No Israel in Expansion Pack?

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I wasn't necessarily commenting on their motivations. Just what they did (for the West it was probably more about stopping Communism... I could easily see how Japan might be more concerned with stopping Russia)

I just put the quotes there so that Japan could be included since it was part of the forces that landed.

 

[Mott1]

I'm fed up of this discussion. You misread most of what I say and I spend most of my time rectifying what you didn't get right from my messages. It's annoying. Still, insomnia led me to write this message. Not sure I'll spend that much time on others if the conversation still goes on.

If you are fed up with this discussion then perhaps you should not continue, I don't believe it is I misunderstanding you but rather the both of us misunderstanding eachother. You must agree that in any discussion, debate or argument it would be prudent to exercise patience.

"Arabs are not represented in the game, Arabia is. That is why im stressing that you are making a false analogy. I agree there is nothing controversial about Arabs, however there is much controversy in the politics and ideological movement of Arabia."
Go read the civilopedia. Most of it speaks of the history of the Arab people. Not of Arabia. + Did you know Saladin is actually born in Tikrit, of Kurdish descent... Most of his life was spent around Syria, Palestine/Israel, Irak, not in Arabia (the arabic peninsula). Clearly the "Arabian empire" (as the civ is called in the game) is meant to portray the Arab civilization that spread from Spain to the center Asia...

Outside of the differences in our political views I believe the above is the focal point of our disagreement and bears the most relevance to the topic at hand.
Your argument here is that Arabs as an ethnic group are represented in the game. The counter agrument I pose is that it is not Arabs as an ethnic group but rather Arabia as a civilization.
You explained that the borders of the Arabian empire encompassed Anatolia throughout the entire Middle-East, across North Africa to the Iberian peninsula which I agree. The Arabian Empire began as an Arab political/ideological movement which was then also carried on by the people it conquered who were not Arab. The flag of the Arabian Empire was carried by the Turks, Egyptians, Persians, Berbers and so on.
In actuality you argument above validates my own. As you stated, Saladin who is considered a hero of the Arabian movement (and the Arabian leader in civ4) is not even Arab.

"That is because I am not Muslim, my journey to enlightment has shown me the true face of Islam. Where I once was a brain-washed savage that cheered when 9/11 occured, I now am a free thinker who has joined the rest of humanity."

From your comment, it seems you feel like you passed from one camp to the other. From one extreme, to the other. Nothing is black and white. There's place for nuance in this world.
Your comment about humanity even suggest that the world is basically divided into the good and the wrong.

Yes I did pass from one extreme to another. I went from a person who was consumed by contempt, hate and violence to a person who cherishes life, peace, and tolerance. This would not have been possible if I did not have the courage to question my beliefs which is absolutely forbidden in my former faith. I broke the shackles of my faith through attaining knowledge that was deprived of me in my youth. This was a long and painful process which involved a lot of soul searching.
Listen in order to put things in perspective you can not always dwell on the subtleties; that there is good and evil, and on this we must rely on our ethics. Our ethics is absolute, it never changes, it is that which defines our humanity. It is our divine compass which tells us what is right and what is wrong.

You seem to think the Islamist world is appart, or worse, not even part of humanity.

It is not I who believes this, it is Islam that makes this distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim.
Islamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual combat, dar al-Islam (House of Islam - where Islamic law predominates), and dar al-harb (House of War - the rest of the world). It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to fight and conquer dar al-harb and permanently assimilate it.

There is not a single truth.

That would mean there is not a single false. Care to elaborate?
Then again maybe you shouldn't, I have a feeling it will thrust us into a long and arduous philisophical debate. :suicide:

"You first state that you hate any form of violence and on the next sentence you excuse it by saying its a means to an end.
What is ironic is you sound just as I did before I apostized, this line of thought is destructive to democracy and what it stands for. There is no excuse for the justification of hate, violence and intolerance. none."

Go read my comment again. I'm a pacifist. For me, no form of violence is ever justified.
I said I wanted you to be aware that THERE WERE PEOPLE who thought this way. It was just a comment for you to consider another perspective, another way to look at things. I never said I agreed with them and I never said they justified violence.

The point you are missing is that I was ONE OF THE PEOPLE who thought that way. So I have an understanding of both perspectives, and according to my belief system the violence was justified.

For my part, no violent mean is ever justified. However, I think the end (a Palestinian state) is justifiable. I just think they should use pacifist means to achieve this palestinian state.

