Re: ID cards and Khozars

Jeff: you misunderstood me; I said we already had a national ID card by default.

For the record, I'm not in favor of a new type of national ID card, but
I am in favor of surveillance of
certain groups, not only because they are potential terrorists and
saboteurs, but also, unfortunately,
for their own protection as violence against muslims and Near-Eastern
ethnic types seems to be
increasing.

I must admit that I am in favor of research on stem cells and into the
possibility of human cloning.

As for the rest of your post, you've been taking rhetoric lessons from
Brian <g>.

Johnny: IIRC, part of the Palestinian propaganda against the legitimacy
of the the State of Israel is
that European Jews are not descended from the ancient Israelites, but
rather are mostly of Asian and
Northern European descent. Somewhere I've seen the claim that
red-headed Jews are descendants
of Khazars, but since they probably spoke a language related to Turkish
before conversion, this seems
unlikely, though the Khazars may have been a mixture of Asians and
caucasians ethnically.

I believe they chose Judaism over their own paganism because their Khan
thought they were defeated
in a battle because they were polytheists. Since their enemies were both
Christian and muslim, they
didn't want to convert to either, but instead asked each of them which
religion they would prefer to be
if they were not Xian or Muslim. Both sides recommended Judaism.

I've read someplace that during WWII, the Nazi's spared the putative
direct descendants of the Khazars, who still practiced their own version
of Judaism.

--John

In a message dated 9/24/01 7:46:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
JHCHALMERS@... writes:

> Johnny: IIRC, part of the Palestinian propaganda against the legitimacy
> of the the State of Israel is
> that European Jews are not descended from the ancient Israelites, but
> rather are mostly of Asian and
> Northern European descent.

The Khazar were the earliest western most fringe of Turkish migration. When
the leaders publicly converted to Judaism, there began a migration north of
all kinds of Jews, many from the middle east. There were mosques and
churches as well. The capital of Itil is buried, I believe intentionally,
under a huge dam (much like Nasser buried Nubia). The propaganda is just
that, propaganda. On a fair playing field, religion need not be ethnically
based. Regardless, DNA seems to demonstrate healthy levels of Middle Eastern
in Ashkenazi.

> red-headed Jews are descendants
> of Khazars, but since they probably spoke a language related to Turkish
> before conversion, this seems
> unlikely, though the Khazars may have been a mixture of Asians and
> caucasians ethnically.
>

The Ferghana in Afghanistan's Ferghana Valley are said to be blue eyed and
blond Turks. I think there are red-headed Huns, Hungarians, Scandinavians,
Germans, Irish, and many others. Jews, too. But maybe not Khazars at all.

> I've read someplace that during WWII, the Nazi's spared the putative
> direct descendants of the Khazars, who still practiced their own version
> of Judaism.
>
> --John
>

Who, the Karaites? Where do these stories get started? Maybe Hitler's
great-grandfather thought he was part Khazar? Could be. We spoke about
Koestler's book in L.A., yes?

Johnny

Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Jeff: you misunderstood me; I said we already had a national
> ID card by default.
>
> For the record, I'm not in favor of a new type of national ID
> card,

Hi John,

Ok. Please accept my apology. I was in a fury about
this alleged 70% of the US public clamoring for a
supertotalitarian police state it and I may have been
looking too hard to find one of these characters and
have them explain themselves.

> but I am in favor of surveillance of certain groups, not only
> because they are potential terrorists and saboteurs, but
> also, unfortunately, for their own protection as violence
> against muslims and Near-Eastern ethnic types seems to be
> increasing.

Agreed. Though I do agree with our Constitutional
controls on amount kind and conditions of surveillance
results that is permissable and thus can be admitted
into evidence. In other words, I don't agree with
unlimited police powers since I don't believe that the
police are comprised soley of honest people with
perfectly noble motives who would never do anything
wrong.

Agree on the second point here too. Regarding
protection and previous comments about the interment of
Japanese Americans, I agree -- I knew an old Japanese
woman and asked her about it some years back and she
said she and her family were glad to go to the
interment camp since people were in an uproar about the
Japanese and they were treated decently in the camps
and had decent dormatories and spent their time reading
and keeping gardens. Sounded kind of like a vacation
camp, the word camp being rather accurate. No one
thought of them as prisons or anything like that and
they knew that after the war they'd go back to their
lives and things would return to normal which it
largely did.

I do not believe that the attack was as unexpected
as is being let on and I also do not believe that
the people who are being blamed for the attack ore
necessarily the people who were involved.

I do believe that, in examining the results of the
attack, we can form a good idea of who some of the
people are who are involved.

> I must admit that I am in favor of research on stem cells
> and into the possibility of human cloning.

Hm. Did I mention anything about that? Well I _was_
wondering about those things and I will admit openly
that I now view you as a psychotic and deranged madman
because of it. Though to what degree would depend on
what sources you favor for stem cells and what
applications you envision for cloning. Perhaps you are
simply misguided seeing cloning as some sort of weird
fertility treatment for narcissists, or perhaps you are
the embodiment of evil, envisioning the cloning of a
twin for the purpose of murdering it and harvesting its
body parts. Would you see the clone as a human being
with the same rights as everyone else or not. If not,
would you allow for clones of famous personalities to
be sold as sex slaves, or clones of one's boss to be
kept and tortured for entertainment/stress-release?
Or would you simply sidestep the issue and leave it
to 'trained bioethicists', saying you are a 'pure
scientist' who leaves issues of morality for others
to decide?

I must admit I am impressed that you are able to admit
these things openly...

> As for the rest of your post, you've been taking rhetoric
> lessons from Brian <g>.

Ah perhaps. I'll have to go reread it.

Thanks,

Jeff