over Lenin, however some people might do vice-versa.

If I had to do either I'd probably find the nearest pharmacy to buy some cyanide.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i don't agree. a truly good person will not do bad things. but doing something bad doesn't make him bad either.
that's the trouble some people in this world have: it's either black or white, no greys (like some things your beloved 'W' said)... i believe that there is grey, actually i think that way over 95% of the people are neither really good, nor really bad.

Please understand that what I'm about to write consists of my personal opinions.

Like I said before, I'm of the belief that 99.9% of people in this world are "good". I believe this mainly because I'm Catholic and adhere to the Catholic faith (albeit a bit loosely in certain situations).

For instance, I believe both St. Paul and St. Francis of Assisi lived decadent, abominable lives before discovering Christianity in their lives. Saul was a persecutor of Christians until God basically threw him off his horse and blinded him one day. Then he saw the light (if you'll forgive the pun). He became a great evangelist, St. Paul.

St. Francis was a wealthy, spoiled nobleman who treated those "beneath" him with disdain. Then he came across a leper and was visibly moved. He tossed aside his name and his belongings for the betterment of man.

These people were good people who did bad things. So my argument is that ALL of us do bad things, likely on a daily basis. But -- if you are Christian -- you must strive for divinity as best you can. God gave us the free will to choose between good and evil.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i don't know if i'm able to explain what i mean. english is a foreign language to me, so it's difficult to express myself a i might want to. but do you understand my point?
i just want to say, that "good", "bad", "innocent" and other words cannot be defined, because everyone sees it different...

Don't worry about it. You're expressing yourself just fine. I just don't agree with you on some of your beliefs.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
saddam has been doing evil things ever since he came to power. he's used ABC-weapons before. but now suddenly bush is making warmongering pressure. isn't that a bit questionable? imho he f#cked up the US (and with it the world) economy and now needs a distraction to raise his polls.

The economy was taking a downturn long before Bush entered office. The stock market was showing subtle signs of collapse. I'm still surprised the housing market is holding its own. The bubble is eventually going to burst on it, too.

Plus, remember this. The Congress of the U.S. legislates. The President only has the ability to VETO the legislation, or sign it into law. So, if you're of the belief that the economy took a turn for the worse during the Bush Admin., you can only fault Congress for legislating bad bills. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Greenspan played a part in the situation, but I believe that the economy is cyclic and would have eventually slid anyways.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
first, i'm not even so sure if 9/11 would have happened under gore. his politics might have been just a that bit more acceptable that the hate wouldn't be so big. and his administration would have consisted of brighter people which maybe wouldn't have ignored the warnings which where admitted a half a year later.

It most assuredly would have. Just trust me on this. They had been planning assaults like this for years against us. To perform such an attack takes time and money.

Actually the Bush Admin. is considered one of the brightest administrations in our nation's history. Rice is brilliant, Powell is brilliant, and Rumsfeld has proven his intelligence in more than one administration.

EDIT: Corrected some grammatical errors.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Traelin


That's really ironic that you mentioned the "nuke on a ship" theory. Did you see that recent special on Discovery channel about Hussein? Apparently it was discovered that Hussein had been attempting to develop a bomb that could be delivered via ship to Israel. They said that the size of the planned bomb would cause a crater approximately the size of Israel and would take out most of the Palestinians too. Coming from a station that is politically aligned in the center-left, it's pretty believable. I guess it goes to show us hoe much Hussein really cares about the Palestinians too.

sorry, but that's pure BS! a crater the size of israel?

if you consider that the diameters of the largest meteors that hit the earth since life exists (e.g. the end of the dinosaurs) created cratres of "only" a few miles diameter, how should a dirty bomb (saddam will never be able to get purified uranium or plutonium) take out israel and palestine?

and something else: why should saddam anyway want to send a nuke to israel. that would be his definate end... and allthough he's fairly wacked, he'd never want to harm some innocent people outside of his realm. it's clear he doesn't like israel, like all other arab states, but he doesn't profit at all by nuking it (except the sympathy of a few radicals).

and a boat to israel. well... that means going past
- kuwait (not the best friends of hussein)
- the US and the royal navy
- saudi arabia
- many smaller arab states (jemen, bahrain, UAE, etc.)
- the red sear (egypt and again saudi arabia)
- the suez channel (which is probably very well guarded... a destruction of this channel (even with a smaller bomb) would be a desaster for world economy...)
- and then finally past the israeli navy...

