This is simply not true. Taking the Balkans as one of your examples, the US and NATO turned a blind eye to Croatia’s military buildup in the face of the official embargo on arms to the entire region. Despite the embargo Croatia somehow got its hands on hundreds of former Warsaw Pact tanks and artillery pieces, with which they attacked with 150,000 men in 1995 in Operation Storm. During the 84 hours that the offensive lasted, huge numbers of Serbian refugees were forced from the area, never to return. Croatia’s own estimate, almost certainly an underestimate is 90,000. The UN puts the numbers at 150,000-200,000 and Serbia claims 250,000. I can assure you Serbians are not accepting of this. It may be a little hard to work up sympathy for Serbians considering their own conduct during the war, but this doesn’t change the fact that up to a quarter million Serbs were ethnically cleansed in this event.
Largely what Ibn Warraq said. You are still using Arab and Muslim interchangeably, calling a religion destroyed when it in fact still has 210,000 adherents 14 centuries after you claim its destruction, ignore that Zoroastrianism is an accepted religion in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and refer to this 210,000 as a pitiful remnant of the population that was there, as if all other Zoroastrians were put to the sword. Zoroastrian isn’t an ethnic group as you seem to think with your references to there being a pitiful remnant of the population. Zoroastrianism is a religion. You seem to have the same confusion here that you have with conflating Arab and Muslim. The present day population of Iran is predominantly Muslim, but they are not Arab. A part of that population that isn’t Muslim is; you guessed it, Zoroastrian. Zoroastrians aren’t the Ainu or Aboriginal Australians, its a religion, not an ethnic group.
Does anyone care that Israeli Arabs held a protest calling for more soldiers to be kidnapped?
Or does it matter? I can’t believe I’m still surprised that a thread about a kidnapped boy finally coming home after 5 years of being a POW is somehow making still him the bad guy. As if the psychological warfare waged by Hamas over this kid wasn’t cruel enough, Israel is somehow still the monster.
Who is claiming that Gilad Shalit is the bad guy?
newcomer asserted that if you are a soldier in ‘occupied’ territory (so I guess Israel is OT? Schalit wasn’t in Gaza-) then you deserve it, bla bla, Israel created Hamas, bla bla. And now this thread has turned into a Who Sucks More? Israelis or Arabs? thread.
Ah, well. Bound to happen. But I thought my link was at least a tiny bit pertinent to the OP.
Israelis suck more, Arabs suck better, let’s move on.
Your semantics have no relation to the reality of the ethnicity of the populace in the area. Yes, ancient Jews did not call themselves “Jews” (hell, most of the Jews in the world don’t call themselves “Jews” now) but they were Jews, both back then and now. Same with Arabs.
And that religious population was wiped out by Arab conquest.
What in the world does present population of Iran have to do with the fact that it was Arabs that conquered the area and wiped out Zoroastrians?
So then you feel that we should refer to Julius Caesar as “an Italian ruler” and when referring to the ancient Gauls refer to them as “Frenchmen”.
The people you’re referring to didn’t consider themselves "Arabs"but called themselves “Muslims”.
It’s not a matter of “semantics” it’s how they viewed themselves.
As for the ancient Hebrews, obviously they didn’t call themselves “Jews” but the called themselves the Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent.
Finally, you’re using the term “ethnic group” to describe a people who lived long before Europeans invented the concept.
Not everyone fits into the European concept of ethnicity so don’t try and shove them into it.
Call them Muslims. It’s what they were and how they identified themselves.
Also, you used the term “Arab” to describe the Muslims who invaded China and India which makes absolutely know sense.
You keep saying they were “wiped out” implying that they were slaughtered the way Christians slaughtered pagans or the Europeans slaughtered the Native Americans, but that’s just not true.
They were assimilated and most converted but, with rare exceptions, they weren’t converted by the sword.
But they were still Arabs.
No. “Ivri” (which is what they called themselves) and “yehudi” (which is what Jews call themselves in Hebrew today) are not equivalent.
The implication is yours. I use very exact terms. If you choose to read into them something else that’s your problem.
So then what are you trying to say.
What do you mean when you say “wiped out”?
Please explain to me how my ancestors were “wiped out” yet I’m still here.
Do you consider Barack Obama an Englishman?
He does after all speak English and his ancestors were English.
Are you a Zoroastrian? No? There you are.
Ok, then please explain to me the difference between “Ivri” and “Yehudi”.
Can one be an “Ivri” without being a “Yehudi” because it’s very possible to be an “Arab” without being a “Muslim” and very possible to be a “Muslim” without being an Arab.
Only about 10% of all Muslims are Arabs and in the US 70% of all Arabs are Christians. Similarly, in Lebanon around 50% of all Arabs are Christians.
I’m afraid you haven’t answered my question, so I’d like to hear it.
What do you mean when you said “wiped out”.
Yes. “Yehudi” comes from “Yehuda” - the only tribe of the 12 that is left, supposedly (although some count the Falashas as being from a different tribe and some count Indian Jews as being from another one). “Ivri” were all the Jews, all the 12 tribes. They were also called “Bnei Yisrael”. In recent (comparatively) usage “Am Yisrael” is also used to describe the community of all Jews.
Let’s say you’re an Arab. Your father is an Arab. His father was an Arab. Count backwards. At what point is one of the fathers NOT an Arab?
Zoroastrians were the majority population of the area. Now there is a pitiful remnant left. That’s what I mean when I say “wiped out”.
:rolleyes: