Hadrian’s Hard-Won Victory - Romans Suffer Severe Losses in Jewish War
Meteorologist
"Some recent archaeological finds are indeed consistent with a fear-
struck Jewish public cowering before Roman might. Scores of hiding-
places, or refuge caves, have been discovered in the Judean Desert,
where Jews fled in the hope of avoiding Roman troops. Elaborate
tunnels in the basements of village homes served the same purpose.
These refuge caves and hiding places often reflect the desperate
circumstances of those who were fleeing or hiding. In the past few
years, Israeli archaeologists have identified several hundreds of such
places south of Jerusalem in the Shephelah."
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA
Tiglath
> http://members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=33&Issu...
>
> "Some recent archaeological finds are indeed consistent with a fear-
> struck Jewish public cowering before Roman might. Scores of hiding-
> places, or refuge caves, have been discovered in the Judean Desert,
> where Jews fled in the hope of avoiding Roman troops. Elaborate
> tunnels in the basements of village homes served the same purpose.
> These refuge caves and hiding places often reflect the desperate
> circumstances of those who were fleeing or hiding. In the past few
> years, Israeli archaeologists have identified several hundreds of such
> places south of Jerusalem in the Shephelah."
>
> David Christainsen
> Newton, Mass. USA
More evidence that people have long ceased to used words with
propriety.
"Enormous" Roman losses? -- Bad use of enormous. Cannae was an
"enormous" loss for a single day. What battle did the Jews fight
that could compare? The second revolt was a guerrilla war, wasn't
it?
"Extreme emergency" the author uses as well. Judea could be lost,
which wasn't, and Rome would not go anywhere experiencing an
emergency. It was a small chunk of empire, for God's sake.
"Desperate situation." Another blatant exaggeration. Were Jewish
legions at the gates of Rome? If not, forget "desperate."
It was a persistent revolt by a religiously motivated, notoriously
quarrelsome people, so they had to send SWAT in, because regular
provincial troopers couldn't cope. Big deal.
Not all governors were good generals, and Tineius Rufus may have been
an inept one, so Hadrian sent in a better one.
Werner Eck suffers from the malady many classicists suffer from. It
is so difficult to find anything to write about Greece or Rome that is
"breaking-news" level, that mere additional detail of well-known
history is hyped up to be so.
OK, the Bar Kokhba revolt was a bit of a slosh and it took extra
effort to put down, but from that to "enormous losses" and "extreme
emergency," there is an abyss, and Werner Eck ought to learn the
difference.
No surprise, we leave in a world where every man in uniform is a
"hero."
SolomonW
> "Enormous" Roman losses? -- Bad use of enormous. Cannae was an
> "enormous" loss for a single day. What battle did the Jews fight
> that could compare? The second revolt was a guerrilla war, wasn't
> it?
Maybe you should read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
ADR
There is no doubt that this was a serious revolt but the Romans
suppressed it in less time than the revolt of 66 CE. In the course of
events, this revolt was not really much of threat to Rome. Romans
dealt with a number of revolts that required lots of muscle to subdue,
notably the Macedonian revolt, the Mithridatean wars (which were
essentially revolts), Illyrian revolt of (6 - 9 CE), the British
revolt, the German revolt (which did result in loss of territory) and
many others. Revolts in Palestine were serious because they
threatened access to Egypt but not beyond the norm for the Roman
Empire.
SolomonW
We do know that the Romans considered it to be a victory much more
important then any of these you listed.
igor
12 legions for the territory is serious, judging by the severity of
roman reprisals they suffered massive losses. "for every action there
is an equal and opposite reaction"
Larry Caldwell
@r10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, te...@tiglath.net (Tiglath) says...
> It was a persistent revolt by a religiously motivated, notoriously
> quarrelsome people, so they had to send SWAT in, because regular
> provincial troopers couldn't cope. Big deal.
>
> Not all governors were good generals, and Tineius Rufus may have been
> an inept one, so Hadrian sent in a better one.
And Hadrian obliterated Judaea, so there would never be another revolt.
It seems he did take it seriously.
JTEM
SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> Maybe you should read this.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt
It's written by religious whack jobs, and contains
zero supporting evidence.
Even worse: For reference (It's very first reference
in fact) it names the very article which you posted
this in support of.
IT'S A SELF-REFERENCING CITE!
Any decent school would fail you on an assignment if
you did that. Yeah, your "scholarship" is well below
school boy standards. Congratulations.
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> There is no doubt that this was a serious revolt
....because it was never just a "Jewish" revolt.
In "Roman History" by Cassius Dio, for example, we
find this:
: ...many outside nations, too, were joining them
: through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth,
: one might almost say, was being stirred up over
: the matter. Then, indeed, Hadrian sent against
: them his best generals.
It's classic scape-goating. The Romans were blaming
a very large, very wide-spread revolt on "da Joooos."
And speaking of wide-spread, Cassius Dio describes
THIS occurring AFTER the razing of Judea:
: He sent Severus into Bithynia, which needed no
: armed force but a governor and leader who was
: just and prudent and a man of rank. All this
: qualifications Severus possessed. And he managed
: and administer both their private and their public
: affairs in such a manner that we are still, even
: to-day, wont to remember him. Pamphylia, in place
: Bithynia, was given to the senate and made
: assignable by lot.
No, it doesn't sound like a great description of
any war, but the very next line places it all within
the proper context:
: This, then, was the end of the war with the Jews.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/69*.html
JTEM
SolomonW <Solom...@nospamMail.com> wrote:
> We do know that the Romans considered it to be
> a victory much more important then any of these
> you listed.
We know that this "Revolt" was wide spread, and
not limited to Judea, and that out of ignorance,
bigotry or political expedience, the Romans
scape-goated and blamed the whole thing on the Jews.
JTEM
igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 12 legions for the territory is serious,
Seriously demented.
Judea wasn't a province, and it wasn't very large.
> judging by the severity of roman reprisals they
> suffered massive losses.
A misreading of the evidence. The Romans were big
on "Law & Order," huge even. They never needed more
excuse than a break down of law & order to justify
the worst brutality. Secondly, nothing appears in a
vacuum. The Jews were not well loved. They were an
unpopular ethnic group.
What, you're not one of those jackasses who think
that Christianity invented anti-Semitism, aare you?
JTEM
Larry Caldwell <ask...@followup.news> wrote:
> And Hadrian obliterated Judaea, so there would never
> be another revolt. It seems he did take it seriously.
You're projecting your only sensibilities on the past,
even as you ignore what history tells you.
Take the example of Carthage. The first two Punic Wars
were incredibly serious for the Romans. The first was
a life-or-death situation, while the second cost them
dearly in men and materials. But it was the third, when
Carthage was no threat what so ever, when Rome obliterated
them from the earth.
Your problem is that you're looking at the Jewish revolt
in isolation, and so you must find motivation for the
Roman actions within that tiny frame work. But the Romans
were never so limited. They themselves were not only
aware of the regions history -- and the reputation of the
Jews for revolt -- but placed the whole matter within the
context of a much greater, wide spread revolt.
And, there's Hardian himself. Nothing consolidates a
leader's power like a victory -- the bigger the better. It
was politically expedient for Hardian to make it out to
be the largest revolt he could, against the most treacherous
ebemy he could describe. Why not use a popular villain --
the Jews -- to prop oneself up?
igor
> igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 12 legions for the territory is serious,
>
> Seriously demented.
>
> Judea wasn't a province, and it wasn't very large.
>
One the main land route to Egypt, vicious, smelly barbarian cutthroats
killed many romans.
> > judging by the severity of roman reprisals they
> > suffered massive losses.
>
> A misreading of the evidence. The Romans were big
> on "Law & Order," huge even. They never needed more
> excuse than a break down of law & order to justify
> the worst brutality. Secondly, nothing appears in a
> vacuum. The Jews were not well loved. They were an
> unpopular ethnic group.
>
> What, you're not one of those jackasses who think
> that Christianity invented anti-Semitism, aare you?
Romans and Semites in general share historical animosity, Enemies
since even earlier then Hannibal, epic, disastrous sufferings,
numerous atrocities, hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of
Semites and their allies documented and remembered very well. They
lost with the destruction of Cartage, despised, many were made slaves,
Jews were famously quarrelsome group one of the to evil, bloodthirsty
Pynics with savage customs terrorizing, killing, causing thousands of
casualties on the main land rout to Egypt for centuries.
Larry Caldwell
> Larry Caldwell<ask...@followup.news> wrote:
> > And Hadrian obliterated Judaea, so there would never
> > be another revolt. It seems he did take it seriously.
>
> You're projecting your only sensibilities on the past,
> even as you ignore what history tells you.
>
> Take the example of Carthage. The first two Punic Wars
> were incredibly serious for the Romans. The first was
> a life-or-death situation, while the second cost them
> dearly in men and materials. But it was the third, when
> Carthage was no threat what so ever, when Rome obliterated
> them from the earth.
In order to make that argument, you need to establish an identity
between Carthage and Judaea. Good luck with that. An analogy with no
relation to reality is just a fairy tale.
> Your problem is that you're looking at the Jewish revolt
> in isolation, and so you must find motivation for the
> Roman actions within that tiny frame work. But the Romans
> were never so limited. They themselves were not only
> aware of the regions history -- and the reputation of the
> Jews for revolt -- but placed the whole matter within the
> context of a much greater, wide spread revolt.
There you go. Rome had a lot of problems with local revolts, and
many, particularly in the Levant, were motivated by religious fervor.
You are the one who is not placing the Jewish revolt in its wider
context. Of course it was a minor skirmish for the Roman Army, but it
was a serious and chronic problem in the context of the Empire.
> And, there's Hardian himself. Nothing consolidates a
> leader's power like a victory -- the bigger the better. It
> was politically expedient for Hardian to make it out to
> be the largest revolt he could, against the most treacherous
> ebemy he could describe. Why not use a popular villain --
> the Jews -- to prop oneself up?
Hadrian did gain a lot of popularity when he found a final solution to
the Jewish problem. That didn't solve Rome's wider problems with
religious riots and revolts. That solution had to wait on Imperial
Christianity, which put the emperor at the head of a state monotheism
and outlawed all the other gods.
ADR
I think that Tiberius was awarded a triumph for his defeat of the
Illyrian revolt. The victories in the Mithridatean wars also ended up
in triumphs. I did not mention the fact there there were numerous
revolts in North Africa and Spain for which various triumphs were
awarded. In fact, both Pompey and Caesar spent part of their careers
suppressing revolts in Spain. Pompey was awarded a triumph and Cato
deprived Caesar of his (got only triumphal ornaments). Revolts during
the imperial period were suppressed mostly by generals who did not
gain triumphs.