--> all very very unlikely! and not worth the risk (if he's caught he's got a nuke less)


once again it's the media bringing up a rumour and people actually believing it.

[Traelin]

roalan,

that's cool that you were in the Navy. My grandfather got the Purple Heart in WWII when his ship was torpedoed in the North Sea. He was temporarily paralyzed and laid in a London hospital for over a year. The guy that rescued him also rescued someone else, and granddad watched him die on the beach next to him. Then, my granddad watched the person who saved him swim back to the ship to help others, but he went down with the ship.

[Traelin]

sabrwolf,

I'm sorry, I actually meant Jerusalem. My mistake.

[Traelin]

sabrewolf,

Actually it was a very interesting episode, and very believable. I'm very wary of accepting what the media says as Gospel, but this was a pretty objective commentary.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
ok guys, let's keep the personal attacks down. we've reached the 300 posts mark and this thread is off topic ever since the first page. so i can bet you, the admins have an eye on this thread... so it's for everyone's best to keep down the tone

otherwise: one of the most interesting threads around, thanks to all participants

Agreed. I have enjoyed this thread more than any other, because I like hearing what other people think about, well, everything. So let's not attack each other. I don't want the Mods moving this thread to OT, cuz noone will read it there and I probably won't check it.

[sabrewolf]

ok, that makes more sence...

but still, bringing a nuke to jerusalem is just a strange, because it is about 50miles away from the coast. and there are (at least there were) iirc more palestinians than israelis in jerusalem.

you (or that program) probably meant tel aviv or haifa...

[Traelin]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
ok, that makes more sence...

but still, bringing a nuke to jerusalem is just a strange, because it is about 50miles away from the coast. and there are (at least there were) iirc more palestinians than israelis in jerusalem.

you (or that program) probably meant tel aviv or haifa...

You may be right. I admit I was a bit drunk watching it. It'll air again soon, so I'll report back to you with more sober details.

[roalan]

That is why they call the WW2 soldiers the Greatest Generation. and I agree. I aslo mentioned a nuke in a suitecase and in yesterdays Boston Herald there was a full page devoted to just such a happening in Boston and what areas would be completely destroyed in an explosion. These things are comming as tech gets better .

[Traelin]

Originally posted by roalan
That is why they call the WW2 soldiers the Greatest Generation. and I agree. I aslo mentioned a nuke in a suitecase and in yesterdays Boston Herald there was a full page devoted to just such a happening in Boston and what areas would be completely destroyed in an explosion. These things are comming as tech gets better .

I do too, definitely. That's not to say that the men and women that served before and after that generation aren't heroes too. But I agree with the "Greatest Generation" naming. I feel blessed to have had such a man in my ancestry. I just wish I had the same bravery as he did. I think my generation is a bit spoiled and that's why many people take freedom for granted.

[roalan]

I was in the Navy in the early 50"s and believe me the current crop of youth for the most part( not all) are much ( how shall I put it?) softer momma's boys -something along that line. It's not all their fault there upbringing is not rthe same as it was years ago.Even my upbringing was softer then my parents etc. Post depression changed everything. Most people think it was the Vietnam war (and that war had a large sonw balling effect) but it really started after the depression when people who lived through it said "My kids will have it better then we did".

[CiverDan]

Alright....this convo has turned into a political rant.nothing more..

Lets either close it or move it to off-topic

[Ozymandias]

Yep -- It's about time I figured out how to set up a poll ...

