posted
Wherever you look, there are all of these people calling themselves ARABS!
But Arabia is a sparsely populated country, how could it possibly have produced all of those people? It didn't, the bulk of the people now calling themselves Arabs are actually Turks, with some Europeans thrown in, from the times of Greek, Roman, and Vandal control of these areas.
Today, the major impetus for all of these "obviously NOT" peoples to call themselves Arab, is the Islamic religion. Even though they were an important part of Muhammad's conquering armies, they were not originally accepted as true Muslims. But the mawali as they were known (non-Arab Muslims), were such an important part (probably the biggest part) of the Islamic armies that their complaints had to be addressed.
As a matter of fact, the mawali Syrian army became the basis of Umayyad strength, enabling the bypassing of Arab tribal rivalries. It was under Umayyad Caliph Umar II (reigned 717-720 A.D.) that these discontented mawali (non-Arab Muslims), were by decree, placed on the same footing with all other Muslims - without respect to nationality. This decree allowed Greeks, Turks and other Eurasians to fully assimilate into the Muslim brotherhood.
So that today, we have all of these non-Black people, both White and mixed race, calling themselves Arabs. This thread is intended to document how it came to be that these "obviously non-Arabs" came to be known almost universally as Arabs. And also, who are the real Arabs, and where are they. All are invited to add whatever they can, to further our understanding of this phenomenon.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many Greek and Roman armies made incursions into Arabia, but the final blow was dealt by the Turks.
In 1801, the British invaded and occupied Egypt.
Muhammad Ali (Pasha): In March 1803 the British were evacuated in accordance with the Peace of Amiens. But the Ottomans, determined to reassert their control over Egypt remained, establishing their power through a viceroy and an occupying army of Albanians. The Albanians later mutinied and installed their own leader as acting viceroy. When he was assassinated shortly afterward, the command of the Albanians passed to his lieutenant, Muhammad Ali.
In Arabia, the domination of Mecca and Medina by puritanical Wahhabi Muslims was a serious embarrassment to the Ottoman sultan, who was the titular overlord of the Arabian territory of the Hejaz and the leading Muslim sovereign. At the invitation of Sultan Mahmud II (1808-39), Muhammad Ali sent an expedition to Arabia that between 1811 and 1813 expelled the Wahhabis from the Hejaz. In a further campaign (1816-18), Ibrahim Pasha, the viceroy's eldest son, defeated the Wahhabis in their homeland of Najd, and brought central Arabia under Albanian control. (Albanians are Turks too).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Abdul Aziz Al Saud, (Abd al Aziz) King of Saudi Arabia (1876 – November 9, 1953) was the first monarch of The Third Saudi State known as Saudi Arabia. Of his full name Abdul Aziz bin Abdur Rahman Al Saud, he was commonly referred to as ibn Saud. Ibn Saud was the father of many children, including all kings of Saudi Arabia that have ruled after him.
Unfortunately the real Arabs (the Black ones) were no smarter than any other Black people - they trusted non-Blacks.
The Ikhwan Movement
Seeking to win over Arab tribal leaders and obtain their loyalty to him and his cause, Abd al Aziz established Ikhwan communities in which the beduin tribesmen could settle and adopt a sedentary way of life. The Ikhwan were supported by Abd al Aziz with land, seed, tools, and money, as well as arms and ammunition. A mosque was built in each community, and these mosques also served as military garrisons. By 1915 there were more than 200 settlements and in excess of 60,000 men in readiness to heed Abd al Aziz's call for warriors in his continuing battles to unite the peninsula.
The Ikhwan became dedicated, even fanatical followers of the young Al Saud leader. Acquiescence to discipline was not an Ikhwan virtue, but Abd al Aziz was an uncommon leader able to use the power of the brotherhood and its prowess in battle to his advantage. The greatest of the Ikhwan successes was the conquest of the Hijaz after World War I, but the bold exploits of the Ikhwan also marked the beginning of their end. When Sharif Hussein, the Hashimite ruler of the Hijaz, entered into military negotiations with the Al Rashid, Abd al Aziz's reaction was swift and harsh. He sent the Ikhwan against the Al Rashid stronghold at Hail, which was captured with little difficulty in 1921. Emboldened by their success, the warriors disregarded orders and crossed the border into Transjordan. The raiding and plundering of their Hashimite ally aroused the British, who counterattacked with devastating effect, using armored cars and aircraft.