For once you and I are in accordance.

"So appeasing the terrorists is the only way to initiate dialogue? You are a defeatists or a proponant of Islam, either way you and will never see eye to eye unless we come to a medium."
Instead of appeasing, I'd rather say "not provoking" the other, not humiliating him is a good start.
For instance, do you think the caricatures helped in any way to solve the dilemma posed by this confrontation of two worlds?
And, I'm not a defeatist since I don't think there is anything to win or lose versus Islam. Calling me a defeatist means that by being kind to the "other", I lose. It hints to the fact that you think in a fighting way. Seeking confrontation with Islam is not gonna solve anything.
Even though, I'm an atheist, I think Jesus was right on a few things: loving the other, especially the ones who hurted you, is the key to a better world.
Stopping the cycle of hate is the only way to initiate dialogue. Your comments here perpetuate this cycle of hate (Although unimportant by themselves for international relations, thousands of comments like these shape the mentality of the west and of the Islamic world in a confrontational way.
Even though you later claimed the opposite, your comments end up describing Muslim, Islam, Arab people as evil.
Calling people evil never helps. It just a way to polarize people.

Whether you realize it or not you are a defeatist simply because you do not understand the threat that faces us today. By condemning the harmless carictures of muhammad you are in essence condemning your right to freedom of speech. It is forbidden in Islam to portray Muhammd in any form, why must the west conform to Islam? Those carictures where not meant to incite the Muslim community in Denmark, it was a local Muslim cleric who took those pictures and traveled throughtout the Muslim world to purposely incite Muslim rage to an already strained relationship between the West and the Muslim world. The instigator of the Muslim outrage and violence was a Muslim holy man.
You are an educated and amicable person with good intentions but you can not be decieved by the bully who plays the victim.

"This game is not used as a tool for foriegn relations between the west and the Muslim world where are you getting these delusions?"
You really misinterpret 3/4 of what I say. It's really annoying. Again. Read carefully. That's not what i said.

I am sorry but how did I misinterpret the following quote?

On a more general note, an Israel civ won’t help dialogue between the Western and the Muslim world in any way that’s for sure.

I took the above at face value, am I suppose to read between the lines or unscramble a hidden anagram?

 

[CarterField]

If you are fed up with this discussion then perhaps you should not continue, I don't believe it is I misunderstanding you but rather the both of us misunderstanding eachother. You must agree that in any discussion, debate or argument it would be prudent to exercise patience.



Outside of the differences in our political views I believe the above is the focal point of our disagreement and bears the most relevance to the topic at hand.
Your argument here is that Arabs as an ethnic group are represented in the game. The counter agrument I pose is that it is not Arabs as an ethnic group but rather Arabia as a civilization.
You explained that the borders of the Arabian empire encompassed Anatolia throughout the entire Middle-East, across North Africa to the Iberian peninsula which I agree. The Arabian Empire began as an Arab political/ideological movement which was then also carried on by the people it conquered who were not Arab. The flag of the Arabian Empire was carried by the Turks, Egyptians, Persians, Berbers and so on.
In actuality you argument above validates my own. As you stated, Saladin who is considered a hero of the Arabian movement (and the Arabian leader in civ4) is not even Arab.





Yes I did pass from one extreme to another. I went from a person who was consumed by contempt, hate and violence to a person who cherishes life, peace, and tolerance. This would not have been possible if I did not have the courage to question my beliefs which is absolutely forbidden in my former faith. I broke the shackles of my faith through attaining knowledge that was deprived of me in my youth. This was a long and painful process which involved a lot of soul searching.
Listen in order to put things in perspective you can not always dwell on the subtleties; that there is good and evil, and on this we must rely on our ethics. Our ethics is absolute, it never changes, it is that which defines our humanity. It is our divine compass which tells us what is right and what is wrong.



It is not I who believes this, it is Islam that makes this distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim.
Islamic theology divides the world into two spheres locked in perpetual combat, dar al-Islam (House of Islam - where Islamic law predominates), and dar al-harb (House of War - the rest of the world). It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to fight and conquer dar al-harb and permanently assimilate it.




That would mean there is not a single false. Care to elaborate?
Then again maybe you shouldn't, I have a feeling it will thrust us into a long and arduous philisophical debate. :suicide:



The point you are missing is that I was ONE OF THE PEOPLE who thought that way. So I have an understanding of both perspectives, and according to my belief system the violence was justified.