-Oz

[Alireza1354]

Salam Alaykum

I am an Arab, as you can see from my name.

No hard feelings, but I think the Germans and the French should be taken out of the game. You know "France and Germany are both in Europe and thats too crowded." Babylon may dissappear too.


So what do you think of this? Nonsense? But why do some want the Arabs out?

I want them all in (the French and Germans too) but if someone doenst want to play with them in the game, they shouldnt choose them as adversaries in the game!

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Yep -- It's about time I figured out how to set up a poll ...

Here 'tis:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=65222

-Oz

[roalan]

Keep in mind the old saying: Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see".

Also folks the only countries in the Mid East that are "Arab " are Saudi and the other sand dune countries in that area. Egypt-Jordan-Lebanon-Syria -Persia etc, are not Arabs.The Media are the people that give them this name,they lump all the countries except Israel as Arab and as usual the media is wrong and inaccurate. I am not an Arab by the way.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by roalan
Keep in mind the old saying: Believe nothing you read and only half of what you see".

Also folks the only countries in the Mid East that are "Arab " are Saudi and the other sand dune countries in that area. Egypt-Jordan-Lebanon-Syria -Persia etc, are not Arabs.The Media are the people that give them this name,they lump all the countries except Israel as Arab and as usual the media is wrong and inaccurate. I am not an Arab by the way.

It's a pity I couldn't insert the poll in this thread ...

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...89#post1389489

--Or, to partially quote:
-------------

"Arabs" is the term most commonly used to ethnically label non-Jewish Semites (who "originated" in the Arabian peninsula and spread far enough north along the eastern end of the Mediterranean to include the Akkadians - ca. 2750 BCE - and Amorites - ca. 1850 BCE - and Assyrians - ca. 825 BCE) AS WELL AS the Hamites, who include the Egyptians, Kushites (the northern side of the Horn of Africa westward to the Nile) and the Berbers (from the Egyptians to the Atlantic).

------------
--Of course, you're quite correct about the "Persians", who are ethnically "Iranian", a group which has encompassed Aryans (yep, you read that right, the folk actually migrating eastward into India), Mitanni, Medes, Sakas, and Scyths.

Of course, as we're speaking of another people whose Civ-esque greatness seems little known, the Persian Empire (ca. 500 BCE) included Egypt, and stretched from the Balkans to the Indus.

-Oz

[roalan]

That is what the media has fostered on the public when it lumps everything together. Arabs and Semites are not the same.Just because it is reported that way does not mean it is correct. It may be a common used term but again it is incorrect.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by roalan
That is what the media has fostered on the public when it lumps everything together. Arabs and Semites are not the same.Just because it is reported that way does not mean it is correct. It may be a common used term but again it is incorrect.

Hmmmm ... You are, um, "technically", correct -- I never said that "Arabs" and "Semites" are the same, but, rather, that "Arabs" ethnically comprise both Semites and Hamites, and that "Biblical" (perhaps "pre-Diaspora" would be more correct ... ?) Jews are, likewise, ethnically Semites.

Of course, at some point, "Anti-Semitic" unarguably came to mean "anti-Jewish", but, again, ethnologically, my earlier points are quite correct.

... Or is it really so amazing that people so closely related should -- in some cases -- hate one another so much?

Mercifully, where I live, the most avid debate over the kinship is whether the Israelis or Yemenis make the better falafel ...

Yet again not-so subtly signing off with two clearly related words --

Salaam, Shalom,

Oz

[roalan]

Question. What Arabs comprise semites? Jordanians are Semites.
And yes I can get over the fact that Israel Semites and other country Semites ie. Jordan and Egypt hate each other so much. I do not know why and have always wondered why? Also I do not understand why the Muslems hate the Jews so much when they have a common heritage in Abraham and Mosses. Both worked together in as little a 100 years ago. What happened to make them so bitter foes?