JTEM
Larry Caldwell <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 10:47 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Take the example of Carthage. The first two Punic Wars
> > were incredibly serious for the Romans. The first was
> > a life-or-death situation, while the second cost them
> > dearly in men and materials. But it was the third, when
> > Carthage was no threat what so ever, when Rome obliterated
> > them from the earth.
>
> In order to make that argument, you need to establish an
> identity between Carthage and Judaea.
No I don't. You're placing the emphasis on the wrong side.
The issue is Rome, and it's crazy to say that I must
establish an identity between Rome and Rome.
ADR
I doubt that 12 legions were actually involved. This would have meant
a total concentration of about 120,000 troops if one adds up the
auxiliaries of these legions. This would have then involved virtually
all the forces of the Eastern section of the empire. It is far more
likely that ***vexillations from 12 legions*** were utilized. I would
think that this was a standard practice at the time. My guess is that
the empire did not utilize any more than 30,000 troops to suppress the
revolt (and even this would be a large number). Of course, this would
have been a very large force for a single campaign by the standards of
that day.
ADR
> Romans and Semites in general share historical animosity,
No true. By this time, Semites were gaining positions of high rank
and influence in the Empire. Let's not forget that Septimius Severus
was a North African Semite!
> Enemies
> since even earlier then Hannibal, epic, disastrous sufferings,
> numerous atrocities, hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of
> Semites and their allies documented and remembered very well. They
> lost with the destruction of Cartage, despised, many were made slaves,
> Jews were famously quarrelsome group one of the to evil, bloodthirsty
> Pynics with savage customs terrorizing, killing, causing thousands of
> casualties on the main land rout to Egypt for centuries.
There is nothing to indicate that the Jews were less determined
enemies of the Greco-Roman establishment in the Judea than the German
tribes along the Rhine and the Danube or the border tribes in the
North of Britain. The Jews however were sitting on important land
routes (to Egypt and Arabia), and this is what made them a target for
obliteration or full submission.
What the Jews lacked is support from most of the neighboring areas.
Let's not forget that the Roman position in the East was strongly
supported by the Greek speaking establishment of the provinces and
these were the people who enlisted in the Roman legions of the East
(which were also Greek speaking on the main). When Rome lost overall
political support, the Roman positions were easily overturned as the
events of the Palmyrene revolt showed. The big problem with the
Jewish revolts is that they had not a prayer in enlisting the Greek-
speaking populations to produce a general revolt. Thus, they were
isolated events that were eventually suppressed.
Meteorologist
>...
> There you go. Rome had a lot of problems with local revolts, and
> many, particularly in the Levant, were motivated by religious fervor.
> You are the one who is not placing the Jewish revolt in its wider
> context. Of course it was a minor skirmish for the Roman Army, but it
> was a serious and chronic problem in the context of the Empire.
Long-term consequences and historic importance
of Second Jewish Revolt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt#Long-term_consequences_and_historic_importance
"Constantine I allowed Jews to mourn their defeat and humiliation once
a year on Tisha B'Av at the Western Wall. Jews remained scattered for
close to two millennia; their numbers in the region fluctuated with
time.
Modern historians have come to view the Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of
decisive historic importance. The massive destruction and loss of life
occasioned by the revolt has led some scholars to date the beginning
of the Jewish diaspora from this date. They note that, unlike the
aftermath of the First Jewish-Roman War chronicled by Josephus, the
majority of the Jewish population of Judea was either killed, exiled,
or sold into slavery after the Bar-Kokhba Revolt, and Jewish religious
and political authority was suppressed far more brutally. After the
revolt the Jewish religious center shifted to the Babylonian Jewish
community and its scholars. Judea would not be a center of Jewish
religious, cultural, or political life again until the modern era,
though Jews continued to live there and important religious
developments still occurred there. In Galilee, the Jerusalem Talmud
was compiled in the 2nd–4th centuries. Eventually, Safed became known
as a center of Jewish learning, especially Kabbalah in the 15th
century."
---
Answers on the Kingdom
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/3491
"The Qumran sources show, from the Copper Scroll, that
enormous wealth was deposited in vaults in their area
[Qumran]. 4Q159 shows a system of taxation of 'the
600000' that would have brought in great wealth (see
below on the annual income). Since financial calculations
were made on the basis of the 600 000, it was an
actual figure, not simply a symbolic allusion to the
numbers of Israel in Exod 12: 37. It was far more than
the population of Judea, where one of the three
major parties numbered only 4000 (Philo, Every Good
Man, 75), but it accords with Josephus' 'myriads of our
race' in Diaspora countries (Apion 1,194)."
So, the Diaspora dates from well before the time of
the Second Jewish Revolt.
igor
records state12, you cant guess any number you want, you are
forgetting that Romans had no air support.. Strategically premium
area, monopoly on entrance to Egypt for ALL caravan routs. Population
had to be in millions, many literate, huge merchant and religious
classes, religiously fanatical to the extremity killed not just Romans
but each other. I would guess more then 30,000.
Meteorologist
Bar Kokhba revolt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_Kokhba_revolt#Outcome_of_the_war
"Strength -
Legio X Fretensis
Legio VI Ferrata
Legio III Gallica
Legio III Cyrenaica
Legio XXII Deiotariana
Legio X Gamina
Total forces from 12 legions;
60,000-120,000
300,000 Jews+100,000 militia"
ADR
I do not know what "air support" had to do with this. A force of
30,000 men was a substantial force for Roman standards. The Roman
empire in the Principate did not have all that many troops and it was
not about to denude its frontiers to suppress a rebellion in
Palestine. It was a common practice to send vexillations, a number of
cohorts from legions stationed in relatively calm frontiers to beef up
the forces in a given area. Thus, it is possible that elements of 12
legions were present at Palestine at the time of the rebellion. It
was not Roman practice to move whole legions from front to front.
Even a force of 60,000 troops would have been an enormous
undertaking. Let's not forget that there were no railroads, and these
men had to be provisioned in a regular fashion with carts drawn by
animals. The logistical problems of putting such a large force on the
ground were many. I really doubt that there were more than 30,000
troops at any time. Of course, the rebels could only field a fraction
of that number. Let's not forget that Julius Caesar had about that
number of troops in his campaign against Pompey in Greece at a time
when there were far more legions around (about 120) and the legions
were far more mobile than the empire formations. Even large
expedition armies were limited in numbers. Claudius invaded Britain
with a total of 4 full legions (about 40,000 men). On the basis of
campaigns of this period, placing 12 whole legions in Palestine does
not seem possible.
Larry Caldwell
@u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, jte...@gmail.com (JTEM) says...
>
> Larry Caldwell <lar...@peaksky.com> wrote:
You are getting close. If you think it through just a little more, you
will probably figure it out. Here's a hint: What changed about Rome
between the 2nd and 3rd Punic wars? Hadrian's destruction of Judaea had
nothing to do with Carthage, and everything to do with Rome.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The big problem with the Jewish revolts is that
> they had not a prayer in enlisting the Greek-
> speaking populations to produce a general revolt.
> Thus, they were isolated events that were
> eventually suppressed.
Ironically, the particular revolt we are speaking
of was not isolated, and did include Greek speakers.
In "Roman History" by Cassius Dio, for example, we
find this:
: ...many outside nations, too, were joining them
: through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth,
: one might almost say, was being stirred up over
: the matter. Then, indeed, Hadrian sent against
: them his best generals.
And Bithynia, which is named as one of the offending
provinces, contained one of your "Greek Speaking"
peoples (it was even partly colonized by early
Greeks).
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/69*.html
JTEM
ADR <aretz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I doubt that 12 legions were actually involved.
It easily could have been, depending on how wide
spread the troubles were.
It wasn't 12 legions in Judea, that's for sure...
JTEM
IRONY 101
Larry Caldwell <N...@this.address> wrote:
> You are getting close. If you think it through
> just a little more, you will probably figure it
> out.
Get ready for it...
> Hadrian's destruction of Judaea had nothing to
> do with Carthage, and everything to do with Rome.
Oddly, that is exactly what I had been saying from
the start. And if you go back and re-read what
you're replying to (for content), you'll see your
error.
igor
Not for **sure**, dont use this word again when the subject is ancient
history, young man.
Day Brown
Vietnam. The Jews were singularly different in that they were literate.
It was required to be able to read scripture. It, and not any particular
sacred site, or even royal lineage, was at the heart of the problem.
And since then, we still see the zealots using scripture to justify any
depravity as an expression of the 'will of god'. The usual repressive
techniques of the military do not work against martyrdom, and even make
the cause more noble.
But were it not for the effect of the scripture that came out of the
"Holy Land", what went on there was a triviality. Just as the Temple
Mount today, it became the SYMBOL of moral high ground. The Romans would
have had much more success if they ignored the monumental architecture
and just burned the scriptures while funding schools in Latin and Greek
for the boys smart enuf to become literate.
Today, we see where scripture is challenged in ASCII just like this, and
it does not stand up very well to careful logical analysis. Formerly,
nobody stood up in the congregation to challenge BS from the pulpit, so
those spiritual traditions that relied on pulpits dont do so well. There
is an effort to use TV, and great economic enterprises have been built
on that, but only among the most gullible.
The number of recent movies, with talented scripts and acting, that now
characterized the deity as female indicates an ongoing religious
revolution that will make whatever happened in the Holy Land- trivial.
ADR
> The Romans didnt understand what they were dealing with; just like
> Vietnam. The Jews were singularly different in that they were literate.
> It was required to be able to read scripture. It, and not any particular
> sacred site, or even royal lineage, was at the heart of the problem.
The Jews may have been literate, but there were many other revolts
that the Romans faced that were more challenging than the Jewish
revolt. The great Illyrian revolt is a good example. Forces under
Tiberius and Germanicus were deployed and the Romans brought in about
15 legions (or elements of these legions). Actually, the Romans had
to emancipate slaves to raise enough troops to fight this rebellion.
Let's not make this any more than it was.
Day Brown
Vietnam was not either. Just that the usual tactic, such as the
destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, didnt solve the problem cause
the Romans didnt properly understand it.
As for Illrycium, I recall Gibbon noting how, when the pope took over,
he seized land and gave it to his supporters to keep an eye on things
there for him. Then, when the Sultan took it, he did the same, as did
the Eastern Orthodox patriarch. Gibbon thot all the stolen land would
be, as we see it was, a constant source of warfare.
ADR
> ADR wrote:
> > On Feb 12, 11:46 am, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The Romans didnt understand what they were dealing with; just like
> >> Vietnam. The Jews were singularly different in that they were literate.
> >> It was required to be able to read scripture. It, and not any particular
> >> sacred site, or even royal lineage, was at the heart of the problem.
>
> > The Jews may have been literate, but there were many other revolts
> > that the Romans faced that were more challenging than the Jewish
> > revolt. The great Illyrian revolt is a good example. Forces under
> > Tiberius and Germanicus were deployed and the Romans brought in about
> > 15 legions (or elements of these legions). Actually, the Romans had
> > to emancipate slaves to raise enough troops to fight this rebellion.