Other Ikhwan expeditions succeeded in overpowering Asir, an independent enclave in the southwest. In defiance of Abd al Aziz's authority, however, they continued to raid the British protectorates. Recognizing that the wild forays of the Ikhwan could only be a constant irritant and source of danger to his leadership, Abd al Aziz began to form a more conventional and more disciplined army. He entered Mecca and laid siege to Jiddah and Medina, which were occupied by the end of 1924. These successes led to the capitulation of the Hashimite kingdom of the Hijaz, leaving the Al Saud in control of the entire peninsula, except for Yemen in the southwest and the British gulf protectorates.
Having acquired such a tremendous area, Abd al Aziz then faced the daunting task of governing it. First, however, he had to deal with the rebellious Ikhwan. The zealots of the brotherhood regarded the Western-influenced modernization pursued by Abd al Aziz as a betrayal of the fundamentals of Islam that had been their raison d'ętre since the beginning of their association with the House of Saud. Renewed Ikhwan raids against defenseless groups in Iraq incensed the British, who were trying to stabilize the region, and finally compelled Abd al Aziz to force the submission of the Ikhwan. When the Ikhwan leadership revolted against Abd al Aziz, he took to the field to lead his army, which was now supported by four British aircraft (flown by British pilots) and a fleet of 200 military vehicles that symbolized the modernization that the Ikhwan abhorred. After being crushed at the Battle of Sabalah, the Ikhwan were eliminated as an organized military force in early 1930.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Shammar are the largest tribe of Arabia. Obviously claiming all these people as black is ridiculous. Some are and some aren't just like the rest of the Arabian clans.
posted
Doug M - Interesting videos. I notice that the military guys are all non-Black, I wonder if that has anything to do with the Ikhwan episode.
Wonder why the only Black guy they talked with was the executioner.
The last video proved that some things ALWAYS remains the same - the Black ones dance better. He he...
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Shammar are the largest tribe of Arabia. Obviously claiming all these people as black is ridiculous. Some are and some aren't just like the rest of the Arabian clans.
Actually your main point is NOT true Doug. Just because there has been admixture in the Shammar tribe does NOT mean that a TRUE Shammar is mixed, just that many MODERN Shammar are mixed.
But it does bring up an important issue. Please note the pictures below.
Berbers, like Arabs, have suffered the effects of admixture. The first picture is of so-called Berber women.
The second picture is of Berber men - they are QUITE different. So of the people pictured below, which do you consider TRUE Berbers???
posted
All jokes aside, this black washing history is no longer funny. It's like you guys are so extreme and fanatical, you don't even realize how far your foolishness is taking you. You are effectively robbing every damn people of their history. Don't you fvcking see what you're doing? Don't you fvcking see the consequence behind your fake ass methodology?
Is there not atleast one moderate afronut voice to check these clowns? This is really fvcking ridiculous - Chinese was black, japanese was black, indian was black, Arab was black? STOP IT ALREADY!
Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: All jokes aside, this black washing history is no longer funny. It's like you guys are so extreme and fanatical, you don't even realize how far your foolishness is taking you. You are effectively robbing every damn people of their history. Don't you fvcking see what you're doing? Don't you fvcking see the consequence behind your fake ass methodology?
Is there not atleast one moderate afronut voice to check these clowns? This is really fvcking ridiculous - Chinese was black, japanese was black, indian was black, Arab was black? STOP IT ALREADY!
You have to understand that these negrocentrics are descendants of slaves. They are reallynot proud of themselves and their history so they do whatever they can in their power to claim other peoples history with the worst use of methodology. Its quite sad really. But whats more interesting is how these blacks accomplishment so much out of Afreeaka but couldn't accomplish much in the sub sahara alone. Posts: 175 | From: Who knows? | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: All jokes aside, this black washing history is no longer funny. It's like you guys are so extreme and fanatical, you don't even realize how far your foolishness is taking you. You are effectively robbing every damn people of their history. Don't you fvcking see what you're doing? Don't you fvcking see the consequence behind your fake ass methodology?
Is there not atleast one moderate afronut voice to check these clowns? This is really fvcking ridiculous - Chinese was black, japanese was black, indian was black, Arab was black? STOP IT ALREADY!
Right on ALL counts, glad you are FINALLY getting it!! But you left out one group: WHITES were also Black.
posted
Afronut Slayer - Your stated purpose for coming to this forum was to "SLAY" Afronuts like me - hence the name "Afronut Slayer".
But it is YOU who seems to be begging for someone, ANYONE, to disprove what I say. Me thinks that you might have gotten more than you bargained for.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
For #2: What do the 1800's have to do with anything? But it's possible with hapmap (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to check population differences.