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by roalan
Question. What Arabs comprise semites? Jordanians are Semites.
And yes I can get over the fact that Israel Semites and other country Semites ie. Jordan and Egypt hate each other so much. I do not know why and have always wondered why? Also I do not understand why the Muslems hate the Jews so much when they have a common heritage in Abraham and Mosses. Both worked together in as little a 100 years ago. What happened to make them so bitter foes?

You are asking the most heart-wrenching of questions. How did Germany and Austria go to war in 1866? Why does "brother murder brother" in civil war? -- Because our beliefs overlay our kinship, and our madmen will always throw emotional gasoline on emotional flames for their own gains. And then there are the "real" disagreements based upon even "reasonable" people desiring radically different outcomes from the same set of events.

A hunted and haunted people return to an ancient, ancestral land and reclaim it, millenia after they have lost political control of it. Those who have lived there during those very same millenia object. Both sides become pawns in greater powers' hands. Kinship is forgotten, if ever it is remembered, and weapons are smuggled in, which the dominant power strenuously objects to, choosing to forget that their own predecessors also engaged in shameful acts of terror which also killed innocent civilians (e.g., the bombing of the King David Hotel, then run by the British in British Palestine). Wells are poisoned, literally and metaphorically. Innocents die and die and die, and those who would impose their will, without pity, send them to their graves -- on every side! -- with a righteousness to shame any claim of morality, let alone moral superiority.

-- Or, as T.S.Eliot so succinctly put it --
"May the judgment not be too heavy upon us."

-Ozymandias

[roalan]

Pawns is correct. The Arabs use the Palentines as pawns they really do not care or like them. Jordan and Syria smashed them in war when they felt threatened by them. But I fell it goes back further then 1948 .something started it and it came long after the exodus. Wish I knew.

[Buster13]

Wow, I haven't read this thread in a while, but something told me there would be some political commentary on it, I just wasn't sure how much.

Of course everyone has thier opinion on the unrest in the Middle East, and it's effects on the rest of the world. Probably the last thing you need is another one, but I'm just to vain not to, so here goes!!!

First of all, the current Administration of the United States has been using circular logic to justify this war the entire time. Now this doesn't mean it shouldn't happen, but the American people should at least understand why we are going to war, and it should be a good reason. At the beginning it was because Saddam harbored and supported Al-Qaida, then it was because of Weapons of Mass Destruction (slightly more viable), but really it's just because he is a bad guy and impossible to work with in the International community and he controls a large quantity of a resource that it invaluable to the world economy for the next 20 or so years.

Before we go too much further into the WMD thing, remember that the chemical attacks we're talking about haven't happened (unless there's something I'm missing), since the Gulf War and since the 80s (against the Iranians) with weapons the we (the United States) provided him because at the time we were angry with the Iranians and Iraq happened to be fighting a very popular war against them. Many of the other middle eastern countries at the time "supported" that war by loaning Iraq and Saddam money to carry it out. Of course, as soon as the war was over, everyone hated Iraq again (maybe because Saddam is such a lovable character), and wanted thier money back. This is largely the cause for Iraqs recent economic woes.

So his stockpile of chemical and biological weapons is as a result of our interferance in the politics of the area at the time. Were we justified in helping Saddam in his war against Iraq? Perhaps, but remember what happened in Afghanastan not so very long ago. The very people that we armed to stop the Russian's invasion were the ones we had to fight to take over Afghanistan recently. Is it possible that the Russians were having the same problem we were at the time? Perhaps this is part of the reason we have a bad reputation as a nation amongst these people since we have used thier conflicts to further our own causes and then quickly backed out after our purposes were served?

Anyway, a popular theory amongst the hawks is that Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 90s because they thought they would get paid to pull out of the area and that this would be a quick solution to thier financial problems. Of course no one but Saddam knows if this is even partially true, but certainly possible. He didn't expect the type of international responce he got, that's why his troops didn't really fight...it was a ploy, not a real invasion. Once the U.S. and the U.N. imposed sanctions after the war, that was just the excuse Saddam needed to blame the country's financial woes on the "evil" United States, exhonorating him of responsibility for his people's sufferings.