>
> > Let's not make this any more than it was.
>
> I didnt mean to imply it was any significant threat to the empire.
> Vietnam was not either. Just that the usual tactic, such as the
> destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, didnt solve the problem cause
> the Romans didnt properly understand it.
You assume that the destruction of the temple was an act of policy.
In fact, it was not. The siege of Jerusalem was a long drawn out
affair and quite bloody. The Roman commanders had little say of what
happened to a town when it was eventually stormed. Looting and
killing and burning was the typical consequence when resistance ended
and the legionnaires made sure that they ended up with their part of
the loot.
Day Brown
> You assume that the destruction of the temple was an act of policy.
> In fact, it was not. The siege of Jerusalem was a long drawn out
> affair and quite bloody. The Roman commanders had little say of what
> happened to a town when it was eventually stormed. Looting and
> killing and burning was the typical consequence when resistance ended
> and the legionnaires made sure that they ended up with their part of
> the loot.
recent times to hit on the monumental symbols of power, such as the
temple, to demonstrate the superiority of the aggressors.
Hauling the Jewish literate elite off to Rome as slaves didnt have the
expected effect either since the Romans didnt take the Jewish literature
away, but merely re-established them in Rome.
JTEM
Meteorologist <dchristain...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Modern historians have come to view the
> Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of decisive
> historic importance.
It's convenient. If the facts don't jive with
the religion, you simply brush it off as the
result of the huge, important war.
...not too long ago I was channel flipping,
and caught a few minutes of that "naked
archaeologist" nut. He (as film maker, not
"he" as "he spoke the words") was claiming
that a cache of Roman military retirement records
dating to the period about 20 years following
the revolt proved that the Romans suffered
huge loses.
The logic was that the reason why there were
so many retiring was because so many were
recruited, and so many were recruited because
so many died.
There was a great deal wrong with this nonsense.
The first and most obvious being: What the
hell were they comparing these records to?
Anyhow, the exact same "evidence" can lead to
the exact opposite conclusion: That so many
were retiring because so few had died in service.
Our only real "Evidence" for this so-called
rebellion says that it was wide spread OUTSIDE
of any Judea.
At it's surface it seems quite usual: A new
leader (in this case, a new Roman Emperor) is
the time to strike. He may be weaker or less
competent than the last guy, and no matter what
he hasn't had an opportunity to consolidate his
power, and he himself is at his most vulnerable.
See, in a culture where the closer you are to the
top the more powerful you are, you very quickly
reach a point where everyone in power is dependent
on the current leader/king. The only people who
want to see the leader gone are those without any
power, because that's the only way of opening up
all the positions filled by those close to the
leader.
...the Romans themselves were acutely aware
of this fact, and often waited until the leader
died before absorbing a territory. It's also
why civilizations as old as Egypt would often have
a "co-regent." The theory being that when the
regent (king) died, you wouldn't have this period
of vulnerability, because the co-regent had
already been there for years.
Secondly, it never hurts to stage your rebellion
at the same time that someone else does. It forces
your enemy to divide their forces.
Anyway, so rome had a new Emperor, and THAT was
the moment for any & all rebellious leaders to
strike, and the more that rose up against the new
Emperor, the safer it seemed for the next guy to
rise up against him. The result was a wide spread
rebellion.
A wide spread rebellion would be reason enough to
recruit large numbers of new soldiers.
...and one strategy you might take against a
wide spread rebellion would be to make an example
out of someone. You know, you grind that Judea
under your heel, and then all the others see what
you did and think, "Gee, on second thought, I
don't want to fight against Rome."
Now, if you accept the above you've got to conclude
that judea wasn't the most important provence, or
that it wasn't the toughest fight. Nope. You'd have to
come to the opposite conclusion.
You destroy Judea as an example and NOT somewhere
else, because you value the someplace else. You don't
want to lose it. You don't want it destroyed. So
instead of making an example of the someplace else,
you make an example of the place you don't value.
...and THE LAST thing you do is pick a tough
battle. You don't want to bleed yourself dry, and
you certainly don't want all the other rebels to
see you struggle. Nope. you want "Over Kill," not
"Valiant Struggle."
JTEM
Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ADR wrote:
> > You assume that the destruction of the temple was
> > an act of policy.
> As may be. But it was standard procedure in ancient
> as well as more recent times to hit on the monumental
> symbols of power, such as the temple, to demonstrate
> the superiority of the aggressors.
The Temple was destroyed in the FIRST rebellion in 70
AD (CE). It was long gone by the time of Hadrian.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Sack_of_jerusalem.JPG
Meteorologist
Your views are interesting; thank-you.
David Christainsen
Day Brown
millennia, and still goes on today as fanatics attack churches and
synagogues.
ADR
> > The Temple was destroyed in the FIRST rebellion in 70
> > AD (CE). It was long gone by the time of Hadrian.
>
> >http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Sack_of_jerusalem.JPG
>
> Read what I said. Standard procedure. Which was carried out for
> millennia, and still goes on today as fanatics attack churches and
> synagogues.
Churches and synagogues do not constitute "monumental" architecture.
And no, it was not "standard procedure". Nobody, for example,
destroyed the monuments of Rome despite the fact that the city was
captured a number of times. Most of the destruction was from locals
who stripped the monuments to built their houses. Occassionally,
monuments are destroyed because they do not fit with the "current"
thinking. The Romans captured Athens after a siege in the
Mithridatean war but did not tear down the Parthenon, did they?
Let's have an informed discussion
igor
Romans viewed religion as the main culprit, thus destruction of temple
and outlawing of Judaism. Only severe losses would explain such
drastic reprisals only comparable in magnitude to Cartage, AFAIK.
ADR
Oh, come on. Romans had a problem with anybody disputing Roman
authority. Reprisals were drastic in every rebellion. In fact, in
various cases they were much worse than in Judea. Julius Caesar
exterminated two Celtic tribes: the Veneti and the Belgae, for simply
having the temerity to oppose him.
Day Brown
> On Feb 17, 2:13 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> The Temple was destroyed in the FIRST rebellion in 70
>>> AD (CE). It was long gone by the time of Hadrian.
>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Sack_of_jerusalem.JPG
>> Read what I said. Standard procedure. Which was carried out for
>> millennia, and still goes on today as fanatics attack churches and
>> synagogues.
>
> Churches and synagogues do not constitute "monumental" architecture.
Chartes. Synagogues would as well if there were a rich enuf Jewish
community to support a monumental scale and they were not worried about
antisemitism. But in the Roman era, they werent. Anti-Semitism didnt
really get going until the Christians took over.
Several mosques have been bombed as well. The rule has always been, that
any god which cant protect his holy spaces is no god. That's why it was
such a big deal when Achilles attacked the temple of Apollo in the
initial hit on Troy. The PSYCHOLOGY of the attack, to prove that the
Greeks were mightier than the Trojan god was a standard propaganda trick
that still goes on.
igor
Neither were exterminated. Veneti who never had a kingdom nor cities
and were a minor tribe lost a few strongholds then some were killed or
enslaved, were made an example of, exterminated is not the right
description, most likely after loosing their nobility blended with
other tribes. Belgae on the other hand were many tribes and too
numerous to be exterminated, some of them were enslaved or killed, the
great majority migrated.
Martin Edwards
St Augustine used that argument. The old gods could not have been any
good because they could not protect Rome at the time of writing.
--
As through this world I've rambled, I've met plenty of funny men,
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen.
Woody Guthrie
Day Brown
>> Several mosques have been bombed as well. The rule has always been,
>> that any god which cant protect his holy spaces is no god. That's why
>> it was such a big deal when Achilles attacked the temple of Apollo in
>> the initial hit on Troy. The PSYCHOLOGY of the attack, to prove that
>> the Greeks were mightier than the Trojan god was a standard propaganda
>> trick that still goes on.
>
> St Augustine used that argument. The old gods could not have been any
> good because they could not protect Rome at the time of writing.
down pagan sacred groves. There was also a notable report from India,
where the Hindus charged that Muslims destroyed a Hindu temple to build
a Mosque, which had always been loudly denied. But then, someone bombed
the Mosque, and there beneath the rubble, were the foundation stones of
the Hindu temple.
The fact that I did not pick up on the fact it was not Hadrian that
destroyed the second temple is a triviality that is beside the point.
I did not take a stand on the death rate in the Jewish war. Nor is there
likely to ever be a way to establish what that was. There have been
similar statements about the losses that led to Hadrian's wall. At the
same time, there's numerous examples in history where the empire drew
the line saying there was nothing worth fighting for beyond the pale. I
dont see anyway to establish that either.
Matt Giwer
> Meteorologist<dchristain...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Modern historians have come to view the
>> Bar-Kokhba Revolt as being of decisive
>> historic importance.
> It's convenient. If the facts don't jive with
> the religion, you simply brush it off as the
> result of the huge, important war.
> ...not too long ago I was channel flipping,
> and caught a few minutes of that "naked
> archaeologist" nut. He (as film maker, not
> "he" as "he spoke the words") was claiming
> that a cache of Roman military retirement records
> dating to the period about 20 years following
> the revolt proved that the Romans suffered
> huge loses.
I did catch one of his shows. Should I find the time I will inquire as to the
institution which granted his degree and then give them a call to see if they
really did. If you missed it, he is rah-rah jewish. I expect to find his real
degree is in jewish studies which ranks with black studies and women's studies.
> the moment for any& all rebellious leaders to
There are quite enough records of that revolt to outline what happened in
Judea. Resistance collapsed rather quickly and retreated to Jerusalem. The
"defenders" became so busy killing each other off for leadership and fighting
over who would be anointed messiah that the Romans waited until the resistance
decimated themselves.
In "Invention of the Jewish People" Sand makes rather quick work disposing of
the idea of any diaspora but given the footnote density he could have made the
book unreadable had he gone into detail.
--
It does not matter what words are used.
It matters only what is understood.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4232
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Mon Feb 22 00:21:44 EST 2010
Matt Giwer
> St Augustine used that argument. The old gods could not have been any
> good because they could not protect Rome at the time of writing.
Showing he had little affinity for the OT else that argument would be more
telling regarding Judea.
However what can you expect from a man who says he would not believe were it
not for church authorities -- to offer a slightly different translation of his
words.
--
The only serious debate on WWII is whether Communism was either as bad as
Nazism or worse than Nazism. The vocal but irrelevant dissenters hold Nazism
was worse than Communism because Nazism happened to them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4222
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Mon Feb 22 00:37:47 EST 2010
Matt Giwer
> Romans viewed religion as the main culprit, thus destruction of temple
> and outlawing of Judaism. Only severe losses would explain such
> drastic reprisals only comparable in magnitude to Cartage, AFAIK.
When was the Yahweh cult outlawed by Rome?
