On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 1:21:27 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Tom Kunich <cycl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:59:52 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
> >>
> >> Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
> >> new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
> >> kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
> >> made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
> >> to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.
> >
> > But it would be more or less accurate. When Muslims started harassing
> > and even killing Christian pilgrims to the holy land steps had to be
> > taken and were. The stupid claims that everyone was killed on either
> > side were false rumors. Warriors kill warriors but normal people are
> > left to themselves other than to steal things from.
> That is completely ahistorical, and an odd choice of tense. The first
> crusade sack of Jerusalem was unusually bloody even for the time, and at
> the time rape, massacre, or enslavement of everyone in cities falling
> to siege was more or less normal.
Radey, the losers are the one's that write the histories and not the winners in cases like these. So historical recounts are just so much noise. Tell me how the soldiers ate? Do you believe that they brought all of the food they needed for years after murdering the farmers in the fields? Do you believe that they brought the stone masons to build the Crusader's castles? Who made the swords and arrows? Who moved the goods from one place to another? Do you believe that slaves would do any of this? Slaves have this nasty habit of fleeing their captors. MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap. Reliable history didn't begin until the middle 1500's save for the Bible which was not meant to be history but law.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 09:23:19 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:23:43 AM UTC-4, elizabet...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 7:13:40 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, May 17, 2022 at 1:09:27 AM UTC-4, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > I am not John, but... Tommy, you really got to go back to school and get an education or learn something. The US Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941. The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US did not wait another three plus weeks to declare war on an aggressor who bombed us.
>> > They did bomb our military base on Hawaii. Not sure that is really bombing "us," since Hawaii was not a state yet. (Not that I'm disagreeing with the response, but the distinction should be made. )
>
>> Hawaii not only was a US territory, but a very large, Navy, Army and Army Air Force base.
>
>There are large military installations on the island of Oahu. The entire island is not a military base. Yes, I lived there frm1970-73, first at Helemano Military Reservation, then at Schofield Barracks.
>
>> From the moment of the first bullet fired upon a US territory by a hostile enemy we are at war,
>
>BZZZZT wrong again, sparky. We aren't at war until congress declares it.
>
>> but people like Russell who has never been in the military doesn't know that. This is how they got around making endless wars without having to declare them.
>
>Right, like this: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/pdf/PLAW-107publ40.pdf
>>
>> What is extraordinary is that the stupid six have not one wit of interest in truth. They ONLY have a dick need to prove me wrong.
>
>You have that exactly backwards. We have no dick needs, we are only interested in the truth.

But people don't "prove" Tommy is wrong. All that is required is to
demonstrate the truth and Tommy's lies and wild eyed claims stand out
like a sore thumb.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 19 May 2022 09:59:58 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:24:39 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 23:59:47 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/18/2022 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:47:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 5/18/2022 10:10 AM, Tim R wrote:
>> >>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
>> >>>>> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
>> >>>>> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
>> >>>>> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
>> >>>> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yep. If a person gets it wrong, the consequences could be dire indeed.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or not.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hence, Theology.
>> >>
>> >> Theology? ah! You mean "My religion is better then you religion and if
>> >> you don't believe that we'll just kill you"?
>> >>
>> >> (in 1099 the Christian Crusaders were said to have killed every living
>> >> person in Jerusalem)
>> >>
>> >
>> >With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
>> >
>> >Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
>> >new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
>> >kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
>> >made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
>> >to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.
>> I wasn't singling out the Christians as every religion has had there
>> time at bat. Not that religion, per se, is always the underlying cause
>> but it certainly is a good rallying cry. "Kill him in the name of God"
>> generates much more enthusiasm then "Kill him, I want his land".
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I was always fond of "Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own". Arnaud Amalric - a Cistercian abbot and commander of the Albigensian Crusade, was reported to have said something similar to this prior to the massacre at Béziers.

