THE JEWS HAVE THEIR OWN CALENDAR.

Jews use the ancient BABYLONIAN calendar.

Babylonian astronomers deduced that 235 lunar months = 19 tropical years. They introduced a calendar with 7 leap months every 19 years which is the basis of the Hebrew calendar. The names of the Hebrew months have been borrowed from the Babylonians.

Tishri = Tashritu.

THE ARABS INVENTED OUR NUMERIC SYSTEM

The first people to think of using a zero as a placeholder were the ancient Babylonians (again).

The Babylonians used a sexagesimal (base 60) system.

The Hindus applied the zero to a decimal (base 10) system and probably invented the decimal point.

Arab traders carried the Hindu system to Europe and also simplified the ornate Hindu numerals.

We use Arab numerals within a system based on the work of Babylonian and Hindu mathematicians.

THE ARABS INVENTED ALGEBRA

The word algebra derives from Al-Khwarizmi the name of a mathematician who lived in present day Uzbekistan between 780 & 850. Many think he invented algebra.

Actually he wrote a widely used algebra textbook.

No one person invented algebra. However Diophantus who lived in Alexandria between 210 & 290 is often called the "father of algebra."

BEFORE COLUMBUS' PEOPLE THOUGHT THE EARTH WAS FLAT

The ancient Greeks already knew the Earth was spherical. Eratosthenes, born in present day Libya in ca 276 BC died in Alexandria ca 196 BC made the first reliable estimate of the diameter of the Earth.

By Columbus' time educated people knew the Earth was spherical.

Columbus disagreed with the estimates of Eratosthenes and others. He thought the Earth was quite small and that he could reach Asia easily along a Western route.

Most people agreed with Eratosthenes' estimate and were reluctant to finance such a foolish expedition. They thought Columbus would run out of food and water long before he could reach Asia.

The sceptics were right and Columbus was wrong. Had it not been for America Columbus' expedition would have perished.

Moral: IT IS BETTER TO BE LUCKY THAN CORRECT.

WAR IS DESTRUCTIVE...

World War II produced the most destructive
weapon ever used in warfare - the atomic
bomb.

Yet, there were many inventions that came
out of the war that have benefited people
enormously.

Nuclear energy, which was first used in the
atomic bomb, now provides power for
industry. The war also stimulated the
development of radar, an invention that plays
an important part today in commercial
aviation and in weather forecasting.

" IT'S BETTER TO BE LUCKY THAN CORRECT."

Here are the ten top accidental discoveries:

Penicillin, LSD, Potato Chips, Microwave,
Teflon, Brandy, Artificial Sweetener,
Popsicles, Chocolate Chip Cookies, and last but
not least - Viagra.

These can be found at:

http://listverse.com/miscellaneous/top-10-accidental-discoveries

StevenImeyer.

Interesting about the Babylonian Calender. I must remember to thank the next Babylonian I meet. What other nationalities use the same Calender?
I think the common reasoning is that it is uniquely Jewish for at least the last 2+ millennium I think they can claim ownership without too much fear of cross ownership suits.

Does't the year numbering have religious connotations(that what my Jewish daughter has told me)? I admit this is an area of which I have only a passing understanding of.

Of course you’re correct in the other points but with reference to our previous conversations I remember saying that the Arabs were the repository (storing and development place they even had Universities of sorts) of this sort of knowledge while the western world were in the so called “Dark Ages”. :-)

One could add to that music, art, ceramics, Literature, poetry Astronomy, Medicine, Law and Philosophy (although they tended to be variations on the Greek Philosophy).
Steel working (swords, Iraq I think). In the early Christian invasions aka Crusades. The Arab swords were far stronger (Less brittle than the crusaders’.) Although the English Long Bow was more than a match for the Islamic forces.

Much of this learning were available to even non Arabs in the Moorish Spain.
Keep in mind that the term Arab is/was a quasi religious term (Muslim) as many were Persian etc. Up until the 1800’s generally speaking national boundaries were fluid and nationalism took second place to the prevailing empire.