In Zinkstok et al "Association between the DTNBP1 gene and intelligence: a case-control study in young patients with schizophrenia and related disorders and unaffected siblings": The dystrobrevin-binding protein 1 (DTNBP1) gene is a susceptibility gene for schizophrenia. There is growing evidence that DTNPB1 contributes to intelligence and cognition. In this study, we investigated association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the DTNBP1 gene and intellectual functioning in patients with a first episode of schizophrenia or related psychotic disorder (first-episode psychosis, FEP), their healthy siblings, and unrelated controls. The rs:760761, rs:2619522 and rs:2619538 alleles are associated with increased or decreased intelligence on DTNBP1 rs:760761, the T allele is associated with an IQ drop of 8 points. According to Hapmap, 18% of Whites have this allele, 7% of East Asians, and 37% of Sub-Saharan Africans. rs:2619522, the G alelle takes off 7 points. It's similar to the first, found in 18% of Whites, 8% of East Asians, and 35% of Sub-Saharan Africans. rs:2619538, the T allele adds 6.5 IQ points. Europeans carry it 61% of the time, East Asians carry it 1% of the time, and Sub Saharan Africans 67% of the time.
These are racial differences in intelligence-altering genes, sir.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
. Brada-Anansi - not meaning to be critical - but it is always a good idea to identify people that you post pictures of. (His mother was obviously a "REAL" Arab).
Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud, born 2 March 1949) is a Saudi politician and was Saudi ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005. He was appointed Secretary-General of the National Security Council by King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz on 16 October 2005.
Born in Taif, Saudi Arabia, Prince Bandar is a son of Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Deputy Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia.
Prince Bandar has formed close relationships with several American presidents, notably George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, the latter giving him the affectionate and controversial nickname "Bandar Bush". (The close relationship with the Bush family is described in Craig Unger's book House of Bush, House of Saud and is highlighted in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.)
During the Reagan presidency, he secured the purchase of AWACs surveillance aircraft in the teeth of fierce Israeli and congressional opposition. When America turned down one particular arms order he, undeterred, bought missiles from China, hoodwinking the CIA and infuriating the State department.
No Arab ambassador - perhaps no ambassador - has ever come close to matching Prince Bandar's influence in Washington, D.C. At the height of his influence and power he was indispensable to both sides, serving "at once as the King's exclusive messenger and the White House's errand boy".
Prince Bandar has endured controversy over allegations in the book Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward that President George W. Bush informed him of the decision to invade Iraq ahead of Secretary of State Colin Powell. Also, the book alleged a deal had been worked out to reduce oil prices just ahead of the November 2004 election. Bandar publicly endorsed President Bush.
On 26 June 2005, Prince Bandar reportedly submitted his resignation as ambassador to the United States for "personal reasons". Bandar's return to Saudi Arabia was announced weeks prior to the death of King Fahd, upon which Bandar's father, Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, became the nation's Crown Prince. It has been rumoured that Bandar's return was timed in order to secure a position in the new government. In October 2005 he became the kingdom's national security chief
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am surprised that no one has commented on what the White and half-breed Turks did when the Niggers got out of hand.
Quote from above: "When the Ikhwan leadership revolted against Abd al Aziz, he took to the field to lead his army, which was now supported by four British aircraft (flown by British pilots) and a fleet of 200 military vehicles that symbolized the modernization that the Ikhwan abhorred. After being crushed at the Battle of Sabalah, the Ikhwan were eliminated as an organized military force in early 1930."
Is it only me who see's the parallels between their actions, and the actions of the Hellenes in Greece and the Latins in Italy. Unfailingly they ALWAYS gang up on the Black man, regardless of their own hatreds, which they deal with afterwards - there is a lesson there.
Seems to me that if the Ikhwan had survived, they might have driven Whites from North Africa and the Middle East entirely.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bindar's mother was from Sudan I think but that's the point,they have been receiving
African DNA non stop since time beyond counting Prince Mashhur-Ibn-Saud. All in the family
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is interesting - Note the different stories.
Prince Bandar is the child of Prince Sultan and one of his servants, but under Sharia, the Islamic law that governs Saudi Arabia, all sons are considered born equal and are to be afforded similar status. Though Bandar spent his early years living apart from his father, when he was eleven he and his mother were both invited to live with the royal family. At the time, the young prince was not considered one of the most promising Saud sons, but his grandmother saw that the boy was sharp and determined to create his own opportunities. Later, as a young man, he also won the attention of his uncle, King Fahd.