I saw US troops, in Vietnam wearing tee shirts with that printed on
them.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/19/2022 12:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:59:52 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>>>
>> With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
>>
>> Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
>> new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
>> kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
>> made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
>> to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.
>
> But it would be more or less accurate. When Muslims started harassing and even killing Christian pilgrims to the holy land steps had to be taken and were. The stupid claims that everyone was killed on either side were false rumors. Warriors kill warriors but normal people are left to themselves other than to steal things from.
>

That's not what actually happened.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 19 May 2022 09:45:07 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 10:40:50 AM UTC-4, cycl...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:38:58 AM UTC-8, William Crowell wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, February 8, 2022 at 11:22:55 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > > On 2/8/2022 12:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > The rest of the world take our bike inside or, where that's not
>> > > > possible, shops elsewhere.
>> > > > http://www.yellowjersey.org/877/pumpkjul.jpg
>> > > When commuting by bike, I've almost always been able to take my bike
>> > > into the workplace. The only exception was a year-long temporary
>> > > assignment that was something like 30 miles away - too far to bike
>> > > anyway. They had a guard at the gate who checked ID passes each morning,
>> > > so were pretty strict in general.
>> > >
>> > > I did ride there on Bike To Work Day. I wasn't allowed to take the bike
>> > > in, but the guard was happy to keep an eye on the bike for me.
>> > >
>> > > I remember wondering about this issue when I started teaching at this
>> > > university. Another faculty member who also rode to work advised me
>> > > "Don't ask! Just do it!" And of course he was right.
>> > >
>> > > However, another faculty friend had a son who liked to bike to school.
>> > > For whatever reason, the campus security guy would not let him stash his
>> > > bike in his father's office. I think the logic was something like "If we
>> > > let one student take his bike indoors, all the other students will want
>> > > to do that."
>> > >
>> > > But I'm a big fan of asking forgiveness - if necessary - instead of
>> > > permission.
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > - Frank Krygowski
>> > Frank, I really have a wild hair up my buttocks about workout gyms. Usually they not only won't let you bring your bike inside, but they also object to your keeping a large lock and chain on the premises. I decided not to tolerate this kind of disrespect for the customer because it happened when I inquired about membership at 2 gyms around here. So I decided to forego the gym workout and just ride my bike instead. The devil may take the dambed gyms, as far as I am concerned. I guess I just don't need to get buffed that badly after all.
>
>> Last night I had dinner with my brother and he has the idea that you have to lift weights etc. to maintain your health. I suppose those Tour de France pros are the picture of unhealthy.
>
>oy vey.....
>
>https://www.velonews.com/training/training-best-weight-training-excercises-for-cyclists/
>https://www.trainerroad.com/blog/strength-training-basics-for-cyclists/
>https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/the-best-strength-exercises-for-cyclists/
>https://usacycling.org/article/strength-training-for-cyclists-a-practical-view-from-a-cycling-coach
>https://stagescycling.com/en_us/content/strength-training-for-cyclists
>https://trainright.com/cyclists-benefit-strength-training/
>
>But do the pro's do it? Yes!
>
>https://www.teamefcoaching.com/blog/tejay-van-garderen-s-strength-training-tips/
>https://www.cyclingweekly.com/fitness/training/peter-sagans-training-secrets-a-week-in-the-life-of-the-triple-world-champion-358009
>https://www.quickstep-alphavinylteam.com/en/blog/5150/take-a-look-inside-world-champion-julian-alaphilippe-s-pain-cave
>
>Then of course there's the bible on the subject
>
>https://www.amazon.com/Weight-Training-Cyclists-Program-Endurance/dp/1934030295
>
>And yes, I have a freeweight routine I use as well (though not as often as I should)