Foxy
I think your heading should be "war was ONLY destructive".
I think the survivors and history of the Ghettos in Poland, Warsaw generally, London Blitz, Coventry, Dunkirk, The Holocaust, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Pearl Harbour, Battles of the Bulge and Coral Sea , several German towns and Cities etc. may tend to dull your assertions.
You also missed Rockets, Aerodynamics Development, Jets, SONAR, start of Magnetic detection and war movies with bad german accents to mention a few.

Dear examiner,

The topic of this thread is debunking myths.
Of course we all know that "War is not
healthy for children and other living things."

I tried to point out some positives
that also resulted out of the catastrophe that
war is. In retrospect,I now realize how
foolish I was. You were right to remind me.

My family came to Australia post World War II
as "Displaced Persons," running from the Soviet
occupation of their homeland.

They lost many members of their families.
My father's brother was tortured to death.
He was a high school student.
My cousin and his family were
deportees to the Laptev Sea. And, there's
more, but I won't go into details here.

I should have given more thought to this topic
before jumping right in,
as I'm well aware of what war means.

Foxy
No probs it was a light comment by me anyway hence the smiley.
By the way I too am from Refo stock Latvia in fact.
Part of my 15 mins of fame was my story on "can we help" a few months back.
I read your comments and usually they make sense, they come across as thoughtful and genuine. Perhaps my style needs work. ;-)

Interesting family histories Foxy and examinator.

The previous five generation of my family have been refugees at one time or another. My siblings and I are the first generation, after five, who did not have to flee for our lives.

At various times members of our extended family have fled the Cossacks, the Bolsheviks, the Nazis and the Muslims. My late grandmother set something of a record. At different times she fled the Cossacks, Bolsheviks and Nazis.

Maybe that's why I detest ALL totalitarian ideologies, and their apologists, with equal ferocity. It still distresses me that so many of the early Bolsheviks were Jews.

It also, and I shall be blunt about this, is the reason for my loathing of CONTEMPORARY Islam. To me contemporary Islam is simply another totalitarian ideology. The fact that it is labelled a "religion" cuts no ice with me.

It is also why I am so contemptuous of those who seek to explain away, excuse or minimise the totalitarian nature of contemporary Islam. To me apologists for the Nazis, the Bolsheviks and contemporary Islam are all equally despicable.

Note however that I refer to "CONTEMPORARY Islam." I do understand the religious beliefs evolve. In 1600 Catholicism was a totalitarian ideology. While I hold no great liking for contemporary Catholicism, I recognise that Catholicism has changed over the past four centuries.

Perhaps Islam will also evolve into something more benign. Perhaps not. But contemporary Islam is every bit as totalitarian as Nazism and Bolshevism and their apologists equally contemptible.

Examinator:

The year in the Jewish calendar is supposed to be the number of years since the creation of the world. We are currently in the Jewish year 5768.

The system, however, derives from the Babylonians as do the names of many of the months.

To the best of my knowledge Jews are the only people who still use the Babylonian calendar system.

Dear Steven,

Thank you for sharing your family history
with us.

The memories of those who perished at the
hands of Hitler and Stalin during World
War II should be revered.

I share your feelings concerning
totalitarian regimes. But I try not to
judge any one particular group for their
actions.

There were Jews who interceded with their lives to
save persecuted Christians, there were Christians
who died in their attempts to save Jews.

They died, some along with their entire families,
or accepted their fates in concentration camps
rather than betrary their fellow men.

Some are known, but most perished and are known
only to God. These heroes embody human nobility
in its highest form and stand as beacons in the
otherwise bleak history of World War II.

Among those who, for whatever reason, chose to
collaborate with the NKVD and the Gestapo were
Christians and Jews, Germans and Russians,
members of all nations caught in the merciless
war.

Interesting thread.
I was under the impression that the Indians invented the number
system we use including the zero.
From what I read a long time ago it passed to the Arabs and then onto Europe.
This is almost the same as Steven said but not quite.

During the Middle Ages a lot of knowledge was stored in Irish monistries.
In the UK Lindesfarn monestry also held many really old documents until it was sacked by the Vikings.