Prince Bandar, Now 58, he is the illegitimate son of an African slave girl and Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud. According to Bandar, he grew up as an only child in a ‘mud hut’, in spite of having 32 royal half brothers and sisters, and it was only when he was a teenager that his father, now Crown Prince, recognised him as his legitimate son.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is Afronut Slayer when I need him. Afronut, stop whimpering and tell me what the hell is going on here. White people tell so many lies that I get tired of trying to figure it out - so you do it. Which story - if either - is correct?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by J. Philippe Rushton: DTNBP1 gene / DYSBINDIN-1 gene CHRM2 gene SNAP-25 gene APP gene APOE gene FADS2 gene PCNT gene IL1RAPL1 gene ASPM gene DARPP-32 gene and CAG repeats
For #2: What do the 1800's have to do with anything? But it's possible with hapmap (http://hapmap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to check population differences.
In Zinkstok et al "Association between the DTNBP1 gene and intelligence: a case-control study in young patients with schizophrenia and related disorders and unaffected siblings": The dystrobrevin-binding protein 1 (DTNBP1) gene is a susceptibility gene for schizophrenia. There is growing evidence that DTNPB1 contributes to intelligence and cognition. In this study, we investigated association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the DTNBP1 gene and intellectual functioning in patients with a first episode of schizophrenia or related psychotic disorder (first-episode psychosis, FEP), their healthy siblings, and unrelated controls. The rs:760761, rs:2619522 and rs:2619538 alleles are associated with increased or decreased intelligence on DTNBP1 rs:760761, the T allele is associated with an IQ drop of 8 points. According to Hapmap, 18% of Whites have this allele, 7% of East Asians, and 37% of Sub-Saharan Africans. rs:2619522, the G alelle takes off 7 points. It's similar to the first, found in 18% of Whites, 8% of East Asians, and 35% of Sub-Saharan Africans. rs:2619538, the T allele adds 6.5 IQ points. Europeans carry it 61% of the time, East Asians carry it 1% of the time, and Sub Saharan Africans 67% of the time.
These are racial differences in intelligence-altering genes, sir.
Talk about severe mental issues. For one, you definitely are intellectually deficient. Continue to post like some foolish American high school "graduate" who can't post data.
How about post studies regarding those genes? Provide studies which places strong environmental controls, when analyzing those genes. I haven't seen convincing evidence in your arguments and I'm not going to be looking for papers either. It is up to you to provide that, and make the debate more accessible to others.
If not, post that stormfront link.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
t's look at rs:760761, rs:2619522 and rs:2619538, all of which are associated with increased or decreased intelligence in DTNBP1.
Regarding rs:760761, 18% of Europeans carry the T allele, which knocks about 8 points off the ol' IQ, compared to around 7% of East Asians and 37% of blacks.
Regarding rs:2619522, the numbers are similar. 18% of whites carry the G allele, which knocks about 7 points off the ol' IQ, versus around 8% of Asians and 35-36% of blacks...
Regarding rs:2619538, 61% of whites carry the T allele, which adds about 6.5 points to one's IQ, versus about 1% of Asians and 67% of blacks...
If 6% more blacks carry the T allele than whites (67% vs. 61%) on rs:2619538, and the T allele codes for 6.5 FSIQ (full scale IQ) points, then this gives blacks an advantage of .4 IQ points over whites from this SNP.
Also, if 60% more whites carry the T allele than Asians, and the T allele codes for 6.5 FSIQ points, than this gives whites an advantage of 3.9 IQ points over Asians from this SNP.
t's look at rs:760761, rs:2619522 and rs:2619538, all of which are associated with increased or decreased intelligence in DTNBP1.
Regarding rs:760761, 18% of Europeans carry the T allele, which knocks about 8 points off the ol' IQ, compared to around 7% of East Asians and 37% of blacks.
Regarding rs:2619522, the numbers are similar. 18% of whites carry the G allele, which knocks about 7 points off the ol' IQ, versus around 8% of Asians and 35-36% of blacks...
Regarding rs:2619538, 61% of whites carry the T allele, which adds about 6.5 points to one's IQ, versus about 1% of Asians and 67% of blacks...
If 6% more blacks carry the T allele than whites (67% vs. 61%) on rs:2619538, and the T allele codes for 6.5 FSIQ (full scale IQ) points, then this gives blacks an advantage of .4 IQ points over whites from this SNP.
Also, if 60% more whites carry the T allele than Asians, and the T allele codes for 6.5 FSIQ points, than this gives whites an advantage of 3.9 IQ points over Asians from this SNP.
I replied to the study on another thread. Why not cite the actual study and not just x copy bullshit from Stormfront? This study doesn't back the bottom-top view that you seem to be banking on, my foolish friend.
