egafd.com

At an early epoch South Arabian tribes emigrated to the opposite African coast, where Sabaean trade colonies had probably existed for a long time. As early as the first century A.D. we find in the north of the Abyssinian mountain ? lands the Semitic realm of Aksum. The conquerors brought with them South Arabian letters and language, which in their new home gradually attained an individual character. From this language, the Ge'ez, wrongly called Ethiopian, two daughter-languages are descended, Tigr? and Tigri?a. The confusion of this kingdom with Ethiopia probably owes its origin to the fact that the Semite emigrants adopted this name from the Graeco-Egyptian sailors, at a time when the Kingdom of Mero? was still in some repute. And so they called their kingdom Yteyopeya. From Aksum as a base they gradually extended their dominion over all Abyssinia, the northern population of which today shows a purer Semitic type, while the southern is strongly mixed with Hamitic elements. At an early date the south must have been settled by Semites, who spoke a language related to Ge'ez, which was afterwards to a great extent influenced by the languages of the native population, particularly by the Agau dialects. A descendant of this language is the Amharic, the present language of intercourse in Abyssinia itself and far beyond its boundaries.

Can't bake a cake...


Dibble

"It is interesting that the one race who have been consistently despised and persecuted since the middle ages and before (long before politics came into it) have now become the persecutors."

Israelis are not persecutors; it's just that after the holocaust and the preceding centuries of persecution they have taken the view that they will no longer stand for the minutest degree of shit from anyone. Which is why I admire them. They don't waste time talking endless cobblers, "Ooh, shall we? Shan't we? Should we? Maybe we should ask the UN? Hmm, it's a poser isn't it?" No, if they get any bollocks from anyone they go straight in and sort them out. I recon that's pretty groovy myself.

Now if the Israelis really were persecutors, shooting dead and bulldozing the houses of peaceful citizens who were simply going about there day to day business, then I myself would be at the forefront of any anti-Israeli protest. But let's get real here, that is not the case is it? The Israelis only set out to target murderers and those who are causing bollocks. OK, maybe some of those who were not directly involved in murder and insurrection can get caught in the heavy-handed crossfire. But Israel does not set out to deliberately harm these people and those hand wringing middle-class bullshiters know this perfectly well - they just choose to ignore the fact. And let's not get to misty eye about any 'civilian' casualties, because even if they were not directly involved in any terrorist activity they all sympathise with it and support it.

I find it jaw dropingly incredible that supposedly intelligent people (middle-class hand wringers) can sympathise with the Palestinians - who DO have a policy of murdering innocent men women and children on what they see as they opposite side. Absolutely NOTHING justifies breaking into an Israeli settlement and shooting dead a mother and two young toddlers as they are reading a bedtime story together. Jesus Christ!

And forget about Israel?s weapons of mass destruction. Israel is a rational western style democracy like ours. It is inconceivable that they would use those weapons against us or our interests - much like we don't worry about France's WOD for instance. And if it ever came to pass that the Israelis used them against an Arab neighbour you can be dam sure that those who precipitated that awful course of action had it coming, big style.

Dibble.

I think you should acquaint yourself with the history of Israel, and in particular the few years before independence when terrorists like Menachem Begin were targeting British troops and bombing hotels regardless of who might be hurt or killed. Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mugabe, Pol Pot---if history teaches one thing it's that today's terrorist turns into tomorrow's statesman.

Any act of terror aimed at civilian targets, whether because of their race or religion or just because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, is repugnant. How any of these bastards sleep is beyond me; and how they can be treated with any respect by anyone with a soupcon of morality is also mystifying.

All violence does is perpetuate itself. Arabs victimise Israelis, Israelis get their own back, Arabs seek revenge and on and on it goes . . . .

I'm glad that's cleared up, then..........

Oh, come off it: don't alter 'the facts' to suit your predilections.
BOTH sides are guilty of unprovoked attacks on civilians: the Israelis simply have the advantage of better trainingand, thanks to the US, bigger firepower.
And that 'cake' crack was obscene: it's people like you who are perfectly content to sit on your cowardly arses and send out young men to die so you can feel self-satisfiedly macho, having taught Johnny Foreigner 'a lesson'. I for one don't see why one British life should be wasted to further some numinous and essentially one-sided US foreign policy aim.

Hear hear.

I found the "cant bake a cake" remark very callous. Comparing the killing of innocents to breaking a few eggs is shocking. I am sure if he ever was forced to confront the reality of such horrors he would not be so flippant. But then what do we know? We are just a bunch of namby pamby hand-wringers according to the doctrine of Dibble.

Yes, of course it was callous. But it does cut through all the talking of bollocks, bloody mindedness, bickering, intransigence and getting nowhere. When

When any western democracy considers taking any sort of military action against foreign powers, international criminal and terrorist organisations or maybe anarchists within their mist they have to sit round a table and weigh up the pros and cons of that action. "Yes, we can eliminate that problem, but some innocent parties will probably die. Will it be for the greater good that we eliminate the problem? Will it be worth sacrificing those lives?" I'm afraid that the truth, as you well know, is that sometimes it is worth sacrificing those lives. Which is simply a poncy, maybe more palatable, way of saying - You can't bake a cake without breaking some eggs.

So, why feign indignation? The Officer is no more callous than anyone else in the general populace - It's just that he's a straight talker.

JJ tales about the one-sidedness of US foreign policy - not sure whether he's specifically taking about the Palestinian situation or US foreign policy in general. So my general response to that would be - Well, what if it is one sided? Hey, man, it's our side.

Dibble

You make a valid point about violence being a never ending cycle

I'd also make the point that the ultimate aim of both sides isn't Peace
but the acquisition of the same land & sites that have equally religious significance to both sides

For mine it is pretty apparent that hate is driving both sides
and yet in the past Jews & Arabs have lived side by side peacefully

It would seem the solution will involve compromise which isn't on either sides agenda

Fools

cheers
B....OZ Human First

The issue in Israel is 99% about land these days, there was a time when both parties lived together in relative peace,more and more I find myself thinking Israeli aggression and complete insistance on not giving back land which they 'stole' to the Palistinians, is the root of all problems now.
A lot of Israeli,s would be glad to trade land for peace, but the minority always seem to elect 'hardliners' who wont give an inch on the land issue.
Until they are persuaded that the only way to peace is to share the land they live in, it,s a vicous circle, wouldn,t stop me visiting Israel though, I,m off there this year hopefully.