Off the top of my head

Playing cards draughts and chess are all from China. So is the game pool/snooker!

Hey, Easy Times,

Although we know that the Chinese seem to have been the first to play games with pieces of paper(some think it was actually pieces of paper money) are you sure about the others?

Chess is generally accepted as being Persian in origin (the word Check Mate coming from the word to mean "The King is Dead") or Arabic, but the Greeks also claim it; while draughts have been found in Egyptian tombs and (once again) Greek archeological sites. Perhaps the Chinese do claim them - but these sources are the earliest that we can find any proof for, aren't they?

As for pool and snooker? Am I wrong in thinking they evolved from Billiards? If so a Chinese connection would only pertain to the game as played on the ground - and several other cultures claim to be the first with that. Italy - or at least the Continent would surely be the origin of billiards played upon an actual table?

On somewhat firmer ground, however, I guess we do have the Chinese to thank for pasta.

Easytimes.
Cards comes from Europe known in middle ages. Known to be played by "Willian the Bastard" later called "William the Conquerer" 1066 (Before Marco Polo).

Chess Comes from the Vikings. The earliest chess men known are pre 1000AD found in a cave on the isle of Lewis top of Scotland.
Pool was invented in the New york bars in America after the Irish migration following the Potato Famine 1890's(?).

I looked up on ther internet and it says that snooker was originally played by engish officers in India. So wheather it was the english or the Indians I dont know?

Here is a link with regards to cards/board games.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blpuzzles.htm

I guess all this proves is that games are very similar in origin. many forms of soccer have been around in many cultures for a long time but the 11 aside and current international rules come from England. Basketball is believed to have orginated with the Aztecs. At the end of the game the loosing side was often sacrficed to the gods

Foxy & stevenImeyer
My forebears were Latvian peasants. Goodness knows what they suffered prior to the war under Russian occupation. My Mother’s husband and family were "disappeared" by Nazis.

Pregnant Mother and with two young children were marched to a forced labour camp in Germany. The third child died within the 1st year.
She was in labour camp just outside of Dresden when the city was levelled by allied bombers. After the war they were moved to a 3yr in DP camp in Germany where her youngest, my sister was operated on for rickets (poor nutrition). They were shipped from Naples to Australia.

While in the Australian migrant camp she became pregnant and had me. As a baby I was adapted out to An Ausie couple. 11months later she died of septicaemia. The children were split up.
I found my remaining family a niece recently, 3 years too late to meet my sister; she had died of after a 21 year battle with breast cancer.
My brother hasn't been heard of in 16 years.

Adopted Dad had put up his age to go to war and turned 17 on the infamous Burma Railway. It is fair to say he came home a psychologically damaged and alcohol problems. He married a childhood sweetheart. She became gravely ill unable to have children she was still ill when I was adopted.
After being medically discharged from the army we eventually went to PNG. Where Adopted Dad later became an Assistant Superintendent setting up and running a couple of prison farms. During this time I experienced several indigenous cultures, Daily Contact with prisoners, deplorable “Colonial” and Christian excesses.

We moved back to Aust when I was 15. Within 2 years dad had died from the consequence of being a POW.

I lost TWO families because of ‘dictatorial’ regimes and consequently suffered.

Steven, Sweeping generalizations based on past events ALWAYS fail close examination. ALL Organized religions are dictatorial by definition or they would disappear. My point is “No matter how well you nurse a grudge it never gets better”. One evil never justifies others.

WOW examinator,

That's quite a story.

I do not consider myself to be nursing a grudge.

I am merely stating the BLEEDING OBVIOUS. Totalitarian ideologies should NEVER be appeased. The ideologues, and their apologists, are equally contemptible.

Kipling put it best:

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:
"We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say:

"We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!"

Examinator,

Yes I understand this does not apply literally to Islam. I ask you to use a bit of imagination and see the parallels.

Dear Steven,

As I've written in previous posts, when bombs
are referred to as "little boys,"
missiles are "Peacemakers" and human beings
are "soft targets" in our media, new ways
of thinking are desperately needed.