For once you and I are in accordance.




Whether you realize it or not you are a defeatist simply because you do not understand the threat that faces us today. By condemning the harmless carictures of muhammad you are in essence condemning your right to freedom of speech. It is forbidden in Islam to portray Muhammd in any form, why must the west conform to Islam? Those carictures where not meant to incite the Muslim community in Denmark, it was a local Muslim cleric who took those pictures and traveled throughtout the Muslim world to purposely incite Muslim rage to an already strained relationship between the West and the Muslim world. The instigator of the Muslim outrage and violence was a Muslim holy man.
You are an educated and amicable person with good intentions but you can not be decieved by the bully who plays the victim.



I am sorry but how did I misinterpret the following quote?



I took the above at face value, am I suppose to read between the lines or unscramble a hidden anagram?

The one single truth; Israel is wrong and Palestine is wrong.

What gives you the right to call someone a "defeatest"? What the hell does that mean anyway? Care to explain your personal judgements via insecurities? Your subconscious extremism is still clouding your eyes; you'll come to terms with it some day.

On the other hand, I agree completely on the issue of the Islamic cartoons. For centuries Mohammed was depicted in icons by Muslims. Fascio-Islamic interpretations choose to ignore this fact and are using this issue to perpetuate violence against us.

Still, pacifism and defeatism are not the same thing.

 

[Mott1]

What gives you the right to call someone a "defeatest"? What the hell does that mean anyway? Care to explain your personal judgements via insecurities?

Before going off on a tangent you should first learn what defeatism means my friend.
Defeatism, defined in its basic form is the acceptance of defeat without a struggle. A defeatist can be described as someone who is willing to relent in order to avoid confrontation, or if the situation seems hopeless.
The meaning can change a bit depending on the context it is used in.
"Damned if you do and damned if you don't" or " If you can't beat them join them" are proverbs often associated with defeatism.
There are also negative connotations that are linked with defeatism such as treason or pessimisim, but I certainly did not include these connotations when I applied defeatist in my discussion with UnspokenRequest.
Based on our discussion it was evident to me that UnspokenRequest was an educated person with good intentions, and inlight of his political views on that particular topic, it is his belief that we should give in rather than "provoke".

Your subconscious extremism is still clouding your eyes; you'll come to terms with it some day.

Can you please point out why you feel I am an extremist without the antagonism?

 

[CarterField]

Before going off on a tangent you should first learn what defeatism means my friend.
Defeatism, defined in its basic form is the acceptance of defeat without a struggle. A defeatist can be described as someone who is willing to relent in order to avoid confrontation, or if the situation seems hopeless.
The meaning can change a bit depending on the context it is used in.
"Damned if you do and damned if you don't" or " If you can't beat them join them" are proverbs often associated with defeatism.
There are also negative connotations that are linked with defeatism such as treason or pessimisim, but I certainly did not include these connotations when I applied defeatist in my discussion with UnspokenRequest.
Based on our discussion it was evident to me that UnspokenRequest was an educated person with good intentions, and inlight of his political views on that particular topic, it is his belief that we should give in rather than "provoke".



Can you please point out why you feel I am an extremist without the antagonism?

Defeatism and Pacifism are a contradiction in terms; the former surrenders to struggle while the latter avoids struggle at all costs. Once again, two different things. Before you insult my education, which of course you know nothing about, you should read through your previous posts again. If you are not ready to accept that you've gone from one extreme to the other that's not my problem; you'll see the logic one day.

 

[Mott1]

Before you insult my education, which of course you know nothing about.

Somehow you have the impression that I am the antagonist when clearly you are attacking me. In your previous post you asked:

What gives you the right to call someone a "defeatest"? What the hell does that mean anyway?

I responded in a polite manner despite the hostile nature in which the question was phrased. My intention was not to insult you but merely to answer your question.

Defeatism and Pacifism are a contradiction in terms; the former surrenders to struggle while the latter avoids struggle at all costs. Once again, two different things.

Defeatism and pacifism are not contradictions, they have two different meanings that can be applied to the same school of thought.
A pacifist is someone who opposes war or violance as a means for settling disputes.
The term pacifist can also be applied to one who is descibed as a defeatist.
For example someone who opposes war at any cost is willing to give in to the demands of an ideological movement that he opposes so as to avoid any confrontation.
In the political arena, leftists are often described as pacifists and defeatists.

you should read through your previous posts again. If you are not ready to accept that you've gone from one extreme to the other that's not my problem; you'll see the logic one day.