--
The only possible future for the land between the Jordan and the Med is the
present situation. What is not clear is how long the world will permit it to
exist.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4320
http://www.haaretz.com What is Israel really like? http://www.jpost.com a7
Mon Feb 22 00:41:48 EST 2010
igor
Is this a trick question?? In 136
Hadrian attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of
continuous rebellions. He prohibited the Torah law and the Hebrew
calendar, and executed Judaic scholars. The sacred scroll was
ceremonially burned on the Temple Mount. At the former Temple
sanctuary, he installed two statues, one of Jupiter, another of
himself. In an attempt to erase any memory of Judea or Ancient Israel,
he wiped the name off the map and replaced it with Syria Palaestina,
after the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Jews; previously,
similar terms had been used to describe only the (smaller) former
Philistine homeland to the west of Judaea. Since then, the land has
been referred to as "Palestine," which supplanted earlier terms such
as "Iudaea" (Judaea) and Israel. Similarly, he re-established
Jerusalem as the Roman pagan polis of Aelia Capitolina, and Jews were
forbidden from entering it. Unfortunately for Hadrian, Rabbinic
Judaism had already become a portable religion, centered around
synagogues, and the Jews themselves kept books and dispersed
throughout the Roman world and beyond.
Matt Giwer
> On Feb 21, 9:43 pm, Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 02/17/2010 10:19 PM, igor wrote:
>>
>>> Romans viewed religion as the main culprit, thus destruction of temple
>>> and outlawing of Judaism. Only severe losses would explain such
>>> drastic reprisals only comparable in magnitude to Cartage, AFAIK.
>>
>> When was the Yahweh cult outlawed by Rome?
>>
>> --
>> The only possible future for the land between the Jordan and the Med is the
>> present situation. What is not clear is how long the world will permit it to
>> exist.
>> -- The Iron Webmaster, 4320
>> http://www.haaretz.comWhat is Israel really like?http://www.jpost.coma7
>> Mon Feb 22 00:41:48 EST 2010
> Is this a trick question?? In 136
The proclamation of changing it from a legitimate to an illegitimate religion
is to be read on which document? The actions which is in constitute support
for the existence of a declaration of illegality were what? A simple statement
of it illegality after Hadrian is to be read where?
To the contrary I have read many references to the Yahweh cult after that
revolt none indicate or infer it was considered illegal. What have you read to
the contrary which explicitly supports your claim?
> Hadrian attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of
> continuous rebellions. He prohibited the Torah law and the Hebrew
> calendar, and executed Judaic scholars. The sacred scroll was
> ceremonially burned on the Temple Mount.
There were members of the cult all over the empire at the time. The precinct
of cult members outside of Rome had been there since they were expelled from
Rome in the 1st c. BC. What happened to them? Nothing of course.
> At the former Temple
> sanctuary, he installed two statues, one of Jupiter, another of
> himself.
The temple was destroyed in the previous revolt.
> In an attempt to erase any memory of Judea or Ancient Israel,
> he wiped the name off the map and replaced it with Syria Palaestina,
> after the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Jews; previously,
> similar terms had been used to describe only the (smaller) former
> Philistine homeland to the west of Judaea.
As you should know by now Herodotus was the first to mention Palestine and
Palestinians in the 5th c. BC. You should also know the Judeans do not appear
in history until the 1st c. BC. You should also know Phillistines are an
invented people found only in the Aramaic translation of the Septuagint.
> Since then, the land has
> been referred to as "Palestine," which supplanted earlier terms such
> as "Iudaea" (Judaea) and Israel.
You should also know there is no evidence there was ever a geographic area
called Israel. As above you know how late Judea appears.
> Similarly, he re-established
> Jerusalem as the Roman pagan polis of Aelia Capitolina, and Jews were
> forbidden from entering it.
Which of course is the sole basis for the diaspora myth of expulsion from
Judea -- at least you appear to know that.
> Unfortunately for Hadrian, Rabbinic
> Judaism had already become a portable religion, centered around
> synagogues, and the Jews themselves kept books and dispersed
> throughout the Roman world and beyond.
And if you did not know all of the corrections I have made you have had
opportunities for nearly two years to present evidence for what you profess to
believe.
--
The threshold of atrocity is 6,000,000 - 1.
The threshold of atrocity is six million minus one.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4235
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Mon Feb 22 23:26:09 EST 2010
igor
> On 02/22/2010 10:24 PM, igor wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 9:43 pm, Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >> On 02/17/2010 10:19 PM, igor wrote:
>
> >>> Romans viewed religion as the main culprit, thus destruction of temple
> >>> and outlawing of Judaism. Only severe losses would explain such
> >>> drastic reprisals only comparable in magnitude to Cartage, AFAIK.
>
> >> When was the Yahweh cult outlawed by Rome?
>
> >> --
> >> The only possible future for the land between the Jordan and the Med is the
> >> present situation. What is not clear is how long the world will permit it to
> >> exist.
> >> -- The Iron Webmaster, 4320
> >> Mon Feb 22 00:41:48 EST 2010
> > Is this a trick question?? In 136
>
> The proclamation of changing it from a legitimate to an illegitimate religion
> is to be read on which document? The actions which is in constitute support
> for the existence of a declaration of illegality were what? A simple statement
> of it illegality after Hadrian is to be read where?
>
References
^ for the year 136, see: W. Eck, ' The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman
Point of View', pp. 87-88.
^ a b Cassius Dio, The Roman History
^ Book of Numbers 24:17: There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a
sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab,
and destroy all the children of Sheth.
^ L. J. F. Keppie (2000) Legions and veterans: Roman army papers
1971-2000 Franz Steiner Verlag, ISBN 3515077448 pp 228-229
^ livius.org account(Legio XXII Deiotariana)
^ The 'Five Good Emperors' (roman-empire.net)
^ Mosaic or mosaic?—The Genesis of the Israeli Language by Zuckermann,
Gilad
^ a b c d Katz, Shmuel, Battleground, (1974), page 96
^ Published by the Peace Now movement, of which Harkabi was a founding
member [1].
^ Avraham Yaari, Igrot Eretz Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1943), p. 46.
> To the contrary I have read many references to the Yahweh cult after that
> revolt none indicate or infer it was considered illegal. What have you read to
> the contrary which explicitly supports your claim?
>
References
^ for the year 136, see: W. Eck, ' The Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Roman
Point of View', pp. 87-88.
^ a b Cassius Dio, The Roman History
^ Book of Numbers 24:17: There shall come a star out of Jacob, and a
sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab,
and destroy all the children of Sheth.
^ L. J. F. Keppie (2000) Legions and veterans: Roman army papers
1971-2000 Franz Steiner Verlag, ISBN 3515077448 pp 228-229
^ livius.org account(Legio XXII Deiotariana)
^ The 'Five Good Emperors' (roman-empire.net)
^ Mosaic or mosaic?—The Genesis of the Israeli Language by Zuckermann,
Gilad
^ a b c d Katz, Shmuel, Battleground, (1974), page 96
^ Published by the Peace Now movement, of which Harkabi was a founding
member [1].
^ Avraham Yaari, Igrot Eretz Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1943), p. 46.
What are your references???
ADR
> On Feb 21, 9:43 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > On 02/17/2010 10:19 PM, igor wrote:
>
> > > Romans viewed religion as the main culprit, thus destruction of temple
> > > and outlawing of Judaism. Only severe losses would explain such
> > > drastic reprisals only comparable in magnitude to Cartage, AFAIK.
>
> > When was the Yahweh cult outlawed by Rome?
>
> > --
> > The only possible future for the land between the Jordan and the Med is the
> > present situation. What is not clear is how long the world will permit it to
> > exist.
> > -- The Iron Webmaster, 4320
> > Mon Feb 22 00:41:48 EST 2010
>
> Is this a trick question?? In 136
>
> Hadrian attempted to root out Judaism, which he saw as the cause of
> continuous rebellions. He prohibited the Torah law and the Hebrew
> calendar, and executed Judaic scholars. The sacred scroll was
> ceremonially burned on the Temple Mount. At the former Temple
> sanctuary, he installed two statues, one of Jupiter, another of
> himself. In an attempt to erase any memory of Judea or Ancient Israel,
> he wiped the name off the map and replaced it with Syria Palaestina,
> after the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Jews; previously,
> similar terms had been used to describe only the (smaller) former
> Philistine homeland to the west of Judaea. Since then, the land has
> been referred to as "Palestine," which supplanted earlier terms such
> as "Iudaea" (Judaea) and Israel. Similarly, he re-established
> Jerusalem as the Roman pagan polis of Aelia Capitolina, and Jews were
> forbidden from entering it. Unfortunately for Hadrian, Rabbinic
> Judaism had already become a portable religion, centered around
> synagogues, and the Jews themselves kept books and dispersed
> throughout the Roman world and beyond.
Well, this is a bit misguided. Nothing here is anything beyond the
norm. The Romans did much the same in occupied Gaul and Britain.
They destroyed original centers of habitation and erected new cities
with grand civic monuments. They did this in North Africa, Illyria
and Germany. And the Romans were not as determined to wipe out the
Jewish religion as they were in wiping out Druism.
The name Palestine was quite old by the time of Hadrian. Judea was a
client kingdom for the longest time. The utilization of the term
Palestine is simply regression to the much older Greek term for the
place.
One may want to see something unique here, but there is nothing
unique. It was a typical revolt, no more or less bloody than others
and Roman policy in suppressing it was similar to other rebellions
suppressed by Rome. In fact, Rome was far more successful in
suppressing the Jews than populations in North Africa or Germany.
Let's not forget that the Germans remained free, defeating the Roman
armies west of the Rhine (and the Romans never returned). And all they
had to do it with was Wotan and no books!!!
igor
> On Feb 22, 7:24 pm, igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 9:43 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 02/17/2010 10:19 PM, igor wrote:
>
> > > > Romans viewed religion as the main culprit, thus destruction of temple
> > > > and outlawing of Judaism. Only severe losses would explain such
> > > > drastic reprisals only comparable in magnitude to Cartage, AFAIK.
>
> > > When was the Yahweh cult outlawed by Rome?
>
> > > --
> > > The only possible future for the land between the Jordan and the Med is the
> > > present situation. What is not clear is how long the world will permit it to
> > > exist.
> > > -- The Iron Webmaster, 4320
Why is it misguided?? There were many events as brutal as Judean wars,
there is no argument here.
> The name Palestine was quite old by the time of Hadrian. Judea was a
> client kingdom for the longest time. The utilization of the term
> Palestine is simply regression to the much older Greek term for the
> place.
>
> One may want to see something unique here, but there is nothing
> unique. It was a typical revolt, no more or less bloody than others
> and Roman policy in suppressing it was similar to other rebellions
> suppressed by Rome. In fact, Rome was far more successful in
> suppressing the Jews than populations in North Africa or Germany.
