Kurdistan

[Chinahand]

[Aristotle]

I'll take that as a concession that you have been thoroughly debunked.

[TheTeapot]

Is it not possible he used the bible as his comparison because a) it works, and b) for simplicity, because a lot of people are familiar with it and will understand the analogy, which they would be less likely to do with the Koran or aenid, or any number of potentially more accurate texts? Rather than whatever silly point you are trying to make?

[Aristotle]

16 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Is it not possible he used the bible as his comparison because a) it works,

Does it? Okay, go ahead and explain the comparison or analogy between the Old Testament (note: we're talking about 23 books - all of them Jewish, written by Jews, for Jews - including poetry, a legal system, a political constitution, proverbs, social commentary, folk tales, real history, etc) and the 21st century Middle East. How does a book covering so many extensive subjects possibly provide a simple comparison with the 21st century Middle East? Answer: it doesn't. You may as well hold up the Dictionary as an analogy to the current Middle East.

[Chinahand]

Yeah, cos the bible doesn't describe invasions, genocides, ethnic cleansing, the rise and fall of Empires, the hubris of kings, exiles, yearning for "their" land and the dilemmas and machinations that creates.  No, our-multiple-accounted-friend is totally right, there are no parallels at all.

[Aristotle]

6 minutes ago, Chinahand said:

Yeah, cos the bible doesn't describe invasions, genocides, ethnic cleansing, the rise and fall of Empires, the hubris of kings, exiles, yearning for "their" land and the dilemmas and machinations that creates.  No, our-multiple-accounted-friend is totally right, there are no parallels at all.

So does Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, the Aeneid, the Illiad, the Baghavad Gita, the Poetic Eddas, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, the Quran, The Second World War: A Complete History,  ........ I'm not sure I see why the Old Testament was cited in particular, or why it has been cited exclusive of the New Testament. If you go back to the original post in question, it is very clear they were implying a continuity or correlation and not merely a coincidental parallel or analogy.

[TheTeapot]

I refer you to the advice i gave in your athol street thread. I either completely don't get the point you're trying to make, or i totally get it and think you are completely bonkers. 

[Aristotle]

On 9/28/2017 at 7:17 AM, Uhtred said:

There's an extensive and detailed account of the ebb and flow of tribal rivalries and conflict in the Middle East giving some insight into the origins and thinking of the protagonists. It's called the Old Testament. It doesn't matter a jot that it predates the coming of Christianity, Islam and oil, the mindset is the same. This is a region where internecine tribal conflict is endemic. Just read the OT and then imagine the protagonists armed with AK47s, RPGs and IEDs. Voila. 2017.

I am basically saying the above post is wrong. Chinahand and Uhtred are effectively denying the above post was ever posted.

[Uhtred]

1 hour ago, Aristotle said:

Oh, I'm so embarrassed. Except you clearly did suggest a continuity between the Old Testament (for some vague reason you've yet to explain) and the current Middle East. You didn't cite the Poetic Edda,the Aeneid, or the Bhagavad Gita, even though all of these texts heavily involve wars. It is no coincidence that you picked the Bible. It came from the Middle East. You're implying a causal relationship or at least a correlation.

Chinahand has set out for you the comparison, and the extent of it, that  I drew between conflict described in the Old Testament and conflict in the Middle East now. And why. The reason I didn't reference the, for example, Poetic Edda, is because, astonishingly, that doesn't describe events in the Middle East. That's why if I was writing about Arsenal, I wouldn't also mention Chelsea and Sheffield Utd. and Luton...and Barcelona.

Look - I get it. You're an angry outsider with no friends. Probably because mummy gave you too few hugs when you were little. Even though if I want a conversation with a five year old there's a pleasant little kid across the road, I'm still prepared to address you. Let me help you. Chill out, try not to be so far up yourself and stop being a dick. That way, eventually, when you go to the pub, other people may talk to you and offer you a drink rather than, at present, leave the room.

[Aristotle]

A typical resort to ad hominem when you have run out of a valid case for your position.

You made a specific claim, that the Old Testament gives some insight into "the origins and thinking of the protagonists" in the present-day Middle East. Well, no, it doesn't. For one thing, the Arabs are hardly even mentioned or alluded to in the Old Testament, because they and particularly the Quraysh were still limited to the Arabian Peninsula during the Old Testament period. It is anybody's guess how a book which has hardly any mention of the Arabs could give insight into a region which has 22 Arab nations. Nor does it provide any insight into a region which has been Islamic for 1,300+ years. At best, the Old Testament may give some insight into the Jewish state of Israel, although even that is overly simplistic and ignores well over 2,000 years of historical, religious, cultural and political development.

[Uhtred]

37 minutes ago, Aristotle said:

A typical resort to ad hominem when you have run out of a valid case for your position.