Actually you should read through my previous posts again. I have already admitted that I have gone from one extreme to another as shown below.

Yes I did pass from one extreme to another. I went from a person who was consumed by contempt, hate and violence to a person who cherishes life, peace, and tolerance.

Do you disagree with the change that I have forgone? would it have been logical to remain in my former frame of mind?

 

[CarterField]

Somehow you have the impression that I am the antagonist when clearly you are attacking me. In your previous post you asked:



I responded in a polite manner despite the hostile nature in which the question was phrased. My intention was not to insult you but merely to answer your question.



Defeatism and pacifism are not contradictions, they have two different meanings that can be applied to the same school of thought.
A pacifist is someone who opposes war or violance as a means for settling disputes.
The term pacifist can also be applied to one who is descibed as a defeatist.
For example someone who opposes war at any cost is willing to give in to the demands of an ideological movement that he opposes so as to avoid any confrontation.
In the political arena, leftists are often described as pacifists and defeatists.



Actually you should read through my previous posts again. I have already admitted that I have gone from one extreme to another as shown below.



Do you disagree with the change that I have forgone? would it have been logical to remain in my former frame of mind?

I could really care less about any change that you've undergone. By admitting that you've gone from one extreme to the other I've already won this debate. Your concept of pacifism and defeatism is wrong. If you wish to devoid yourself from popularism I suggest that you research these terms. I am a pacifist; I am not a defeatest. If you wish to remain passive aggressive then that's your call; but don't confuse the two issues and play the role of the enlightened bystander. You obviously have a lot of learning to do.

 

[Mott1]

Whats with the aggression? If you are unable to carry on a discussion without resorting to hostility then I suggest you stay clear of any controversial topic.
Your argument contains so many logical fallacies that I must assume you are influenced by your emotions rather than pragmatism.
Your argument demonstrates a clear case of intolerance and you only deal in absolutes.

I could really care less about any change that you've undergone. By admitting that you've gone from one extreme to the other I've already won this debate.

What debate? you consider the exchange of dialogue between you and I a debate? If there is any semblance of a debate the premise would only be on our disagreement with the terms pacifism and defeatism.
Declaring that you won the "debate" on a premise that I freely admitted is rediculous at best.
You label me as an exremist but on what basis? on what platform do I measure beyond the norm?. Your accusation is so obscure that it does not even merit an explaination and yet you have the audacity to claim a victory on an imaginary debate?.

Your concept of pacifism and defeatism is wrong.

These are not my concepts, they are derived from ligitimate sources of authority. If you disagree with my assesment then state your argument and prove me wrong, simply saying that my concepts are wrong does not validate your case.

If you wish to devoid yourself from popularism I suggest that you research these terms.

I have researched these terms thoroughly I suggest you do the same. I am not a proponent of popularism and just because we are in disagreement over those terms does not put me in the corner of popularism.
Your comments are baseless and your political reasoning unsound. This suggest that it is not I that insults your education but yourself that does it.

I am a pacifist; I am not a defeatest.

So whats your point? I never labeled you a defeatist. Your political views are erratic and your method of discussion evinces intolerance, I have no idea where you stand. Your style of writing is defensive and you lash out at misconcieved aggression where there is no aggressor.

If you wish to remain passive aggressive then that's your call; but don't confuse the two issues and play the role of the enlightened bystander. You obviously have a lot of learning to do.

I never claimed to be this enlightened individual who knows all and sees all.
You continue to emphesize that I have much learning to do, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that you are playing the role of the enlightened bystander.

 

[elderotter]

I don't think that there was any political agenda in leaving out any Civ that was never in any of the Civ games...I think that Firaxis just wanted to put in some of the Civs they considered to be the best of the rest of the first three games. Israel did not appear because of this, same with any of the others.
Now as far as it goes..though I do think there are better Civs than Israel to put in the Game I would much rather see them than Canada or Austrailia. But in the end it really doesnt matter what we think - it matters what firaxis thinks will sell the game.