Christopher Marlowe said it well:

"...Accursed be he that first invented war,
They knew not, ah, they knew not
simple men,
How those were hit by pelting cannon shot,
Stand staggering like a quivering aspen leaf."
Tamburlaine the Great. Act 2, Sc.IV.

In a nuclear war however, there will be nobody
standing, and there will be no leaves remaining
to quiver.

John Dryden said it equally well when in,
"Alexander's Feast," he wrote:

"War, he sung, is toil and trouble;
Honour but an empty bubble.
Never ending, still beginning,
Fighting still, and still destroying,
If all the world be worth the winning,
Think, oh think, it worth enjoying."

Foxy,

I am not advocating war.

ON THE CONTRARY.

One of the surest paths to conflict is appeasing totalitarians.

Many historians believe that, had Britain and France stood up to the Nazis in 1938, World War 2 could have been averted. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

But the reality is this. Conflicts often start when the aggressor side judges it can profit from war; or from escalating demands for accommodation and political power as in the case of Islam.

The best way of averting conflict is to spell out clear defendable boundaries. Here I include political boundaries as well as territorial boundaries.

The Roman military strategist, Vegetius, put it this way.

"If you want peace prepare for war."

It was true 2100 years ago and it is true today.

It is also a lesson many people with good intentions find hard to swallow. Well, I won’t bore you with the usual aphorism about good intentions

Steven, as history shows, is undoubtedly wrong - you can always avoid war by appeasing tyrants. All you have to do is capitulate to all their demands.

Fortunately, even the most infamous appeaser, Chamberlain, ultimately realised the folly of that path and regretted his earlier appeasement. Fundamentally, Chamberlain's appeasement thinking, as with that of modern day pacifist/appeasers, stems from an inability to conceive that some people actually want war if they think they can profit from it. The Nazis proved him wrong but the price of that proof was probably WWII.

Militant Islam may yet prove the pacifists wrong again.

The Chinese, whose dabble with market economics has not yet produced a free society, might yet be an even more costly proof that appeasement and concessions are no way to deal with tyranny.

As perverse as it may sound, nuclear weapons have done an incalculable amount to 'contain' tyrants because the possibility of profitable war becomes so remote. Whilst wars continue to rage throughout the third world, those nations under the protective umbrella of nuclear weapons have remained almost free of the direct effects of war since the time they came under that protection.

This is no accident.

The use of nuclear weapons may be evil, but can anyone seriously question the good that has come of nuclear deterrence?

I often wondered about that Vegetius quote.

What does someone who desires war prepare for?

Yep, he was military man wasn't he?

Bugsy,

Those who want war will prepare for war.

Vegetius seems to have been addressing his comments to those who want peace. They too have to prepare for war.

This is an unpleasant thought. It’s one well-intentioned peace-lovers hate to contemplate. They cannot get their heads around the thought that there are really bad people out there who may want to kill you and your children.

Mostly however, they are rational and can be deterred.

IN the current case the danger, as I have said "again and again" is not Muslim terrorism. It is the piece by price surrender of vital freedoms in order to appease Muslims.

Here ia an example of what I mean. I've quoted it elsewhere:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/19/2339561.htm

Quote:

"But Random House decided to pull the book after advice that it "might be offensive" to some Muslims, and "could incite acts of violence by a small radical segment".

"The publishing group says they want to ensure the safety of the author, Random House staff and others."

Just a little bit, a teeny little bit, an almost imperceptible little bit, of the right to free speech died with that book.

So tiny that people will mock me for mentioning it.

How much will die tomorrow? And the day after tomorrow?

Kalin1 and StevenImeyer,
It is a discontinuous thinking and an unhappy mind that sees the world in only Black and White (a series of extremes).
Likewise the idea that the only options are war or appeasement is asinine.