> Let's not forget that the Germans remained free, defeating the Roman
> armies west of the Rhine (and the Romans never returned). And all they
> had to do it with was Wotan and no books!!!
The uniqueness of the whole history of Judea in relation to Rome that
it conquered it ideologically and thats fascinating to me. Instead of
gladiatorial games where human misery is on display, today we watch
winter Olympics. LOL
Martin Edwards
Martin Edwards
> On 02/19/2010 09:52 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>
>> St Augustine used that argument. The old gods could not have been any
>> good because they could not protect Rome at the time of writing.
>
> Showing he had little affinity for the OT else that argument would
> be more telling regarding Judea.
>
> However what can you expect from a man who says he would not believe
> were it not for church authorities -- to offer a slightly different
> translation of his words.
>
Matt Giwer
You would wish me to do as you and simply list sources with titles which
appear to have a superficial connection with the subject?
Why would I play your silly game?
--
Every time antisemitism is used to respond to criticism
of Israel it becomes more respectable.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4223
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Wed Feb 24 00:21:40 EST 2010
Matt Giwer
...
> The uniqueness of the whole history of Judea in relation to Rome that
> it conquered it ideologically and thats fascinating to me.
Let your creative juices flow. Tell me a story about how it was unique. Do
not forget to liberally invoke Hollywood sources.
> Instead of
> gladiatorial games where human misery is on display, today we watch
> winter Olympics. LOL
But look at all the stonings for mixing wool and flax in the same clothing we
miss. I haven't be able to whack anyone with a stone since I was a kid. It is
a great bloodsport. The US appears to have been saddled with the savagery of
ritual genital mutilation because of those primitives.
--
The only possible future for the land between the Jordan and the Med is the
present situation. What is not clear is how long the world will permit it to
exist.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4320
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Antisemitism a10
Wed Feb 24 00:25:11 EST 2010
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
...
>> There are quite enough records of that revolt to outline what happened
>> in Judea. Resistance collapsed rather quickly and retreated to
>> Jerusalem. The "defenders" became so busy killing each other off for
>> leadership and fighting over who would be anointed messiah that the
>> Romans waited until the resistance decimated themselves.
> Rather worse than that.
Disease and starvation are presumed and need not be mentioned. There was
something about having to stop people from leaving the city for a while
because they were escaping in such great numbers.
--
Guilt and accomplishment go together.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4225
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Wed Feb 24 00:33:12 EST 2010
Martin Edwards
> On 02/23/2010 02:56 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
> ...
>>> There are quite enough records of that revolt to outline what happened
>>> in Judea. Resistance collapsed rather quickly and retreated to
>>> Jerusalem. The "defenders" became so busy killing each other off for
>>> leadership and fighting over who would be anointed messiah that the
>>> Romans waited until the resistance decimated themselves.
>
>> Rather worse than that.
>
> Disease and starvation are presumed and need not be mentioned. There
> was something about having to stop people from leaving the city for a
> while because they were escaping in such great numbers.
>
Americans.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 02/23/2010 02:56 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> ...
>>>> There are quite enough records of that revolt to outline what happened
>>>> in Judea. Resistance collapsed rather quickly and retreated to
>>>> Jerusalem. The "defenders" became so busy killing each other off for
>>>> leadership and fighting over who would be anointed messiah that the
>>>> Romans waited until the resistance decimated themselves.
>>> Rather worse than that.
>> Disease and starvation are presumed and need not be mentioned. There
>> was something about having to stop people from leaving the city for a
>> while because they were escaping in such great numbers.
> I meant worse than decimated. I keep forgetting that I am dealing with
> Americans.
Brits never did learn good English. To an American decimate means closer to
reduced to 1/10th not by 1/10th.
--
Guilt and accomplishment go together.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4225
http://www.giwersworld.org/bible/sewer-bible.phtml a15
Thu Feb 25 17:16:32 EST 2010
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On 02/17/2010 02:03 AM, JTEM wrote:
>
> > ...not too long ago I was channel flipping,
> > and caught a few minutes of that "naked
> > archaeologist" nut.
> I did catch one of his shows. Should I find
> the time I will inquire as to the institution which
> granted his degree and then give them a call to
> see if they really did.
Why bother? He doesn't have one. He's a film maker
by occupation. Before that episode I just happened
to catch (quite by accident), I had never heard to
claim to actually be an archaeologist. As far as I
was aware, he had never previously lied and claimed
that he was.
> There are quite enough records of that revolt to
> outline what happened in Judea.
The evidence is open to interpretation. You're certain about
what you see only because of your anti-Semitism.
> Resistance collapsed rather quickly and retreated to
> Jerusalem.
The Romans made your Nazis look like an undisciplined
rabble. It's a virtual certainty that the Romans took their
sweet time, crunched all the numbers, and only moved
decisively when they are overwhelming odds behind them.
Until then, they very likely did give the rebels free reign over
PART of Judea. I doubt that the rebels ever came close to
threatening Roman Caesarea.
> The "defenders" became so busy killing each other off for
> leadership
It sounds like you're confusing the first revolt for the second.
Yes, the first revolt seems to have been plagued by various
factions -- the religious nuts quite willing to kill in order to
keep the "Wrong" rebels out of the temple, but the second
rebellion appears to avoided all this with the rallying behind
"Simon Bar Kokhba"... at least until they lost. Then the
Priests (at least) were eager to throw him under the bus,
using him (and his ungodliness) as an excuse for their loss.
> In "Invention of the Jewish People" Sand makes
If he is where you're feeding your anti-Semitism from...errr...
getting your "Information" from, he's worthless. He appears
to be confusing the two revolts.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> On 02/17/2010 02:03 AM, JTEM wrote:
>>> ...not too long ago I was channel flipping,
>>> and caught a few minutes of that "naked
>>> archaeologist" nut.
>> I did catch one of his shows. Should I find
>> the time I will inquire as to the institution which
>> granted his degree and then give them a call to
>> see if they really did.
> Why bother? He doesn't have one. He's a film maker
> by occupation. Before that episode I just happened
> to catch (quite by accident), I had never heard to
> claim to actually be an archaeologist. As far as I
> was aware, he had never previously lied and claimed
> that he was.
Titles can be deceiving. He is as obviously not an arkie as he is obviously
not naked. Actually I thought I had come across to a proper degree in the field.
>> There are quite enough records of that revolt to
>> outline what happened in Judea.
> The evidence is open to interpretation. You're certain about
> what you see only because of your anti-Semitism.
Anti-Judeanism is all that would apply here. I can refer you to Josephus
recounting the conquest and forced conversion of the Galileans by the Judeans.
If you want to get a grip on the real OT/NT conflict the Jesus-figure/metaphor
is one whose ancestor suffered forced conversion to the Judean Yahweh cult.
Damned right he and his followers were going to judge Judea for their crimes
against the Galileans.
BTW: If you are really hung up on "antisemitism" you should catch a screening
of "Defamation." It is a tale of an Israeli Jew in search of antisemitism and
unable to find it.
>> Resistance collapsed rather quickly and retreated to
>> Jerusalem.
> The Romans made your Nazis look like an undisciplined
> rabble. It's a virtual certainty that the Romans took their
> sweet time, crunched all the numbers, and only moved
> decisively when they are overwhelming odds behind them.
I have often observed Caesar, unlike Hitler, is praised for conquering Gaul
even though they both had roughly the same reasons. I also note Julius and
Adolf are the same kind of person and it is only hypocrisy which results in
different evaluations. It is not that I have any particular interest in Hitler
or the Nazis but rather Rome is a shining example of good alway triumphing.
You cannot deal with history as it really is. You should learn to do so. You
should learn correctly calling murderers as murderers is related to The King's
New Clothes.
> Until then, they very likely did give the rebels free reign over
> PART of Judea. I doubt that the rebels ever came close to
> threatening Roman Caesarea.
As I recall from what I have read and what I get from between the lines
because historians really do not understand military matters. Unlike the
previous revolt Rome was able to react rather more quickly.
>> The "defenders" became so busy killing each other off for
>> leadership
> It sounds like you're confusing the first revolt for the second.
> Yes, the first revolt seems to have been plagued by various
> factions -- the religious nuts quite willing to kill in order to
> keep the "Wrong" rebels out of the temple, but the second
> rebellion appears to avoided all this with the rallying behind
> "Simon Bar Kokhba"... at least until they lost. Then the
> Priests (at least) were eager to throw him under the bus,
> using him (and his ungodliness) as an excuse for their loss.
I am not in a googling mood at the moment. You might search on anointing,
kokbah and messiah. I do make a mistake every year or so. Perhaps I have
satisfied by 2010 quota.
>> In "Invention of the Jewish People" Sand makes
> If he is where you're feeding your anti-Semitism from...errr...
> getting your "Information" from, he's worthless. He appears
> to be confusing the two revolts.
None of my other material comes from Sand. As to your preferred opinion of
worthless you have not read the book. Pick a page and I will give you the
opening words. I have read it. The density of footnotes and his digression on
them almost makes the book unreadable. His style is way too close to academic.
It is difficult to see how this became a PRAISED best seller in Israel. Of
course Israelis do not know he is worthless. You should inform them.
That said, he cites nothing at all that is new. I have read all of it before.
I was surprised to find so many sources for the same information that are so
old. I mean the Khazars are old news. New news is a letter from them to a
rabbi in Spain talking about themselves as what we would call Jews while they
were alive and kicking. As for your stupid Israeli Jews there was a recent
announcement of the probable discovering of the capital city of the Khazars
which was met with much interest in Israel.
Far from worthless is his presentation of the density of material which
supports the general outlines of what we know from other sources. I have know
for a long time of the "jewish" catacombs outside Rome and have used the
drawings of Moses striking a rock and water flowing to show the anti-image
part was added after the 1st c. BC. I also noted the image of a seven candle
menorah also negates the myth that the temple one had nine particularly when
the arch of Titus shows only seven.
What I got from it is right from his specialty of European history. His
outline of the evolution of the "people" and "nation" concept during the 19th
and early 20th century answered a lot of questions I had from related reading.
That lecture is worth the entire book. Once digested it is clear "jews" could
not have been a concept which was not developed until the late 19th c.
I do not expect murderers to like his book. They turned against Koestler too
even though all he did was write a popular version of what academics had known
for nearly a century prior. These murderers have a remarkable ability to
reinvent history. They were able to replace the firm knowledge of the
antiquity of Palestine from Herodotus with the myth the name was created by
Hadrian's Rome in only a couple decades.
I do not expect you murderers to like the known facts. I also know you resort
to name-calling instead of producing a better explanation of the known facts.
The latter is in an of itself sufficient to ignore you delusional ravings.
I you work real hard you might come to understand why David Ben-Gurian
mentioned both his Khazar ancestry and that the Palestinians were descendants
of Judeans who converted.