 

[CarterField]

If someone admits to being an extremist than one can surely assume that any facts or evidence that the former uses to support his or her claims will rely on misinterpreting data to suit his or her own arguments; the same thing applies in the academic world. The idea that pacifism is the equivalent of defeatism is simply illogical; if they were the same than they wouldn't be described by two different terms. Popular culture has been lombasted with propaganda over the last few years that attests that pacifism is defeatism that is disguised in a liberal shroud. This is incorrect. By avoiding conflicts until one has no alternatives a pacifist is not the equivalent of someone who readily submits themselves to the whims of their opposition. Yet, you claim that these two are the same. This fact, supported by your hasty admittance that you are an extremist, immediately means that your mind will not accept the seperate existence of these two philosophies and that you will not be open to anything that anyone says to the contrary. My defensiveness has been justified; I am a pacifist not a defeatest. You have accused me of being something that I am not.

 

[covok48]

We should move this thread to OT (sheesh)...

 

[elderotter]

I have just read the argument that precedes by Mot1 and Carterfield. Mot1 was calm and orderly in his presentation, Carterfield was not calm , in fact not even very orderly. Cartefield claims victory because Mot1 can see both sides of the issue. Doesn't sound like a victory condition to me. I was always taught he who shouts first lost the debate. Now having said that I must say that giving in to the demands of Islam on certain issues reminds me of what was tried with Hitler by Great Britain and other Countries prior to WWII and it in no way deterred Hitler from going to war, it could be argued that it prompted him to do so. Violence in this world is often the only choice if you do not want to forsake your beliefs. I myself do not want to live in a World ruled by Islam, or any other Religion..I would use violence to avoid that. Sadly, but I would use it.
Now I am sorry If I broke into a debate about passive/aggressive behaviour hidden in a thread about why Israel isnt in the expansion pact but thats the way it goes.
My last comment is that, for a pacifist Carterfield isn't very passive.

 

[CarterField]

I have just read the argument that precedes by Mot1 and Carterfield. Mot1 was calm and orderly in his presentation, Carterfield was not calm , in fact not even very orderly. Cartefield claims victory because Mot1 can see both sides of the issue. Doesn't sound like a victory condition to me. I was always taught he who shouts first lost the debate. Now having said that I must say that giving in to the demands of Islam on certain issues reminds me of what was tried with Hitler by Great Britain and other Countries prior to WWII and it in no way deterred Hitler from going to war, it could be argued that it prompted him to do so. Violence in this world is often the only choice if you do not want to forsake your beliefs. I myself do not want to live in a World ruled by Islam, or any other Religion..I would use violence to avoid that. Sadly, but I would use it.
Now I am sorry If I broke into a debate about passive/aggressive behaviour hidden in a thread about why Israel isnt in the expansion pact but thats the way it goes.
My last comment is that, for a pacifist Carterfield isn't very passive.

I have always been an advocate for pacifism. In fact, I've been counting on someone to bring up Hitler in this thread for a while now to try to disprove my philosophy. Yes, pacifism aided the Nazi regime. But where was the just war theory with regard to Iraq II? Could the Serbians rightfully claim that their atrocities in the Balkans were justified because they were in accordance with the theory of pre-emptive war? No philosophy is perfect.

I also fail to see how my vocal protests to the equivilancy of pacifism and defeatism transcend into evidence that supports the invalidity of passivity. Next.

 

[elderotter]

See, you were nice calm and orderly. You stated your position in a very cool and collected way and I applaud you. I did not say your stand on pacifism vs defeatism was invalidated, merely that when 1 person in a debate allows themselves to be uncontrolled in their criticism then THEY have lost the debate. Your position was not in question, it was the way you were presenting it. I do not equate pacifism with defeatism. I do not support the war in Iraq, the warr in Afghanistan yes not the war in Iraq. There are reasons to go to war. There are also reasons to not do so. The leaders of my Country seem a little hazy on them at times.
To sum up - I like a good orderly debate...you were, especially at the end out of order - so I made a note of it. Hope you are not offended in any way for that was not my intent.

 

[Mott1]

If someone admits to being an extremist than one can surely assume that any facts or evidence that the former uses to support his or her claims will rely on misinterpreting data to suit his or her own arguments; the same thing applies in the academic world.

I agree and in most cases that holds true, however I did not admit to being an extremist. You labeled me the extremist.
In my previous posts I asked for an explaination as shown below.

Can you please point out why you feel I am an extremist without the antagonism?

You label me as an exremist but on what basis? on what platform do I measure beyond the norm?.