My adopted dad impressed two ideas on me.
• “If a war comes be in B company…Be here in company when they go and… be here in company when they come back”.
• “If you’re going to give your life to a cause make sure it’s yours, not someone else’s…”
If you think about it logically Australia has been to several wars for other peoples’ agendas (power and profit).
• Boer War …to maintain the British sovereignty over South Africa.
• WW1… to maintain English pride and Empire. Churchill was the architect and advocate for Gallipoli.
• WW2 … Evidence is that the Japs didn’t have plans to invade Australia until we declared war on them. (At the time it simply wasn’t worth it. Known resources V resources to invade.)
More Ausies died protecting England’s interests than protecting Australia’s. The common factor in both WW’s was a British conservative politics and Winston Churchill who tried to keep our troops in Europe rather defending Australia. Even when the ships were made available they were diverted to defend British Malaya.
• Korea … Conservative USA (via UN) fighting Communism.
• Vietnam … USA Pride and Major powers stupidity (colonial rights)

The justification for Vietnam were the “threat of the great Asian hordes”, “Reds under the bed se”, “Domino principle” (not fast food company). The west lost that one where’s the horde?
Our soldiers did their honourable duty (I honour that) but in the final analysis who benefited?

Who starts wars? Leaders (political and corporate) usually justifying the unconscionable on either political or nationalistic grounds (pride), while telling us only what they want us to know.

Israel/ Palestine conflict is different.

I wouldn’t die for Australia but I would to preserve lives.
“ Patriotism is the last resort of a scoundrel” Dr Samuel Johnson
Have you got the imagination to break the cycle?

Dear examinator,

Wow, you Sir, are impressive!

I like the way you think!

Examinator,

I have no idea what you mean by "discontinuous thinking"

I do not know why you think I have an "unhappy mind" whatever that may mean.

I most definitely do not see the world in black and white.

But I do hope that I am realistic.

I agree that Australia should only go to war to defend its own interests. As a South African I've often wondered why Australia got involved in the Boer war!

However judging what is in Australia's interests can be difficult. Take your example of declaring war on Japan.

Did the Japanese ever plan to invade Australia?

I have no way of knowing. More importantly I DOUBT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE TIME HAD ANY WAY OF KNOWING.

However, that is almost besides the point. The question I think many people were asking themselves is this:

If this very aggressive military power called Japan, that has already invaded China and Korea and acted with terrible brutality, becomes the dominant power in our region what, happens to me then?

My guess is that most Australians would not have wanted to find out.

World War 1 is more problematical. The Kaiser's Germany, though quite a brutal regime, was not Nazi Germany. It probably posed little threat to Australia. The Brits sacrificed Australian troops with what I can only call careless abandon. Your case there is stronger.

How about sending troops to fight against Germany at the start of WW2?

1939 was not 1914. The reach of great powers was much longer. The thought of Nazi Germany becoming what we today call a super-power must have seemed horrific.

FDR secretly broke US law to help Britain in 1939-41 because he recognised that growing Nazi power posed a threat to America. Arguably it did to Australia as well.

However here is a brutal reality. As a small country Australia sometimes has no choice but to tag along with allies and hope for the best.

Whether or not you would "die for Australia" is your choice

Steven,

I am far less worried about the little freedoms that we appear to be losing by 'appeasing' Muslims, than I am about the big freedoms that we are losing in the name of fighting them.

Bugsy,

I cheated and got an alternative login. ;-)

You write:

"I am far less worried about the little freedoms that we appear to be losing by 'appeasing' Muslims, than I am about the big freedoms that we are losing in the name of fighting them."

I do not think free speech is a "little freedom."

I suggest you should be equally concerned by both the freedoms we lose by appeasing Islam and the freedoms we lose by giving up too much power to the state in the name of "national security."

Steven,

I think that your description of the self-censorship decision made by a publishing house is a bit overblown, especially since similar decisions are made all the time about non-Muslim topics for appeasing the non-Muslim general public. Personally I think they shouldn't have done it because Salman Rushdie did quite well out of his boring pretentious effort after being criticised by a few Muslims.

A blanket statement that it's directly affecting our "freedom of speech", equates this little thing with publishers and authors or reporters being shut down or 'disappeared' to gulags or being threatened, deported etc. This is not happening, nor is it even the first step of a "slippery slope".

Give it up mate, no one infringed your freedom here.

On the other hand, reporters have been deported from the United States because they had a tourist visa for visiting a media convention, an issue that was not a problem before 2001.