--
Hodie quarto Kalendas Martias MMX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Fri Feb 26 00:26:56 EST 2010
Kendall K Down
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Brits never did learn good English. To an American decimate means closer to
> reduced to 1/10th not by 1/10th.
I doubt it. What you mean is that *you* thought the word meant that -
but the ignorance of white trailer trash is hardly definitive of
America.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Titles can be deceiving. He is as obviously
> not an arkie as he is obviously not naked. Actually
> I thought I had come across to a proper degree in the field.
The "Naked Archaeologist" never -- before the last time I
stumbled on his show -- claimed that he was a real
archaeologist. However, that last time he DID describe
himself as "The people's archaeologist."
As I said, he is a film maker. That's his profession.
> I also noted the image of a seven candle menorah also
> negates the myth that the temple one had nine particularly
> when the arch of Titus shows only seven.
Oddly, this is NOT the first time you've raised this nonsense.
Nobody besides you and the most clueless Christians confuse
the nine-candle Hanukkah Menorah for the ancient temple
Menorah.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset_Menorah
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple)
> I you work real hard you might come to understand why David
> Ben-Gurian mentioned both his Khazar ancestry and that the
> Palestinians were descendants of Judeans who converted.
There's no doubt in my mind that, just as the so-called "Arabs"
or north Africa are mostly Berbers (except for those which are
Egyptians), just as the Lebanese of today appear descended from
ancient "Canaanites" or "Phoenicians," today's "Palestinians"
are nothing more than ancient history's Canaanites, Phoenicians
and Jews.
None.
Martin Edwards
> On 02/25/2010 09:48 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> On 02/23/2010 02:56 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> There are quite enough records of that revolt to outline what happened
>>>>> in Judea. Resistance collapsed rather quickly and retreated to
>>>>> Jerusalem. The "defenders" became so busy killing each other off for
>>>>> leadership and fighting over who would be anointed messiah that the
>>>>> Romans waited until the resistance decimated themselves.
>>>> Rather worse than that.
>>> Disease and starvation are presumed and need not be mentioned. There
>>> was something about having to stop people from leaving the city for a
>>> while because they were escaping in such great numbers.
>
>> I meant worse than decimated. I keep forgetting that I am dealing with
>> Americans.
>
> Brits never did learn good English. To an American decimate means
> closer to reduced to 1/10th not by 1/10th.
>
unit /to/ a tenth, simply to encourage those who were left.
Matt Giwer
--
Before the Gaza massacre Israel was given the benefit of the doubt.
With Gaza Israel removed all doubt.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4237Fri Feb 26 22:50:03 EST 2010
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> On 02/25/2010 09:48 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> On 02/23/2010 02:56 AM, Martin Edwards wrote:
>>>>> Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> There are quite enough records of that revolt to outline what
>>>>>> happened
>>>>>> in Judea. Resistance collapsed rather quickly and retreated to
>>>>>> Jerusalem. The "defenders" became so busy killing each other off for
>>>>>> leadership and fighting over who would be anointed messiah that the
>>>>>> Romans waited until the resistance decimated themselves.
>>>>> Rather worse than that.
>>>> Disease and starvation are presumed and need not be mentioned. There
>>>> was something about having to stop people from leaving the city for a
>>>> while because they were escaping in such great numbers.
>>> I meant worse than decimated. I keep forgetting that I am dealing with
>>> Americans.
>> Brits never did learn good English. To an American decimate means
>> closer to reduced to 1/10th not by 1/10th.
> The British usage reflects the Roman reality. You could hardly reduce a
> unit /to/ a tenth, simply to encourage those who were left.
Boadicea would never surrender to Roman usage!
Americans generally use the term to described the number of enemies killed.
Decimated is used in contexts where almost completely destroyed could be
substituted. It is used as an adjective to mean great destruction. Its usage
certainly implies more than one in ten.
--
If it were not for Nazi Germany the US would have to be
creative inventing excuses for new wars of aggression.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4238
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/ a8
Fri Feb 26 22:50:36 EST 2010
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Titles can be deceiving. He is as obviously
>> not an arkie as he is obviously not naked. Actually
>> I thought I had come across to a proper degree in the field.
>
> The "Naked Archaeologist" never -- before the last time I
> stumbled on his show -- claimed that he was a real
> archaeologist. However, that last time he DID describe
> himself as "The people's archaeologist."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0487002/
> As I said, he is a film maker. That's his profession.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0414302/
Nothing helps there either.
>> I also noted the image of a seven candle menorah also
>> negates the myth that the temple one had nine particularly
>> when the arch of Titus shows only seven.
>
> Oddly, this is NOT the first time you've raised this nonsense.
>
> Nobody besides you and the most clueless Christians confuse
> the nine-candle Hanukkah Menorah for the ancient temple
> Menorah.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset_Menorah
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple)
Nor is this the first time high school grads have raised wikipedia as an
authority. Got anything serious?
The issue of interest is the fairy tale retold in the books of Maccabi which
may or may not have some historical validity. The issue is the the absence of
a connection between the two which is not any closer than between the Yule Log
and the Christmas tree. Within twenty years of Victoria's husband introducing
the tree, psychophants of nobility were writing of remembering the trees of
their childhood. In this case there is some sort of imagined connection
between number of days and number of candles while a candelabra appears to
have pre-existed the story. Whether or not it did is what is of interest.
>> I you work real hard you might come to understand why David
>> Ben-Gurian mentioned both his Khazar ancestry and that the
>> Palestinians were descendants of Judeans who converted.
> There's no doubt in my mind that, just as the so-called "Arabs"
> or north Africa are mostly Berbers (except for those which are
> Egyptians), just as the Lebanese of today appear descended from
> ancient "Canaanites" or "Phoenicians," today's "Palestinians"
> are nothing more than ancient history's Canaanites, Phoenicians
> and Jews.
> None.
As there is no evidence anyone ever called themselves Canaanites or
Phillistines we leave those to the biblethumpers. As we know there were
Palestinians by that name in the 5th c. BC is a matter of history. We also
know of Phoenician history and the later migration of their to Carthage.
We have also known of the Khazars going back some 800 years and the
conversion of the people in the regions currently called Israel and Lebanon
for even longer. We can also trace the disappearance of these narratives to
the rise of Zionism and NOT to any intervening discovery or additional material.
And that is the point. There was no change in the information or evidence
available but rather a new story was invented and retold which can properly be
described as capricious. This invention is what Sand refers as the invention
of the Jewish people. Zand identifies both the time frame and the origin of
this capricious invention as the members of the Zionist movement.
--
Is Israel's treatment of the Palestinians
really good for the Jews?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4239
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Thu Mar 4 01:22:49 EST 2010
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > The "Naked Archaeologist" never -- before the last time I
> > stumbled on his show -- claimed that he was a real
> > archaeologist. However, that last time he DID describe
> > himself as "The people's archaeologist."
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0487002/
Other than the title itself, what is the point?
> > As I said, he is a film maker. That's his profession.
>
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0414302/
Okay, so it establishes what I stated as fact: He is a
film maker by profession.
> Nothing helps there either.
Helps... what?
> >> I also noted the image of a seven candle menorah also
> >> negates the myth that the temple one had nine particularly
> >> when the arch of Titus shows only seven.
>
> > Oddly, this is NOT the first time you've raised this nonsense.
>
> > Nobody besides you and the most clueless Christians confuse
> > the nine-candle Hanukkah Menorah for the ancient temple
> > Menorah.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset_Menorah
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple)
> Nor is this the first time high school grads have raised
> wikipedia as an authority. Got anything serious?
Ironically, those same high-school grads know that the burden
is on the person making the claim, which is YOU.
You made a statement. You're statement is false, yes, and
cites have been presented demonstrating this FACT. You offer
no citations of your own because none exist. Though the burden
of proof rests on you as the one who made the claim, the best
you can offer is to question the validity of my cites, though the
question is irrelevant.
Again, the burden is on you. If you can't support what you
claim (and you never once have), that means your statement
is debunked.
Congratulations.
I Said:
> > There's no doubt in my mind that, just as the
> > so-called "Arabs" or north Africa are mostly
> > Berbers (except for those which are Egyptians),
> > just as the Lebanese of today appear descended
> > from ancient "Canaanites" or "Phoenicians,"
> > today's "Palestinians" are nothing more than
> > ancient history's Canaanites, Phoenicians
> > and Jews. None.
Now let's watch as Giwer focuses like a laser beam
on the irrelevant, proving (yet again) that he hasn't
the IQ of a wet sponge..
> As there is no evidence anyone ever called
> themselves Canaanites or Phillistines
I never said "Philistines" but I did use quotes, a fact
which clearly escaped you.
Anyhow, you dumb fuck, unless you want to argue that
NOBODY lived there, it's a given that there were people,
and it is those people who are today often referred to as
":Canaanites" and "Phoenicians."
> As we know there were Palestinians
Man, you really couldn't follow a conversation with a map
and a flashlight....
Say, I know, why don't you start babbling incoherently
on a different subject?
> We have also known of the Khazars going back
Thanks! That was fast.
Psst. Giwer. Speaking of things we "know," we know that
there were "Jews" long before the 8th century. You're
welcome, psycho breath.
Again, Giwer, you allow your hate to invent your reality. You
debase yourself.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> The "Naked Archaeologist" never -- before the last time I
>>> stumbled on his show -- claimed that he was a real
>>> archaeologist. However, that last time he DID describe
>>> himself as "The people's archaeologist."
>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0487002/
> Other than the title itself, what is the point?
>>> As I said, he is a film maker. That's his profession.
>>
>> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0414302/
> Okay, so it establishes what I stated as fact: He is a
> film maker by profession.
>> Nothing helps there either.
> Helps... what?
A person's manner of making a living has no necessary connection to his
academic training. Consider Carl Sagan.
>>>> I also noted the image of a seven candle menorah also
>>>> negates the myth that the temple one had nine particularly
>>>> when the arch of Titus shows only seven.
>>> Oddly, this is NOT the first time you've raised this nonsense.
>>> Nobody besides you and the most clueless Christians confuse
>>> the nine-candle Hanukkah Menorah for the ancient temple
>>> Menorah.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knesset_Menorah
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menorah_(Temple)
>> Nor is this the first time high school grads have raised
>> wikipedia as an authority. Got anything serious?
> Ironically, those same high-school grads know that the burden
> is on the person making the claim, which is YOU.
> You made a statement. You're statement is false, yes, and
> cites have been presented demonstrating this FACT.
What is this statement I have supposedly made?
> You offer
> no citations of your own because none exist. Though the burden
> of proof rests on you as the one who made the claim, the best
> you can offer is to question the validity of my cites, though the
> question is irrelevant.
> Again, the burden is on you. If you can't support what you
> claim (and you never once have), that means your statement
> is debunked.
> Congratulations.