So should we go to war now? Well Iraq is not even as powerful as it was at the beginning of the Gulf War, he's probably not harboring as many terrorists as is Iran for instance, and he's not likely to use any weapon of mass destruction that could be directly tied to him, as he is certainly intelligent enough to know that this would end his reign, the only thing which this man cares about. So probably not, but if he does continue to ignore the international community, I guess he'll get what he deserves. In this economy and this global world, you can't get away with this type of behavior forever.

The Palestinians? Of course he doesn't really care about them, but Isreal is a local country representative of the U.S., and thus makes him sympathetic to thier cause, much as we had been to his when he was beating up our erstwhile enemy Iran.

People have been fighting over the Middle East for ideological reasons seemingly forever. Who thinks it's going to stop now, even if we come up with an amicable solution that makes both the Palestinians and the Isrealis happy? BTW, this started (at least in a modern way) with the Balfour resolution of the British government in 1917 (I believe). The resolution that started the whole Isreali state issue.

As to the game, it was noted that the elimination of the Arabs from the game wouldn't be any different than eliminating the French or the Germans from the game since Europe is crowded to. While I agree this very thread could be interpreted as somewhat racist, I think the topic here is being proposed as a gameplay issue. Clearly the french and the german people are a different culture. Can you say the same about the Ottomans, the Arabs, Persians, Babs, Egypt and the Carthaginians (I know, I know...northern Africa)? Besides, I wouldn't care nearly as much if they didn't disclude the Incas, the Mayans, the Sioux Indians or some other power from the early days of the American continents. When you play on a world map, BOTH Europe and the Middle East are brimming with Civs. Asia is too, but at least they have some space. North and South America? Three civs vs. 21!!!! So before anyone turns this into a race issue, let's take a step back and look at why this thread was created. P.S. - the Hebrew Civ apparently wasn't even considered.

Ok, I'm done for now...
Thanks for reading and bearing with me.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Buster13
As to the game, it was noted that the elimination of the Arabs from the game wouldn't be any different than eliminating the French or the Germans from the game since Europe is crowded too ... I think the topic here is being proposed as a gameplay issue.

This is only true if you posit a game starting in 4000 BCE, using an obviously ahistoric group of Civs.

Given that PTW will allow turn lengths to be redefined to, IIRC, one year each, then games of equal length can start very much later, say somewhere between 800 and 1100 CE when Europe was indeed crowded with Civs -- many of which became extinct -- and there was still plenty of technology to discover.

As an aside, I find it ironic that the French and Germans have become the Euro poster-Civs for overcrowding, as "overcrowding" (anybody remember "Lebensraum"?) led to sporadic warfare between the two from their mutual fission from Charlemagne's empire in 887-8 until oh, say, 1945.

There are also historical theories aplenty (cf. "Guns, Germs, and Steel") that intense competition was what put Europe in the cockpit of the world to begin with. In Civ terms it means already established cities -- and improvements and wonders -- to conquer and technology to acquire.

In some cases, I would suggest that "crowding" is not only reasonable, but necessary to model historical forces -- which is different than suggesting that using every Civ in the box, at once, makes any sense (or fun!) at all.

-Oz

PS Sometime after PTW comes out, keep a lookout for my "1000 CE" mod ...

-O.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Ozymandias
As an aside, I find it ironic that the French and Germans have become the Euro poster-Civs for overcrowding, as "overcrowding" (anybody remember "Lebensraum"?) led to sporadic warfare between the two from their mutual fission from Charlemagne's empire in 887-8 until oh, say, 1945.

Come on, I don't know any two neighbouring countries in Europe that have always lived together in peace. There were wars between Russia and Poland, Spain and France, Poland and Germany, Italy and Albania, Germany and Austria... this list is endless.
Germany and France are just the best and most common examples for this history of wars...