Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Should Allah be translated to God? (Score 1) 865

by MightyMartian (#48621661) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

This isn't about etymology. It's irrelevant how God and Allah were derived. What's relevant is how they're used today.

You will find as much consistency in the Islamic world as in the Christian or Jewish worlds. If you look at the Monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, it is the Christian sects that, by and large, are the most deviated from the Old Testament norms; in particular as far as the Trinity goes. The Jewish and Muslim view of God is far closer to a pure monotheism.

Louis in German is Louis, obviously.

It's Ludwig, not Louis. Both names have their origins in Old Franconian; in which the name was Chlodowig. They are equivalent, but with various pronunciation changes over the last 1500 or so years. You see, a funny thing happens to words, they evolve in pronunciation and in meaning.

But the word "allah" is merely the Arabic word for "god", and etymologically is related to similar words in other Semitic languages, including the Hebrew "el". If you're an Arabic Christian, you will use the word "allah" for the same reason. For goodness sakes, mate, the Aramaic word for God is "elah".

Comment: Re:Why not push toward collapse? (Score 1) 310

by cheesybagel (#48620941) Attached to: In Breakthrough, US and Cuba To Resume Diplomatic Relations

You can hardly call the invasion of Iraq a conquest. It was a successful expeditionary incursion but the stated goals by the PNAC for the war were the stabilization of the Persian Gulf oil producing region and the demobilization of the troops stationed in the border since the first Gulf War. The demobilization did happen but the Persian Gulf was not stabilized at all. So in that sense the war failed to meet their objectives.

The PNAC also intended to invade North Korea at the same time but I guess the Afghan war precluded that from happening.

Comment: Re:But of course they were... nitwit. (Score 1) 865

by cheesybagel (#48604219) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

Those Jewish massacres were condemned by both the Catholic Church and the Kings at that time.

The so called Northern Crusades weren't even named Crusades at the time for obvious reasons. It was a retcon. I could also call them a backlash against prior Norse invasions on the Catholic Roman Empire.

The Cathar war was similar to the Reform Wars and it had nothing to do with external relations but it was about suppressing internal dissent.

So you think Jews, Heretics, Pagans, etc don't wage war either? You sure are naive.

Comment: Re:Don't worry guys... (Score 5, Informative) 865

by cheesybagel (#48597771) Attached to: Apparent Islamic Terrorism Strikes Sydney

You can get enlightened here. I quote:

The First Crusade (1096–1099) ... ended as a military expedition by Roman Catholic Europe to regain the Holy Lands taken in the Muslim conquests of the Levant (632–661), ultimately resulting in the recapture of Jerusalem in 1099. It was launched on 27 November 1095 by Pope Urban II with the primary goal of responding to an appeal from Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who requested that western volunteers come to his aid and help to repel the invading Seljuq Turks from Anatolia.

The idle man does not know what it is to enjoy rest.