There is an old saying, "Use it or Lose it" which is particularly
applicable to human muscle mass, and very noticeable as the years fly
by.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 5/19/2022 7:22 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 09:59:58 -0700 (PDT), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
> <funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 2:24:39 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 23:59:47 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2022 6:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 May 2022 11:47:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/18/2022 10:10 AM, Tim R wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 16, 2022 at 11:26:12 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If those in the discussion are sufficiently intelligent and wise, I think religion can be
>>>>>>>> discussed quite beneficially. Such a discussion wouldn't focus on details like posture
>>>>>>>> in prayer. I'd say those details are minor and unimportant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll admit, someone not very intelligent or wise might think those details are critically important.
>>>>>>>> But then, he wouldn't meet the qualifications for a beneficial conversation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you are missing an important element here. Intelligent and wise aren't really enough when the stakes are so critical.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We can discuss Hershey's vs Nestley's without dire consequences.
>>>>>>> With religion, if you get it wrong you will be tortured for billions of years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or in the case of a nation that had a covenant/contract with Yahweh, if you did not follow commandments correctly the entire nation would be conquered and subjugated. Hence the evolution of a strict and literal approach to obedience with the law, and the likelihood of executing prophets with a different interpretation that might cause the whole nation to fail again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep. If a person gets it wrong, the consequences could be dire indeed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence, Theology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Theology? ah! You mean "My religion is better then you religion and if
>>>>> you don't believe that we'll just kill you"?
>>>>>
>>>>> (in 1099 the Christian Crusaders were said to have killed every living
>>>>> person in Jerusalem)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
>>>>
>>>> Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
>>>> new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
>>>> kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
>>>> made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
>>>> to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.
>>> I wasn't singling out the Christians as every religion has had there
>>> time at bat. Not that religion, per se, is always the underlying cause
>>> but it certainly is a good rallying cry. "Kill him in the name of God"
>>> generates much more enthusiasm then "Kill him, I want his land".
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> I was always fond of "Kill them. The Lord knows those that are his own". Arnaud Amalric - a Cistercian abbot and commander of the Albigensian Crusade, was reported to have said something similar to this prior to the massacre at Béziers.
>
> I saw US troops, in Vietnam wearing tee shirts with that printed on
> them.
>

I remember tees with that sentiment but this phrasing:

https://28aauh39i9b83b3imx3n9t1k-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/02-08-19_0300.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.

Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong and only Tom
has the truth.

Fascinating!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
>
>Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong and only Tom
>has the truth.
>
>Fascinating!

Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the winners"
(:-)

I would suggest that most history is true, or at least mostly true, in
reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of the Little
Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.

But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details" and the
background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often ignored.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:42:00 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
> >
> >Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong and only Tom
> >has the truth.
> >
> >Fascinating!
> Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the winners"
> (:-)

But Tommy said "Radey, the losers are the one's that write the histories and not the winners in cases like these." He made this profound statement at 3:31 time above.

>
> I would suggest that most history is true, or at least mostly true, in
> reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of the Little
> Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.
>
> But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details" and the
> background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often ignored.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On 5/19/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
>>
>> Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong and only Tom
>> has the truth.
>>
>> Fascinating!
>
> Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the winners"
> (:-)
>
> I would suggest that most history is true, or at least mostly true, in
> reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of the Little
> Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.
>
> But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details" and the
> background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often ignored.
>

Just as with newspapers you don't know what happened until
you read different accounts in two or more papers. I
stumbled across the Egyptian general's account of the battle
for Harm Al Geddah which was interesting only because the
Hebrews called that engagement Armageddon and had a
different take on it.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Am 20.05.2022 um 15:28 schrieb AMuzi:
> On 5/19/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>   MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
>>>
>>> Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong and only Tom
>>> has the truth.
>>>
>>> Fascinating!
>>
>> Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the winners"
>> (:-)
>>
>> I would suggest that most history is true, or at least mostly true, in
>> reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of the Little
>> Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.
>>
>> But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details" and the
>> background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often ignored.
>>
>
> Just as with newspapers you don't know what happened until you read
> different accounts in two or more papers. I stumbled across the Egyptian
> general's account of the battle for Harm Al Geddah which was interesting
> only because the Hebrews called that engagement Armageddon and had a
> different take on it.

wow, you've read an Egyptian general's version of a battle that will
take place at an unspecified point in time some time in the future!
Or are you a Johovah's witness believing that this battle raged from
1897 to 1914?