Oh yes, that discussion sounds quite academic. I would rather just look away, because it doesn't seem to have any importance in this discussion. Next time, post the direct source, the methodology and results so that discussions could involve other users as well.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting string of videos Doug..that executioner was way too calm about his job..and the South Arabian dancers reminds me of African dancers.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
J. Philippe Rushton and Bob_01 - What's the matter, too shy to say anything directly? Come-on don't be afraid, no one is going to bite you.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It appears that I have been inhabited from normal sized posting on this matter - only little snippets like this.
Whether that is because of some software snafu or because I have finally gone too far and piss-off the "Arabs" running this site is unknown at this time - if the thread "Suddenly" disappears, then we will all know the answer to that. In the mean time, small snippets it is.
I had intended to post excerpts from the study below, but since I can't, please use the posted URL to access the study.
I have shown that many of today's "Arabs" are NOT really Arabs at all. So who are they, where did they come from, and when? We will go into those questions, but first let us look at the genetics of the "modern" Arab.
BMC Evol Biol. 2007; 7: 32. Published online 2007 March 1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-7-32. PMCID: PMC1810519
posted
Of course to the members with any common sense, the genetics study is unnecessary. Common sense tells us that someone as pale as the Saudi prince below, could NOT possibly be "natural" to an environment as hot and intensely "Sunlit" as Arabia. .
quote:Originally posted by Doug M: The Shammar are the largest tribe of Arabia. Obviously claiming all these people as black is ridiculous. Some are and some aren't just like the rest of the Arabian clans.
this is African dance.. White arabian my ass... Most Saudi Arabians are of darker hue people. The didn't come from the Caucus mountains...
Posts: 81 | From: Newark, Nj | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
As everyone should already know, White people come from Central Asia. They first entered Europe at about 1,200 B.C. and from there they spread out over the rest of the world.
This is the genetics map of their movements.
The genetics study cited above clearly showed that a goodly part of "Modern Saudi" genes are in fact Eurasian (White), no surprise there, we can see that. (BTW - this is typical for all of North Africa and the middle east, with the numbers going up tremendously in certain countries).
Let us now investigate how that came to be.
The first actual "Hostile" incursion of Whites into Africa was when Dorian Greeks attacked the Libyan city of Cyrene during the reign of king Wahibre (570 B.C.). They won, but this was of little consequence in the overall history of the area.
The "BIG" blow was struck by Alexander the Great. The Persians has previously conquered everything "worth" conquering - including Egypt. So when their Empire started to fall apart because of internal troubles;
Alexander - with the help of some Greeks that the Persians thought were working for them (pity the dumb nigger - they never learn), was able to defeat the Persians and take over all of the territory that they had conquered. Thus this vast Empire became White controlled (332 B.C.).
(The fall of the last Persian Empire - not this one, the Sassanian which came later, was effectively the fall of the last Black Empire, and brought an end to all Black Hegemony).
Alexanders Empire (which he took from the Persians).
posted
After Alexanders death (323 B.C.) the Greeks split-up his Empire between his generals.
General Ptolemy I, got Egypt - the Ptolemy's ruled Egypt for about 300 years.
General Seleucus I Nicator, got Mesopotamia and Persia.
Naturally, White people POURED into these areas.
But you will notice from the map, that at this time, White control in Africa only extended to Egypt and Libya.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
White control of the former Persian Empire, allowed other Whites to move in. It was during the reign of a later Seleucid king Antiochus III, that one of the White tribes, which had earlier migrated in from the northeast - the Parthians - under their king Mithradates I, conquered Seleucid territory in Persia, and entered the city of Seleucia in 141 B.C.
But after the death of Parthian king Mithradates I in 138 B.C, Seleucid king "Antiochus VII" began a campaign to recover lost Seleucid territory. This campaign was successful until Antiochus VII, lost his life in Persia in 129 B.C. His death ended Seleucid rule in Mesopotamia, and allowed for the establishment of small principalities in both south and north Mesopotamia.
Also with the death of the Greek king Antiochus VII, the Parthians then went on to conquer what was left of Media, Babylonia, and Assyria; thus creating the Parthian empire. This Parthian Empire would last until 224 A.D.
The Parthian empire was not centralized, there were several languages, ethnically several peoples, and several economic systems. Thus the Parthian monarch was the ruler of his own kingdom, plus some eighteen vassal kings, such as the rulers of the city-state of Hatra, the port of Characene and the kingdom of Armenia.
By now, Rome has become the great power in Europe, and they too are bent on conquest. The prize for them was what was left of the Seleucid Empire. The Parthians also wanted more of this territory. So in 69 B.C, the two enemies concluded a treaty in anticipation of taking the remnants of the Seleucid Empire and splitting it up amongst themselves. The Euphrates river would be their border, east of that would be Parthia's, west of the Euphrates would be Roman.