If you wish to present evidence of a nine candle version in ancient times you
are free to do so. I do not recall you doing so.
> I Said:
>>> There's no doubt in my mind that, just as the
>>> so-called "Arabs" or north Africa are mostly
>>> Berbers (except for those which are Egyptians),
>>> just as the Lebanese of today appear descended
>>> from ancient "Canaanites" or "Phoenicians,"
>>> today's "Palestinians" are nothing more than
>>> ancient history's Canaanites, Phoenicians
>>> and Jews. None.
> Now let's watch as Giwer focuses like a laser beam
> on the irrelevant, proving (yet again) that he hasn't
> the IQ of a wet sponge..
When responding to a statement filled with references to people found only in
stories filled with magic it is useful to dispel the nonsense before one
builds upon the nonsense as though they were facts in evidence.
>> As there is no evidence anyone ever called
>> themselves Canaanites or Phillistines
> I never said "Philistines" but I did use quotes, a fact
> which clearly escaped you.
But you did say Canaanites who are in the same category of imaginary people.
Completeness is warranted by the fanciful nature of your statement.
> Anyhow, you dumb fuck, unless you want to argue that
> NOBODY lived there, it's a given that there were people,
> and it is those people who are today often referred to as
> ":Canaanites" and "Phoenicians."
Giving them bible names gives your assertion an implication it is connected
with reality at some points when it is not connected to reality only to
Septuagint fication.
>> As we know there were Palestinians
>
> Man, you really couldn't follow a conversation with a map
> and a flashlight....
>
> Say, I know, why don't you start babbling incoherently
> on a different subject?
It does annoy zionists terribly does it not?
>> We have also known of the Khazars going back
> Thanks! That was fast.
> Psst. Giwer. Speaking of things we "know," we know that
> there were "Jews" long before the 8th century. You're
> welcome, psycho breath.
We know there were Judeans which became a generic name for members of the
Yahweh cult. Jews being simply our present day English word for members of
that cult. For non-zionists that means an atheist Jew and an atheist Christian
are equally fanciful creatures.
> Again, Giwer, you allow your hate to invent your reality. You
> debase yourself.
As Sand clearly demonstrates the idea of a "jew" separate from being a member
of the Yahweh cult could not have existed prior to the 19th c. as it was only
in that century that our present concept of a Volk was invented.
--
The only possible future for the land between the Jordan and the Med is the
present situation. What is not clear is how long the world will permit the
present situation to continue.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4230
http://www.giwersworld.org a1
Fri Mar 5 01:29:42 EST 2010
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> >>>> I also noted the image of a seven candle menorah also
> >>>> negates the myth that the temple one had nine particularly
> >>>> when the arch of Titus shows only seven.
> What is this statement I have supposedly made?
I'll give you a hint, shit for brains: You quoted yourself, and I
left that quote in, above... though I deleted everything else.
> If you wish to present evidence of a nine candle
> version in ancient times
Who is claiming that there was one?
Seriously, shit for brains, you have to establish THAT before
you can then move on to basing a claim on THAT claim.
Get it? Even just a little?
Sheesh! you're a goddamn retard...
Matt Giwer
You do know by now I am not interested in participating in your pissing
matches. Why do you keep trying to start them?
--
Snack foods are not fattening simply because food
fanatics do not like them.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4242
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Wed Mar 10 03:05:33 EST 2010
JTEM
> You do know by now I am not interested in
> participating in your pissing matches. Why do you
> keep trying to start them?
Coward. Moron.
You made a claim about a nine-candle menorah. You
have made this claim before, but never once in your
entire life have you ever supported it.
Meanwhile, ever cite contradicts you.
Now, either back up your own worthless claims or
retract. That is what someone serious about history,
or someone with integrity would do.
If that's not you, fine. Don't respond appropriately to
this challenge.
EVERYONE WILL NOTICE.
Matt Giwer
Anti-Zionism remains a moral imperative.
--
Hodie quinto Idus Martias MMX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Thu Mar 11 00:19:21 EST 2010
Day Brown
> Anti-Zionism remains a moral imperative.
would have a point. But I have not seen that.
As an Aryan, I dont see why I should giva fuck about the fights among
the Semites. Its what their long history has always been. A pox on all
their houses.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Anti-Zionism remains a moral imperative.
> If you also objected to other religions using amoral methods, you
> would have a point. But I have not seen that.
Zionism is not a religion. What do you think you are talking about?
As for what you have not seen, such things I cannot correct.
> As an Aryan, I dont see why I should giva fuck about the fights among
> the Semites. Its what their long history has always been. A pox on all
> their houses.
Remember the Liberty! www.ussliberty.org Never forgive. Never forget.
$3B per year in cash exclusive of other costs and tax loopholes which add up
to another $3B or so per year.
I see no point in financing the side of the semitic war hell bent upon
genocide -- see the zionist comparison to genocide in the American West for
details. See the reality at www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ Despite the whining
there is a link to a page with every picture I could find of the provocation
for the Gaza massacre. Disproportionate response is in itself defined as a war
crime.
The US had no enemies in the middle east until it became the primary
supporter of Zionist and therefore Jewish atrocities. The Saudis have oil and
Israel has a begging bowl. Tough choice.
Israel was the ONLY instigator for the war on Iraq, both of them. There were
no WMDs in Iraq. Israel is now the only cheerleader for war on Iran. Pardon if
I prefer living Americans to putting down Israel's competition in the middle
east.
Which leads to AIPAC, the treacherous dual citizenship types, the
sympathizers and supporters of a foreign country and the hundreds of millions
that buy political support. The US is corrupt enough without having some of
those billions to Israel coming back as campaign contributions.
Above all, remember the Liberty. 43 Americans murdered by jewish pigs.
There is a lot more but that should be sufficient for now.
--
PROJECT LIPSTICK: Improving the image of Israel
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4236
http://www.giwersworld.org/palestine/answers.phtml a9
Fri Mar 12 21:58:33 EST 2010
JTEM
Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As an Aryan,
There's no such thing. It's an idea that was invented way back
when all the "biblical" nonsense was being written into science
and history, and is equally false.
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> The US had no enemies in the middle east until it
> became the primary supporter of Zionist and therefore
> Jewish atrocities.
You've got it completely wrong.
It's true that the U.S. had no enemies in the middle east
until it suddenly became Israel's greatest ally, but that
was by design. British design.
As late as the 1970s, the majority of middle eastern
terrorism that was not targeting the Israelis was
targeting the British and British interests.
Remember when Reagan bombed Libya for not launching
a terrorist attack on U.S. troops? What Libya WAS doing
was fighting an undeclared war against the U.K. One of
their people went so far as to shoot a British police woman(?)
outside the Libyan embassy, and the Libyans even sent
thousands of tons of supplies to the IRA, including C4.
Thatcher suckered Reagan into doing her dirty work, and
into having the U.S. suck up all the ill-will from the bombing.
Of course, the payback was the Pan Am flight blown up
over Lockerbie, killing 200 Americans or more and
bankrupting an institution...
This was by no means the first time. The first time was the
coup that placed the Shah back in power.
Let's see... British had been working frantically for years
to overthrow the government of Iran... Truman refused to
go along with it... without the U.S. any British action
would have been an invitation to Stalin... Within months of
Ike taking office, the Shah is in power.
Okay, sure, there was a story __Planted__ in the press,
saying it was a CIA operation. The story was planted in
the NY Times. But the Times thought it was legit, and
refused to publish even skant details of what was supposed
to be a covert, CIA operation against Communism.
So, they planted the story in the Saturday Evening Post,
and the Post did publish it.
Why did they need to plant the story in the press?
Stalin!
They needed a nuclear powered U.S. to keep Stalin out
of Iran. As long as Stalin believed that the return of the
Shah was all Ike's doing, he would see going into Iran
as challenging the U.S.
Day Brown
the cultures and languages that show a common root in the Chalcolithic
era of SE Europe. They prefer to call it "Proto-Indo-European" for
politically correct reasons.
http://daybrown.org/artifax/artifax.htm, down at the bottom show white
men dressed in Oriental clothes in frescoes of what is now NW China.
These Aryans were never Christianized, and therefore never had a "Jewish
problem", and in fact had a Buddhist cosmology long before the time of
Christ or any influence by the Jews.
Not that there is not a lot of biblical nonsense.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> JTEM wrote:
> > Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> As an Aryan,
>
> > There's no such thing. It's an idea that was invented way back
> > when all the "biblical" nonsense was being written into science
> > and history, and is equally false.
>
> The term was redefined by the Nazis, but existed long before, in ref to
> the cultures and languages that show a common root in the Chalcolithic
> era of SE Europe.
Well, you're both wrong. The word has nothing to do with the Bible. It
comes from the ancient Indo-Iranian languages (Sanskrit, Avestan, Old
Persian), where it's an ethnic self-designation, or a term for the
better class of people ("noble") as opposed to various "others". It
came into English only in the 19th century, where it was generalized
to refer to the Indo-European language family and the speakers of
Proto-Indo-European. On this linguistic base, people proceeded to
erect all kinds of racial theories and mythologies, culminating in the
Nazis' Aryan nonsense ("tall as Goebbels, slim as Goering, blonde as
Hitler").
They prefer to call it "Proto-Indo-European" for
> politically correct reasons.
Given what I've just described, it's not surprising that linguists
since Max Muller in the 1890s have been trying to dissociate
themselves from "Aryan" race theories. I'd say they were 100%
(politically) correct to do so.
Ross Clark
Matt Giwer
Aryan is the pre-WWII term for Indo-European. It was given that name by a
Brit in the late 18th c. who recognized the connection of Persian to English
and thus identified the eastern extent of the language group.
There is nothing about either in the Septuagint.
--
It does not matter what words are used.
It matters only what is understood.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4232
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Sat Mar 13 23:32:06 EST 2010
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> The US had no enemies in the middle east until it
>> became the primary supporter of Zionist and therefore
>> Jewish atrocities.
> You've got it completely wrong.
You ignorance of real history is well known and once again demonstrated.
--
How would it look if Iran backed down from Obama after Obamba
backed down from Israel?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4240
http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/GAZA-pics/ a13
Sat Mar 13 23:36:07 EST 2010
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> You ignorance of real history
THIS coming from a Holocaust denier that was repeatedly
unable to identify the sources for his own claims?
Wow. Thank you for the honor.
HINT: Google the "Suez Crisis," you stupid shit head.
JTEM
Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Speaking of "Aryan"...
> JTEM wrote:
> > There's no such thing. It's an idea that was invented way back
> > when all the "biblical" nonsense was being written into science
> > and history, and is equally false.
>
> The term was redefined by the Nazis, but existed long before,
Yes. It was long ago superseded by legitimate science.
[---snip where they actually cite themselves!---]
That's not funny.
JTEM
"benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [ --- snip everything ---]
> Well, you're both wrong. The word has nothing to do with
> the Bible.