On 5/20/2022 8:46 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 20.05.2022 um 15:28 schrieb AMuzi:
>> On 5/19/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> Â MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
>>>>
>>>> Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong
>>>> and only Tom
>>>> has the truth.
>>>>
>>>> Fascinating!
>>>
>>> Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the
>>> winners"
>>> (:-)
>>>
>>> I would suggest that most history is true, or at least
>>> mostly true, in
>>> reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of
>>> the Little
>>> Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.
>>>
>>> But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details"
>>> and the
>>> background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often
>>> ignored.
>>>
>>
>> Just as with newspapers you don't know what happened until
>> you read different accounts in two or more papers. I
>> stumbled across the Egyptian general's account of the
>> battle for Harm Al Geddah which was interesting only
>> because the Hebrews called that engagement Armageddon and
>> had a different take on it.
>
> wow, you've read an Egyptian general's version of a battle
> that will take place at an unspecified point in time some
> time in the future!
> Or are you a Johovah's witness believing that this battle
> raged from 1897 to 1914?
>

It was an actual place, a complete rout for the Israelites,
like Cannae for the Romans. I assume it became a general
term for disaster at some point as we allegorically speak of
Pearl Harbor now.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Am 20.05.2022 um 16:27 schrieb AMuzi:
> On 5/20/2022 8:46 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>> Am 20.05.2022 um 15:28 schrieb AMuzi:
>>> On 5/19/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>   MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong
>>>>> and only Tom
>>>>> has the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>>
>>>> Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the
>>>> winners"
>>>> (:-)
>>>>
>>>> I would suggest that most history is true, or at least
>>>> mostly true, in
>>>> reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of
>>>> the Little
>>>> Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.
>>>>
>>>> But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details"
>>>> and the
>>>> background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often
>>>> ignored.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just as with newspapers you don't know what happened until
>>> you read different accounts in two or more papers. I
>>> stumbled across the Egyptian general's account of the
>>> battle for Harm Al Geddah which was interesting only
>>> because the Hebrews called that engagement Armageddon and
>>> had a different take on it.
>>
>> wow, you've read an Egyptian general's version of a battle
>> that will take place at an unspecified point in time some
>> time in the future!
>> Or are you a Johovah's witness believing that this battle
>> raged from 1897 to 1914?
>>
>
> It was an actual place, a complete rout for the Israelites, like Cannae
> for the Romans. I assume it became a general term for disaster at some
> point as we allegorically speak of Pearl Harbor now.

I disagree; it's always hard to tell fact from fiction.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon>

Rolf

On 5/20/2022 10:05 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 20.05.2022 um 16:27 schrieb AMuzi:
>> On 5/20/2022 8:46 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
>>> Am 20.05.2022 um 15:28 schrieb AMuzi:
>>>> On 5/19/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>>>  MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong
>>>>>> and only Tom
>>>>>> has the truth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fascinating!
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the
>>>>> winners"
>>>>> (:-)
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest that most history is true, or at least
>>>>> mostly true, in
>>>>> reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of
>>>>> the Little
>>>>> Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details"
>>>>> and the
>>>>> background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often
>>>>> ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just as with newspapers you don't know what happened until
>>>> you read different accounts in two or more papers. I
>>>> stumbled across the Egyptian general's account of the
>>>> battle for Harm Al Geddah which was interesting only
>>>> because the Hebrews called that engagement Armageddon and
>>>> had a different take on it.
>>>
>>> wow, you've read an Egyptian general's version of a battle
>>> that will take place at an unspecified point in time some
>>> time in the future!
>>> Or are you a Johovah's witness believing that this battle
>>> raged from 1897 to 1914?
>>>
>>
>> It was an actual place, a complete rout for the
>> Israelites, like Cannae for the Romans. I assume it became
>> a general term for disaster at some point as we
>> allegorically speak of Pearl Harbor now.
>
> I disagree; it's always hard to tell fact from fiction.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armageddon>
>
> Rolf

Egyptian propaganda ?