The Seleucid Empire was assaulted from two sides: the Parthians attacked from the east, the Romans from the west. Six years later, the Roman commander "Pompey the Great" conquered what was left of the empire of the Seleucids. However, ten years later in 53 B.C, the Roman general Crassus invades Parthia. This would be the beginning of a series of wars, that were to last for almost three hundred years.
The Parthian armies consisted of two types of cavalry: the heavily-armed and armored cataphracts, and the lightly armed brigades of mounted archers. To the Romans, who relied on heavy infantry, the Parthians were hard to pin-down and defeat. On the other hand, the Parthians could never occupy conquered territory; they had neither the infantry nor the skills, to hold ground. This explains why the Roman-Parthian wars lasted so long.
Map of the Parthian Empire. (Note that it includes ALL of Eastern Arabia). This probably marks the first serious foray of Whites into Arabia.
The Parthian wars with Rome continued, back and forth, until Septimius Severus became king of the Roman empire. He attacked Parthia, and Ctesiphon was captured in 198 A.D. As a result of this victory, large spoils were brought to Rome. Parthia was now impoverished, while at the same time, there had also been internal revolts in Parthia.
And so in 224 A.D, the resurgent Persians, now under their king "Ardašir", culminated the war with Parthia that his father "Papak" had started. He defeated the last Parthian king "Artabanus V" in battle, and two years later, Ardašir took Ctesiphon. This meant the end of Parthia, and it also meant the beginning of the second Persian Empire, one ruled by the Sassanian kings.
posted
You know what's pathetic about you Mike? you are so delusional, you can't even see that none of the reliefs you provided show anything resembling a negro.
-------------------- A recovering Afronut Posts: 604 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
After Ardashir I, the first of the Sassanian kings, had consolidated his position in Persia, he moved into southern Mesopotamia. The city of Mesene submitted in 224 A.D, he then defeated and killed the last Parthian ruler Artabanus V. After which, Mesopotamia quickly fell before him. Ctesiphon became the main capital of the Sassanian Empire.
As always, these Sassanian Persians went on a campaign of conquest. In about 238 A.D, Nisibis, Hatra and Harran, came under their control. Then, Ardashir died and his son Shapur I became king. The Roman emperor Gordian III, led a large army against Shapur I in 243 A.D. The Romans retook Harran and Nisibis and defeated the Sassanians at a battle near Resaina. But at another city "Anbar", renamed Peroz-Shapur ("Victorious Is Shapur"), the Sassanians inflicted a heavy defeat on the Romans. At this time, the Romans also lost their emperor. Later the "new" Roman emperor "Valerian", was defeated and captured at the gates of Edessa in 259 A.D. This victory was the high point of Shapurs conquests in the west.
.
These Nigga's routinely kicked Roman Ass!!
(You don't read about that in your White history books, do you).
posted
Note: By now Egypt had long been in Roman hands; that occurred when Octavian's navy severely defeated Antony in Actium which is in Greece on September 2, 31 B.C. Octavian's admiral Agrippa, planned and carried out the defeat.
In less than a year, Antony half-heartedly defended Alexandria against the advancing army of Octavian. After the defeat, Antony committed suicide by falling on his own sword in 30 B.C.
It is reported that native Egyptians blocked Cleopatra's escape, by now they were well weary of Greeks.
After Antony's death, Cleopatra was taken to Octavian where her role in Octavian's triumph was carefully explained to her. He had no interest in any relationship, negotiation or reconciliation with the Queen of Egypt. She would be displayed as a slave in the cities she had ruled over. She must have had memories of her sister, Arsinoe, being humiliated in this way.
She would not live this way, so she had an asp, which is an Egyptian cobra, brought to her hidden in a basket of figs. She died on August 12, 30 B.C. at the age of 39. The Egyptian religion declared that death by snakebite would secure immortality. After Cleopatra's death, her son Caesarion was strangled and the other children of Cleopatra were raised by Antony's wife, Octavia.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard that Cleopatra had intended to escape to India, where she intended to establish a new kingdom for herself.
If so, I wonder if she intended to go to the part controlled by the Persians or Arians. It couldn't be the part controlled by the Dravidians, as the Nandas had already kicked the sh1t out of Alexanders Greek army centuries earlier - I don't think they liked Greeks.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Afronut Slayer: All jokes aside, this black washing history is no longer funny. It's like you guys are so extreme and fanatical, you don't even realize how far your foolishness is taking you. You are effectively robbing every damn people of their history. Don't you fvcking see what you're doing? Don't you fvcking see the consequence behind your fake ass methodology?