Well, you're both wrong. I never said it had anything to do
with the bible, and the "Aryan" bullshit is a fantasy.
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Aryan is the pre-WWII term for Indo-European.
It's more problematic -- less accurate and less reality
based -- than the use of "Canaanites" to describe
pre-Jewish & non-Jewish residents of the Levant.
Hmmm.... So you hate Jews to the point where it literally
a disorder... you deny the Holocaust... you attack everything
"Jewish" in history... you admit you only attack the bible
the way you do out of hatred of Jews... you defend the use
of "Aryan"...
You're a stupid Nazi, and I do not mean to imply that all
Nazis are stupid (Heydrich was quite a smart man). It's
just that you happen to be an unusually stupid person.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Well, what you said was (and I copy-paste):
>It's an idea that was invented way back
>when all the "biblical" nonsense was being written into science
>and history, and is equally false.
Now I admit that this does not say that "Aryan" was a biblical
concept, and you may have been saying merely that the invention of the
"Aryan" idea happened to be contemporaneous with this "biblical"
period you're referring to. But exactly what period was that? I woulda
thought that the biblical nonsense was _in_ history and (what passed
for) science from ancient times, and that it was only in the modern
period that it was gradually "written out". Whereas "Aryan" appears
only in the last couple of centuries, created out of a modern reading
of ancient texts.
I'm not disputing the "...equally false", of course.
Ross Clark
JTEM
"benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Well, what you said was (and I copy-paste):
>
> >It's an idea that was invented way back
> >when all the "biblical" nonsense was being written into science
> >and history, and is equally false.
Yes. So I'm comparing one travesty to another. I'm saying,
"One way you can tell that THIS is really bad is by looking
at what else they were doing at the same time."
> Now I admit that this does not say that "Aryan" was a biblical
> concept, and you may have been saying merely that the invention of the
> "Aryan" idea happened to be contemporaneous with this "biblical"
> period you're referring to.
Forgive me. I'm reading this in soc.history.ancient where we HAVE
had threads dealing with yesteryear's "scholarship," and how
many biblical beliefs were inserted into the archaeological and
historical record without any real basis.
Just as an example which the wing nuts STILL cling to...
The bible says there was an exodus... a literal reading has it
occurring during the reign of Merneptah... Merneptah *Had* *To*
mention is somewhere... this "Victory Stele" is the closest we
can get to "Israel," even squinting... obviously it must be
translated as "Israel."
Day Brown
> Aryan is the pre-WWII term for Indo-European. It was given that name
> by a Brit in the late 18th c. who recognized the connection of Persian
> to English and thus identified the eastern extent of the language group.
were 'tragic bufoons', or some such.
And just has history reveals whole tribes of Huns, Goths, Vandals,
Mongols, or whatever on the move, so also there were prehistoric Aryan
Diasporas.
JTEM
Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nietzsche repeatedly uses the term.
Ah, an appeal to authority. That's a classic fallacy.
There's no such thing as "Aryans."
igor
Of course there is Arians, an area around Herat, Afganistan called
Aria.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Not to mention people born under the sign Aries, or followers of
Arius, famous 4th-century heretic.
Day Brown
that effort to put their own negative spin on it. Nietzsche didnt invent
the term, merely used the common coin of the time.
Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", p 111 says "Indo-European
warbands" didnt emerge until the late bronze age. Everyone before the
Nazi era would've used the term "Aryan warbands". I dont see why we
havta let the Nazis define the term.
Then, on pg 197, he notes how Tripolye did not conquer, but simply
assimilated the local populations. This is born out by the DNA data
since Mallory wrote.
Sykes, "The Seven Daughters of Eve" reports only 7 indigenous Native
European mtDNA lines. But there are scores of Y chromosome lines, many
of which are also found among the Semites. The 'Aryan' blood is not
defined by the warriors, but the women. And its not the warriors, but
the reliable food supply of the farmers that characterize the culture.
Warriors can win an empire, but to run it, you need farmers and clerks.
Otherwise, as seen so clearly after Tamerlane, who butchered so many, it
all falls apart as the egos of the warriors have at each other for top
position. Too many chiefs, not enuf Indians.
It is the cooperation of the farmers and clerks that provide the
infrastructure successful armies needed. Thus, Gibbon reports that only
1:600 were in the Roman Legions, and even then a legion was 1/3 support.
Matt Giwer
In terms of two of these newsgroups what was really going on is almost
current events. After the Reformation wars Europe decided religion was not a
good reason to kill each other so they sought a better reason. At the same
time people got a bit tired of dying for monarchs and nobles and sought a
better reason to kill each other for that reason too.
The idea of a nation was advanced but without much of a definition. From the
late 18th through the early 20th c. there were many efforts to find a
practical, working definition for nation as a political entity that belonged
together.
One of the dumbest but unfortunately partially successful was to unite people
by their station in life. Thus Marx bequeathed the world Workers fo the world
unite! which only got 100 million or so killed. Another was seeking a unity
based upon language. The general grouping was Aryan and specific groups were
the various languages of Europe.
The alternatives to the Aryan language group were about at close together as
Gaelic and Sanskrit. One of them was the Semitic group. However its history
and the known INDEPENDENT examples of it are so few that it can better be the
religious language of the Koran. There is Phoenician, Punic and Aramaic which
died out and Koran Arabic which displaced the native languages of north
Africa, Arabia (despite the language name) and Mesopotamia. That Koran Arabic
and Egyptian were different language groups can be disputed.
I am not familiar with such a quote from Nietzsche but I believe he died
before the term antisemitismus was coined in the late 19th c. as reference to
Islam. Jews did not reinvent "hebrew" as a spoken rather than liturgical
language until after the word was invented. However the word was coined about
the time Zionists were trying to invent hebrew and were more than happy to
declare it meant them too.
The very obvious point Sand needed to make in his Invention of the Jewish
People is simply that the meaning of Nation and People used to describe Jews
is not only fanciful and contrary to known fact but simply did not exist until
the late 19th c. so it could not have applied earlier than its invention. I
have been saying the same thing for nearly two decades.
Of course there are other problems but lets leave those for another post.
--
Hodie Idibus Martiis MMX est
-- The Ferric Webcaesar
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Mon Mar 15 01:18:36 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
>
> Matt Giwer<jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Aryan is the pre-WWII term for Indo-European.
>
> It's more problematic -- less accurate and less reality
> based -- than the use of "Canaanites" to describe
>
> Hmmm.... So you hate Jews to the point where it literally
> a disorder... you deny the Holocaust... you attack everything
> "Jewish" in history... you admit you only attack the bible
> the way you do out of hatred of Jews... you defend the use
> of "Aryan"...
>
> You're a stupid Nazi, and I do not mean to imply that all
> Nazis are stupid (Heydrich was quite a smart man). It's
> just that you happen to be an unusually stupid person.
The truth cannot be hate.
--
Zionism is the legal theory that Jews have a right
to quiet possession of stolen property.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4227
http://www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml a16
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. a16
Mon Mar 15 01:50:40 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
Where the US sided with Egypt against Britain and France and her client state
Israel.
--
The standard of justice for Palestinians is the same standard Jews demand
for themselves from Germany.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4229
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
Mon Mar 15 01:51:41 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
The present day preferred spelling of the nation from which the name was
adopted is Iran. It was rather a learning exercise when the official name in
Latin characters was announced. The effort to find the self-use of the name
Persia came up blank. The clan of Cyrus, Xeres and Darius was something
different.
--
Obama's greatest accomplishment is taking the US down the road to communism,
threatening to take all guns and simultaneously accomplishing nothing.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4241
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Mon Mar 15 01:57:41 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
Not to mention Iran as the preferred Latin spelling.
--
The standard of justice for Palestinians is the same standard Jews demand
for themselves from Germany.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4229
http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/occupied-2.phtml a6
Mon Mar 15 02:02:11 EDT 2010
Matt Giwer
> benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>> On Mar 15, 11:48 am, igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mar 14, 3:30 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Nietzsche repeatedly uses the term.
>>>> Ah, an appeal to authority. That's a classic fallacy.
>>>> There's no such thing as "Aryans."
>>> Of course there is Arians, an area around Herat, Afganistan called
>>> Aria.
>> Not to mention people born under the sign Aries, or followers of
>> Arius, famous 4th-century heretic.
> The Nazis tried to redefine the term, and others since have tried to use
> that effort to put their own negative spin on it. Nietzsche didnt invent
> the term, merely used the common coin of the time.
> Mallory, "In Search of the Indo-Europeans", p 111 says "Indo-European
> warbands" didnt emerge until the late bronze age. Everyone before the
> Nazi era would've used the term "Aryan warbands". I dont see why we
> havta let the Nazis define the term.
Actually it was the WWII propaganda of the Allies that gave Aryan the bad
name. Having reviewed a lot of that propaganda I am faced with two conclusions
about my parents. They were stupid or they laughed at it too. I assume the
latter as I knew them and they were not that dumb.
What you see is the self-appointed guardians of culture changing history to
conform to the national mythos of that war.
The national mythos of the winners being the good guys even though the
communists were worse than the Nazis by every measure still has to play in the
old Soviet Union. It is incredible the idea still plays among the western Allies.
I am very willing to admit my amateur status and even profound ignorance of
nations and international relations and leaders and defer to the experts in
these matters who lead nations. I have thus learned from them Hitler was no
worse than Saddam Hussein, Yassar Arafat, Slobadon Milosevic, Amadinejad or
women praying at the wailing wall. The way they talk about Hitler you would
think he was more than a noisy pest like the rest.
I did avoid biting my tongue with that one.
--
Before the Gaza massacre Israel was given the benefit of the doubt.
With Gaza Israel removed all doubt.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4237
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/is-seg.phtml a14
Mon Mar 15 02:06:12 EDT 2010
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Actually it was the WWII propaganda of the
> Allies that gave Aryan the bad name.
you are an unusually stupid Nazi. Seriously. Someone
would be hard pressed to come up with a stupid Nazi
that was any more stupid than you...
JTEM
Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Nazis tried to redefine the term, and
Go read your own website. You're not different than any
other pseudo-scientific crank or Nazi -- if you can call
it "old" and it looks "white" then you label it Ayran.
You're playing a joke on yourself.
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> The present day preferred spelling of the nation from
> which the
The concept is stupid, not to mention wrong.
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> > HINT: Google the "Suez Crisis," you stupid shit head.
>
> Where the US sided with Egypt against Britain and
> France and her client state Israel.
So what I stated was true.
The problem was never Israel. The problem was always
the Brits. The Brits were taking a lot of very well earned
heat for what they had done in the middle east, and they
spent an awful lot of time and invested an awful lot of
effort into throwing all that heat on to the United States.
The average American is quite Naive. "They wouldn't do
that! They're our friends!"
"Nations don't have friends. Nations have interests."