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 20 May 2022 15:46:56 +0200, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:

>Am 20.05.2022 um 15:28 schrieb AMuzi:
>> On 5/19/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>>   MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
>>>>
>>>> Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong and only Tom
>>>> has the truth.
>>>>
>>>> Fascinating!
>>>
>>> Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the winners"
>>> (:-)
>>>
>>> I would suggest that most history is true, or at least mostly true, in
>>> reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of the Little
>>> Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.
>>>
>>> But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details" and the
>>> background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often ignored.
>>>
>>
>> Just as with newspapers you don't know what happened until you read
>> different accounts in two or more papers. I stumbled across the Egyptian
>> general's account of the battle for Harm Al Geddah which was interesting
>> only because the Hebrews called that engagement Armageddon and had a
>> different take on it.
>
>wow, you've read an Egyptian general's version of a battle that will
>take place at an unspecified point in time some time in the future!
>Or are you a Johovah's witness believing that this battle raged from
>1897 to 1914?

Come Now! I checked with two different search programs and they both
tell me that "Armageddon" is a movie, released in 1998.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 5:28:07 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 12:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:59:52 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >> With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
> >>
> >> Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
> >> new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
> >> kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
> >> made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
> >> to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.
> >
> > But it would be more or less accurate. When Muslims started harassing and even killing Christian pilgrims to the holy land steps had to be taken and were. The stupid claims that everyone was killed on either side were false rumors. Warriors kill warriors but normal people are left to themselves other than to steal things from.
> >
> That's not what actually happened.

Andrew, you did not answer my comments. The Crusaders DID NOT bring food with them and if they killed the producers of food and those who moved it about from one place to another HOW did they eat? Who mined the ore that was smelted into the medal used to make swords and speears and arrowheads< Who cut and shaped the bows and arrows which is a VERY exact science which anyone that has ever been in an archery contest knows? Where did they get the masons to build their castles? Where did they quarry the stones? Who supplied the horses and tamed and trained them? Who planted and harvested the hay and grain for the animal feed? Who moved the water for the Crusader's armies? Is there no end to the proof that the crusaders did NOT kill anyone but opposing warriors?

Exactly how much bullshit are you willing to believe without thinking about it for one second?

On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:28:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/19/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
> >>
> >> Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong and only Tom
> >> has the truth.
> >>
> >> Fascinating!
> >
> > Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the winners"
> > (:-)
> >
> > I would suggest that most history is true, or at least mostly true, in
> > reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of the Little
> > Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.
> >
> > But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details" and the
> > background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often ignored.
> >
> Just as with newspapers you don't know what happened until
> you read different accounts in two or more papers. I
> stumbled across the Egyptian general's account of the battle
> for Harm Al Geddah which was interesting only because the
> Hebrews called that engagement Armageddon and had a
> different take on it.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Yet another case of John's expertise via Google. I wonder if just before he dies his life will flash before him and he will finally see himself for what he is? Surely Frank won't because he has no religion and thinks that death is the end. Won't he be surprised when things start heating up. Do you suppose he will cry that he doesn't deserve hell because he has a degree?

On Sun, 22 May 2022 11:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>The Crusaders DID NOT bring food with them and if they killed the producers of food and those who moved it about from one place to another HOW did they eat?

"What Did They Eat: The Crusaders"
<https://medium.com/exploring-history/what-did-they-eat-the-crusaders-414bbc757e69>
"Throughout the majority of human history, grains have been a primary
source of many people’s caloric intake: the crusaders were no
different."

"The Crusaders and the Diffusion of Foods"
<http://www.cliffordawright.com/caw/food/entries/display.php/topic_id/23/id/99/>
"Although the Crusader kingdoms could grow their own grain, if
harvests were bad they imported grain from Muslim Syria and during the
last days of the Crusader kingdoms all grain was imported."

"Cross-Cultural Trade and Cultural Exchange During the Crusades"
<https://www.sultanandthesaintfilm.com/education/cross-cultural-trade-cultural-exchange-crusades/>
"Among the most precious articles of trade were metal wares, silk
textiles, and glass, as well as some food stuffs, dyes and perfumes."