Is there not atleast one moderate afronut voice to check these clowns? This is really fvcking ridiculous - Chinese was black, japanese was black, indian was black, Arab was black? STOP IT ALREADY!
Bitch you sound like a little ass Gal, whinning..Bitch shut the **** up..Damn
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
In the following picture, you have that same presentation of the king holding a god. K"ak" Tilwi Chan Yoaat (1) in the stela is holding a god dressed like an Olmec king at his waist level. Interesting is that the king is holding the image of a god (one with an afro, by the way; you noted that, I realize).
In (4) another king (one wearing a circular ear ring as was the tradition in ancient Nubia and also among the Olmec) is also holding a god. (5) is not as related, but black Bes as sun god is standing guard over young Horus.
Going back in history, this map below recounts the movement of whites from the Steppes into the mideast where they mixed with blacks thereby creating the "tan" population of today.
posted
Marc - I see your point, but truthfully, so little is known about the Parthians - by me at least, that it is hard to connect the dots.
Edited to add this.
The Parthian Empire was not really Parthian in the true sense, it was a combination of everyone and their customs.
After the conquest of Media, Assyria, Babylonia, the Parthians had to organize their empire. The elite of these countries was now Greek, and the new rulers had to adapt to their customs if they wanted their rule to last. So the cities retained their rights and the civil administration remained more or less undisturbed. An interesting detail is coinage: legends were written in the Greek alphabet, and this practice was continued into the second century A.D, by which time knowledge of this language was in decline and nobody knew how to read or write Greek characters.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
After Shapurs victory, Gordian III's successor, Philip the Arabian, made peace giving up Roman conquests in northern Mesopotamia. Osroene however, which had been returned to the local ruling family of Abgar by Gordian III, remained a vassal state of the Romans. Shapur renewed his attacks and took many towns, including Dura-Europus in 256 A.D, and later moved into northern Syria and Anatolia.
On Shapur's return to Ctesiphon the ruler of Palmyra, Septimius Odaenathus (also called Odainath), attacked and defeated Shapurs troops and seized booty. Odeanathus then took the title of emperor, and continued on to conquered Harran and Nisibis, and to even threaten Ctesiphon in 264-266 A.D. His murder relieved the Sassanians, and in 273 A.D. the Roman emperor Aurelian sacked Palmyra and restored Roman authority in northern Mesopotamia.
Peace between the two empires lasted until 283 A.D, when the Roman emperor Carus invaded Mesopotamia and advanced on Ctesiphon, but the Roman army was forced to withdraw after Carus' sudden death. In 296 A.D. Narseh I, the seventh Sassanian king, took the field and defeated a Roman force near Harran, but in the following year he was defeated and his family was taken captive. As a result, the Romans secured Nisibis and made it their strongest fortress against the Sassanians. The Roman province of Mesopotamia, which was the land between the Euphrates and Tigris in the northern foothills, became in effect a military area with limes (the fortified frontiers of the Roman Empire) and highly fortified towns.
Under Shapur II the Sassanians again took the offensive, and the first war lasted from 337 to 350 A.D; it ended with no result, as Nisibis was successfully defended by the Romans. In 359 A.D. Shapur again invaded Roman territory and captured the Roman fortress Amida, albeit after a long and costly siege. In 363 A.D. the emperor Julian advanced almost to Ctesiphon, where he died, and his successor Jovian had to give up Nisibis and other territories in the north to the Sassanians.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: This Shammar looks very similar to the musicians above - don't know if the musicians are Shammar.
This is a good positin of a Shammar who come from the Ruwalla bin Anaeza or Murad or Amurath. In the south as in the Yemen these Murad are dark reddish brown in color while towards Syria they are lighter, far lighter than the one depicted here. Most fair skinned Saudis claim descent from such tribes that moved back down from Syria in the 17th and 18th century. It just depends on how many concubines their ancestors took from Syria as to what they look like now. The Murad and Anaza are originally from Hadramaut and Yemen and come from the Maddhij branch of Kahlan.
ALl of the tribes listed on that map have been documented as black at one time or another. See my posts on this site and see the book by Tariq Berry, The Unknown Arabs.