You made a specific claim, that the Old Testament gives some insight into "the origins and thinking of the protagonists" in the present-day Middle East. Well, no, it doesn't. For one thing, the Arabs are hardly even mentioned or alluded to in the Old Testament, because they and particularly the Quraysh were still limited to the Arabian Peninsula during the Old Testament period. It is anybody's guess how a book which has hardly any mention of the Arabs could give insight into a region which has 22 Arab nations. Nor does it provide any insight into a region which has been Islamic for 1,300+ years. At best, the Old Testament may give some insight into the Jewish state of Israel, although even that is overly simplistic and ignores well over 2,000 years of historical, religious, cultural and political development.

Yeah right. Terribly well done. Have another lollipop. You mum must be very proud. If she acknowledges you. Try not to cry yourself to sleep.

[Chinahand]

2 hours ago, Aristotle said:

On 9/28/2017 at 7:17 AM, Uhtred said:

There's an extensive and detailed account of the ebb and flow of tribal rivalries and conflict in the Middle East giving some insight into the origins and thinking of the protagonists. It's called the Old Testament. It doesn't matter a jot that it predates the coming of Christianity, Islam and oil, the mindset is the same. This is a region where internecine tribal conflict is endemic. Just read the OT and then imagine the protagonists armed with AK47s, RPGs and IEDs. Voila. 2017.

I am basically saying the above post is wrong. Chinahand and Uhtred are effectively denying the above post was ever posted.

What is your problem? 

Yes, this is the post we are talking about.  The one you have obsessed continuously since it was written.  You've claimed it is saying tribalism is a uniquely Middle Eastern phenomenon, claimed it is idiotic, said it insults Juadism, makes the case that the Middle East is uniquely backward, that it blames the Jews for contemporary problems in the Middle East that it is silly, idiotic and stupid, that it doesn't describe the situation in the current Middle East.  You've tried to bring in everything from the Wars of the Roses to Alsace Lorraine, that its racist, doesn't go on enough about the Arabs. You've now demanded a complete analysis of the bible to justify what it says, and claim I'm effectively denying it was ever posted!

Oh ... my ... goodness.

Talk about holding up a mirror.

The Middle East is a tribalistic place.  Land and blood are big issues there, plus empires fight their way through it catching up smaller nations in their machinations.

There are perfectly fine resonances between this and the Old Testament world of the Middle East.

Yes, if you want to discuss Greek and Turkish relations you could make a throw away post about the Illiad, or when discussing British double dealing in Africa mention Heart of Darkness.

Should we add in something about War and Peace and contemporary Russia.

All perfectly reasonable ways to attempt to understand the contemporary and ancient worlds.

But you aren't going to stand for that, your going to go on and on and on and on making ever more tenuous extrapolations.

The culture of the Middle East in biblical times was dominated by the ebb and flow of Egyptian, Persian, Assyrian, and Babylonian empires and the alliances they made and broke between the more minor peoples of that area.  It was bloody and brutal and left lasting scars in memory and on the land.

If you can't see a contemporary resonance in that your blind.

But do keep obsessing on, blustering and exaggerating about a relatively innocuous post on the internet.  It is clearly very important to you.

[Aristotle]

 Lots of words and paragraphs that ought to have been sentences, but still a load of bollocks. Chinahand, come back when you have an actual response to my post. I read your reply and as long-wided as it is, it doesn't even remotely address or answer a single point I made. If anything, with your most recent reply, you have only further proven my point and further backtracked. You're now admitting you think "the Middle East is a tribalistic place", having in previous posts claimed to not think the Middle East was particularly unique in regard to conflict or tribalism, and having laughed at my posts which highlighted this bigoted and hypocritical position. When will you concede that the Franco-Prussian War, the War of the Roses, or the Second World War were tribalistic? Oh, that's right: they were western Europeans so you don't use the term "tribalistic". You refer them properly as nation states or warring parties. Your double standard in referring to Middle Eastern people as "tribes", but not applying this to Europeans, that is what I was highlighting. All you've done in your replies - after having denied even posting the things I said had been posted - is prove my point.

[Chinahand]

I am sorry my multi-accounted friend, but you are far far too obsessed with this.  It isn't worth it.  Uthred wrote 83 words - they weren't the most perfect 83 words written about the Middle East, but they also weren't that terrible either.  The Middle East is a more tribalistic place today than Europe is.  That doesn't say Europe or anywhere else isn't tribalistic, nor that they haven't acted tribalistically in the past.  The Middle East was a tribalistic place in biblical times.  That doesn't say Europe, or any other place, wasn't tribalist in the past.  Now go and exaggerate and make all the sweeping statements you like.  It's the internet.  

[Aristotle]

Let's just agree to disagree. At this point, I've lost track of what on earth this has to do with the thread and now I honestly couldn't care less. I can't prove this and don't necessarily agree with it, but I once had a conversation via the internet with a Kurd over on a religious forum. He claimed that Abraham* was a Kurd. I'm not sure of the veracity of this, but it is interesting. I do wish them the best of luck with gaining their Independence. What I do know is they best represent, even if some of them are themselves Muslims, a pre-Islamic worldview derived from the middle east, which is largely derived from Zoroastrianism.

* Father of Isaac [Jews] and Ishmael [Arabs], and grandfather of Jacob [Jews] and Esau [Trojans, and through them the Romans]).