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Sun, 22 May 2022 11:29:52 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 5:28:07 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/19/2022 12:47 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, May 18, 2022 at 9:59:52 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >> With similar on both sides before and after 1099.
>> >>
>> >> Urban called for intervention late in the 1000s after the
>> >> new caliph changed policy and started to harass/ rob/ abuse/
>> >> kill pilgrims to Jerusalem. There are many arguments to be
>> >> made but 'a bunch of European nobles made an arduous journey
>> >> to kill moslems in the Levant' would be overly simplistic.
>> >
>> > But it would be more or less accurate. When Muslims started harassing and even killing Christian pilgrims to the holy land steps had to be taken and were. The stupid claims that everyone was killed on either side were false rumors. Warriors kill warriors but normal people are left to themselves other than to steal things from.
>> >
>> That's not what actually happened.
>
>Andrew, you did not answer my comments. The Crusaders DID NOT bring food with them and if they killed the producers of food and those who moved it about from one place to another HOW did they eat? Who mined the ore that was smelted into the medal used to make swords and speears and arrowheads< Who cut and shaped the bows and arrows which is a VERY exact science which anyone that has ever been in an archery contest knows? Where did they get the masons to build their castles? Where did they quarry the stones? Who supplied the horses and tamed and trained them? Who planted and harvested the hay and grain for the animal feed? Who moved the water for the Crusader's armies? Is there no end to the proof that the crusaders did NOT kill anyone but opposing warriors?
>
>Exactly how much bullshit are you willing to believe without thinking about it for one second?

But Tommy, armies of the era "lived off the land", or in other words
looted their food from local inhabitants. In fact the French armies
did just that in Spain over a thousand years after the Crusades. And,
as for water? The Battle of Hattin was lost by the Crusaders largely
because the Muslims denied the Crusaders access to water.

As for weapons, well, like all armies, the Crusaders brought theirs
with them.

As for killing people. Look into the Siege of Jerusalem. When the
Crusaders captured the city they, it was said, killed every living
person in the city. It was said that blood was running down the
streets. An estimated 40 - 70,000 "civilians" slaughtered.

Or to put it another way... "You don't know what you are talking
about".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 22 May 2022 11:38:46 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 6:28:25 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/19/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Thu, 19 May 2022 21:19:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 5/19/2022 4:31 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>> MOST ancient history is pure unadulterated crap.
>> >>
>> >> Ah! Yet another topic on which all the experts are wrong and only Tom
>> >> has the truth.
>> >>
>> >> Fascinating!
>> >
>> > Well, "history", as the saying has it, "is written by the winners"
>> > (:-)
>> >
>> > I would suggest that most history is true, or at least mostly true, in
>> > reporting the event. The Indians DID win the Battle of the Little
>> > Bighorn and England DID win the Battle of Waterloo.
>> >
>> > But, as the saying has it, "The devil is in the details" and the
>> > background, causes, reason for, etc., are quite often ignored.
>> >
>> Just as with newspapers you don't know what happened until
>> you read different accounts in two or more papers. I
>> stumbled across the Egyptian general's account of the battle
>> for Harm Al Geddah which was interesting only because the
>> Hebrews called that engagement Armageddon and had a
>> different take on it.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>Yet another case of John's expertise via Google. I wonder if just before he dies his life will flash before him and he will finally see himself for what he is? Surely Frank won't because he has no religion and thinks that death is the end. Won't he be surprised when things start heating up. Do you suppose he will cry that he doesn't deserve hell because he has a degree?

John's life? Well, I finished 2 years of collage, I joined the Air
Force and served my country for 20 years, I then joined the civilians
and worked for a company for 25 years, and retired as a Division
Manager of a company division that was billing about a million dollars
a month to one client. After retirement the company enticed me to
return and manage a $1,000,000, project, "and bill us what ever you
feel is fair". I did so and completed and commissioned the plant on
schedule and within budget.

And you? From your own posts, you failed in school, you failed in the
Air Force, you failed as a civilian - never able to keep a job more
then a short time, failed marriage... in short a lifetime failure.

--
Cheers,

John B.