Ancient Phoenicians were... "ARYAN-HITTITES"

[JBaker30 USA]

Astarte see my last name Baker it is of Anglo Saxon origin.
The Anglo Saxons came from what is today known as the Schleswig-Holstein area of present day Germany.
The Anglo Saxons did not even settle in Britain until way after the Phoenicians had come and gone.
Since it is well known that Phoenicians traded with ancient Britains for Cornish tin,one can presume they influenced ancient British culture to some extent.
But the Angles and Saxons where hired as mercenaries by the Britons to help control the Picts from Scotland.
The Anglo-Saxons where known as great warriors and seeing an opprotunity in Britain, they ceased it.Pushing the ancient inhabitants af Britain into the mountains of western Wales.
Wales is an Anglo-Saxon word that means stranger.
So basically what we have in England know is what we always have had and everyone has failed time and time again to realize is this,We ALL,NO MATTER WHAT COLOR,RELIGION,NATION OR CREED at the genitic level are from the same stock.
Their is no master race.Climate probally played the greatest role,in my eyes,in the development of civilized modern humans.

[Curious Me]

JBaker30 USA wrote:

i did not mean to be or sound racist.but from what I understand the Iranians are the Aryans.So who in the hell were the Nazis referring to when they were trying to create the "MASTERRACE" or ARYANS.

Actually, the German Nazis were Aligned with the Turks, Spanish, Italians, and various other Aryans. Of course they were also aligned with Japan, and it's rumored that Hitler had offered a Huge reward for anyone that might be able to prove that the Japanese were originally of Aryan stock. The Maronite Christians were not aligned with any ally of Turky.

[Tammuz]

Curious Me wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the German Nazis were Aligned with the Turks, Spanish, Italians, and various other Aryans. Of course they were also aligned with Japan, and it's rumored that Hitler had offered a Huge reward for anyone that might be able to prove that the Japanese were originally of Aryan stock. The Maronite Christians were not aligned with any ally of Turky.

During WWII the Germans were aligned with the Italians and later the Japanese, though there was not much coordination between the European and Pacific theatres among the Axis. Turkey and Spain were both NEUTRAL, though there were certainly strong German sympathizers in both countries. The mainly Maronite "Phalange" political movement was highly influenced by the Nazis and particularly the Italian Fascists. Lebanon itself was in no position to play any role in the conflict as they were first occupied by the Vichy French then by British forces.

[Curious Me]

Tammuz wrote:

<quoted text>
During WWII the Germans were aligned with the Italians and later the Japanese, though there was not much coordination between the European and Pacific theatres among the Axis. Turkey and Spain were both NEUTRAL, though there were certainly strong German sympathizers in both countries. The mainly Maronite "Phalange" political movement was highly influenced by the Nazis and particularly the Italian Fascists. Lebanon itself was in no position to play any role in the conflict as they were first occupied by the Vichy French then by British forces.

Kudos to you to you, you've caught me indulging in bulshit and exajeration...the Turks were alligned with the Germans in WWI only...I, also, believe that the Spanish and the Italians were not so likely to become full on Nazi states, neither would any Maronite Chritian entity as a whole be very likely to espouse Naziism. I have emoted my opinions rather than to have actually thought things out. It is an affliction that some times creeps up on me.

[vikram-the nuristani]

JBaker30 USA wrote:

Also one thing ive always thought weird Lebanese language is sorda similar to Some european countries.

Lebanese is arabic and lebanese were cannanites/not aryans.They are fair because anatolian turkic aryan bedouins mated with them.
Anatolia is not original aryan homeland-

quote from wiki

While the Anatolian theory enjoyed brief support when first proposed, some in the Indo-Europeanist community question its validity. While the spread of farming undisputedly constituted an important event, many see no case to connect it with Indo-Europeans in particular, seeing that terms for animal husbandry tend to have much better reconstructions than terms related to agriculture.

Most Indo-Europeanists' estimates of dating PIE lie between 4500 and 2500 BC: It is unlikely that late PIE (even after the separation of the Anatolian branch) post-dates 2500 BC, since Proto-Indo-Iranian is usually dated to just before 2000 BC. On the other hand, it is not very likely that early PIE predates 4500 BC, because the reconstructed vocabulary strongly suggests a culture spanning the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, perhaps with knowledge of the wheel, metalworking and the domestication of the horse. This conflicts with the early Neolithic (8th millennium) date of Gray and Atkinson, which, even if accepted, loses significance in distinguishing between the Anatolian and the Kurgan model with Renfrew's 2003 revision postulating a secondary Urheimat in 5000 BC, not 7000 BC.

Reconstructions of a Bronze Age PIE society based on vocabulary items like "wheel" do not necessarily hold for the Anatolian branch, which is more frequently admitted to have possibly separated in the Chalcolithic. In Renfrew's revised 2003 scheme, thus, the "wheel" or "horse" criticism applies only to the "Northwestern IE"/"Balkan PIE"/"Early Steppe PIE" split at 5000 BC. Renfrew's revised "Indo-Hittite" scenario has thus approached the Kurgan model at least in terms of time depth, with a split of "PIE proper" in 5000 BC, essentially proposing a timeframe of the order of one millennium earlier than that of the mainstream view, as opposed to four millennia in earlier versions.

unquote

[vikram-the nuristani]

Tammuz wrote:

<quoted text>
Ahhhhhhhhhh, Josephine Baker. You have some rudimentary ideas about Semites and Indo-Eurpeans, but things are much more complex than you realize. Of course Iranians & Indians look different from Europeans; their racial make-up is different. But they are classified as Indo-Europeans [= aryan] because of their languages not their DNA.
As for Indians being the ugliest people, they are also the most beautiful, imo. This is just a matter of taste that shouldn't lapse into racism. I may not find Chinese personally attractive, but that doesn't mean i think they're inferior or something.

You are a middle eastern muslim.I just love you people.Muslims of the middle east[from iran to istanbul] are the most annered people in the world

salaam waleikum assalam

[vikram-the nuristani]

correction:Muslims of middle east[from iran to istanbul] are the most mannered people in the world.

[Tammuz]

vikram-the nuristani wrote:

correction:Muslims of middle east[from iran to istanbul] are the most mannered people in the world.

Thank you Vikram but i myself am neither Muslim nor from the Middle East, though i've lived there for a considerable amount of time.

As for manners, i'm not sure, but the Arab societies i've lived among are certainly the most hospitable and personally generous in my experience.

Hadha min Fadl Allah!

[Tammuz]

NOTE: This video-clip is about the Maronite-Christian cowards of Lebanon destroying the villages of Arab Muslims (Lebanese and Palestinians) during the last Lebanese civil war.

[Tammuz]

You cant dedicate any Fairuz songs. You haven't the permission to do so here or anywhere else. It's an affront to an old lady who could really sing, unlike those pop-tarts Haife Wehbe and the 3 Qitta, whom you admire so much.

[JBaker30 USA]

You guys are right.I have done some reasearch.Indo europeans basically rule rule the world.

[DEBUNKER]

Since when Dana and Razan are maronites??? They are sunnis you ignorant!

[Ron]

Plenty of arabs nowadays have black blood. They are not one to talk. You black-arabs should not be ashamed of your roots. THe lebanese are now mixed with arabs.