Apparently we are miscommunicating, so let me clearify a few points.
First, I stated previously that I had gone from one extreme to another. Meaning that from an ethical standpoint I had gone from a person that was bad and immoral to one who is good and moral.
This does not define me as an extremist, this also does not mean that I went from one religious, political or ideological extreme to another.
Because of this transformation of thought I was able to assimilate to western culture/society without the prejudices of my former ideology.
It seems like you are ignoring the importance of this point.

The idea that pacifism is the equivalent of defeatism is simply illogical; if they were the same than they wouldn't be described by two different terms. Popular culture has been lombasted with propaganda over the last few years that attests that pacifism is defeatism that is disguised in a liberal shroud. This is incorrect. By avoiding conflicts until one has no alternatives a pacifist is not the equivalent of someone who readily submits themselves to the whims of their opposition. Yet, you claim that these two are the same.

I claimed no such thing. Again we are either misunderstanding eachother or you are so determined to prove me wrong that you fail to see that our views are not entirely antithetic.
Please take the time to review my explanation of defeatism versus pacifism below.

Defeatism and pacifism are not contradictions, they have two different meanings that can be applied to the same school of thought.
A pacifist is someone who opposes war or violance as a means for settling disputes.
The term pacifist can also be applied to one who is descibed as a defeatist.

I am not equating defeatism to pacifism. I clearly stated that they have two different meanings. However they are not contradictions because they can be applied to the same school of thought.
By this I mean that it is possible for an individual to be solely pacifist, solely defeatist, or both.
I consider myself a pragmatic pacifist, so to claim that a pacifist is the same as a defeatist would be hypocritical on my part.
If you disagree with me on this then please cordially state your counter argument.
On a side note, to adopt a defeatist attitude is not always a bad option.
Depending on the situation it could be the ideal approach, however on the topic of imposing or hostile ideologies it would be nothing less than dangerous to adhere to defeatism.

This fact, supported by your hasty admittance that you are an extremist, immediately means that your mind will not accept the seperate existence of these two philosophies and that you will not be open to anything that anyone says to the contrary. My defensiveness has been justified; I am a pacifist not a defeatest. You have accused me of being something that I am not.

Again I did not accuse you of being anything, please point out where I made this phantom accusation and I will apologize.
It is amusing how you describe me of being someone who is close-minded and unwilling to examine the alternative argument objectively, yet on the same token you have demonstrated an aggressive and intolerant attitude while angrily stressing that you are a pacifist. Truly ironic.

 

[Older than Dirt]

Congratulations, Mott1. You have just pointed out the hallmark of a pacifist.

 

[Armed_Maniac]

I don't think that there was any political agenda in leaving out any Civ that was never in any of the Civ games...I think that Firaxis just wanted to put in some of the Civs they considered to be the best of the rest of the first three games. Israel did not appear because of this, same with any of the others.
Now as far as it goes..though I do think there are better Civs than Israel to put in the Game I would much rather see them than Canada or Austrailia. But in the end it really doesnt matter what we think - it matters what firaxis thinks will sell the game.

I've noticed most people who say that actually have their contry in the game already. However, it's worthwhile to note that Canada is a big market... Atleast way bigger than Isreal...

 

[CarterField]

Yes I did pass from one extreme to another.

This does not define me as an extremist, this also does not mean that I went from one religious, political or ideological extreme to another. Because of this transformation of thought I was able to assimilate to western culture/society without the prejudices of my former ideology.

Whether you realize it or not you are a defeatist simply because you do not understand the threat that faces us today.

Uh huh.

 

[Xineoph]

I've noticed most people who say that actually have their contry in the game already. However, it's worthwhile to note that Canada is a big market... Atleast way bigger than Isreal...

What Market? If this is all about market, then why is Mali in it?!

Oh yes...because they did something to warrant a plance in history. Mostly carving up a huge empire in Africa.

This isn't about marketing, this is about Culture, History & Influence.

Considering the belief system is unique, considering the history is unique and it's influence is evident, it is more then enough reasont put them in.

What other nation survived a diasapora, by being scattered all over the known world, and kept their identity for 2000 years, and 2000 years later bring back a dead langauge to be widely spread once again.

 

[covok48]

"What other nation survived a diasapora, by being scattered all over the known world, and kept their identity for 2000 years, and 2000 years later bring back a dead langauge to be widely spread once again."


Good point. (ten characters)