The photo of the Mahra woman wasn't very representative of the Mahra who are a well known predominantly dark skinned, "fuzzy haired" people extending from Somalia and Hadramaut to Oman.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
The next war lasted from 502 to 506 A.D. and ended with no change. War broke out again in 527, lasting until 531 A.D, and as usual, the boundaries remained unchanged. In 540 A.D. the Sassanian king Khosrow (Chosroes) I invaded Syria and even took Antioch, although many fortresses behind him in northern Mesopotamia remained in Byzantine hands. After much back-and-forth fighting, peace was made in 562 A.D.
By about 560 A.D. a new nation, that of the Turks, had emerged in the east. By concluding an alliance with a Turkish leader called Sinjibu (Silzibul), Khosrow was able to inflict a decisive defeat on the Hephthalites (see below), after which event a common frontier between the Turkish and Sassanian empires was established. Inevitably, this alliance became a source of friction, and the Turks sometimes acted as an ally of Byzantium against Persia in a second war (572–579 A.D.). Can't trust those damn Turks - just kidding?
Hephthalites were a people important in the history of India and Persia during the 5th and 6th centuries A.D. According to Chinese chronicles they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall and were known as Hoa or Hoa-tun. Elsewhere they were called White Huns or Hunas. They had no cities or system of writing, lived in felt tents, and practiced polyandry (a woman married to more than one man). In the 5th and 6th centuries the Hephthalites repeatedly invaded Persia and India. In the middle of the 6th century under the attacks of the Turks they ceased to exist as a separate people and were probably absorbed in the surrounding population. Nothing is known of their language.
.
Note: Huns such as the great Atilla, were Black skinned.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The Sassanian's (The Blacks are Back!!).
The Parthian wars with Rome continued, back and forth, until Septimius Severus became king of the Roman empire. He attacked Parthia, and Ctesiphon was captured in 198 A.D. As a result of this victory, large spoils were brought to Rome. Parthia was now impoverished, while at the same time, there had also been internal revolts in Parthia.
And so in 224 A.D, the resurgent Persians, now under their king "Ardašir", culminated the war with Parthia that his father "Papak" had started. He defeated the last Parthian king "Artabanus V" in battle, and two years later, Ardašir took Ctesiphon. This meant the end of Parthia, and it also meant the beginning of the second Persian Empire, one ruled by the Sassanian kings.
The Sassanids were definitely when the white Scythians came to contribbute significantly to the earlier Persian populations. They were of white Scythian and black Daae and earlier Elamite ancestry.
The Elamites by the way were certainly not Negritos in the traditional sense of the word. They are very small or short, black people, but dolichocephalic like the Dravidians and peoples of Makran coast and Shihu (Shuwaihiiyen) clan of the Ka'b. They still live in places like Chogha Zanbil living among the ruins of their ancestors.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The Sassanians continued.
The next war lasted from 502 to 506 A.D. and ended with no change. War broke out again in 527, lasting until 531 A.D, and as usual, the boundaries remained unchanged. In 540 A.D. the Sassanian king Khosrow (Chosroes) I invaded Syria and even took Antioch, although many fortresses behind him in northern Mesopotamia remained in Byzantine hands. After much back-and-forth fighting, peace was made in 562 A.D.
By about 560 A.D. a new nation, that of the Turks, had emerged in the east. By concluding an alliance with a Turkish leader called Sinjibu (Silzibul), Khosrow was able to inflict a decisive defeat on the Hephthalites (see below), after which event a common frontier between the Turkish and Sassanian empires was established. Inevitably, this alliance became a source of friction, and the Turks sometimes acted as an ally of Byzantium against Persia in a second war (572–579 A.D.). Can't trust those damn Turks - just kidding?
Hephthalites were a people important in the history of India and Persia during the 5th and 6th centuries A.D. According to Chinese chronicles they were originally a tribe living to the north of the Great Wall and were known as Hoa or Hoa-tun. Elsewhere they were called White Huns or Hunas. They had no cities or system of writing, lived in felt tents, and practiced polyandry (a woman married to more than one man). In the 5th and 6th centuries the Hephthalites repeatedly invaded Persia and India. In the middle of the 6th century under the attacks of the Turks they ceased to exist as a separate people and were probably absorbed in the surrounding population. Nothing is known of their language.
.
Note: Huns such as the great Atilla, were Black skinned.
The Sabir or Sabara Huns are described as short and black by the Gothic writer Jordanes and were related to the Savara of the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Iranians also said the Sabara were the original Khazars.
Their original homeland appears to have been Sabartu of the Zab and they were thus called Sabartu Asfaloi (the Zab), later known as the Sevardek. The Armenian forefather John claimed they got their name from their ancestor Siev son of Kush which is obviously the Biblical Seva or Seba. He also said their name meant the black sons.
Posts: 4226 | From: New Jersey, USA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic