| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| securemann |
Posted - November 04 2002 : 9:08:47 PM
The Saudi's just informed the U.S. that they will not allow their country as a launch pad for an attack against Iraq.Everything was fine back in '91 when they used us against Iraq and told our soldiers to give up their crosses and bibles.I never liked the Saudi's and can't even conceive of losing one American soldier for those oil brained back stabbers.May they consume camel dung.
|
| 16 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| securemann |
Posted - August 17 2003 : 09:56:57 AM
For the crimes that he committed against humanity he should be resting in pieces. |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - August 16 2003 : 10:51:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by securemann
Idi Amin big papa dada is dead.He made Saddam look like Peter Pan.Our "Good" friends the Saudi's made sure he lived comfortably.Saudi's slammed into the trade centers,housed big papa dada,ordered our troops not to wear Christian symbols while we died for "them".Now we are between Iraq and a hard place.
Securemann, I think we should be grateful to the Saudis for supplying a place where we could dump old Idi, may he rest in peace.
It's becoming ever more difficult, you know. |
| securemann |
Posted - August 16 2003 : 8:30:16 PM
Idi Amin big papa dada is dead.He made Saddam look like Peter Pan.Our "Good" friends the Saudi's made sure he lived comfortably.Saudi's slammed into the trade centers,housed big papa dada,ordered our troops not to wear Christian symbols while we died for "them".Now we are between Iraq and a hard place. |
| securemann |
Posted - April 17 2003 : 9:46:34 PM
Saudi Prime Minister angry over American forces in Iraq.We are "basically" there in order to "save" neighboring countries from the Saddam threat.I don't like the Saudi's and we should never lose one American life over them.Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were Saudi's.They should have sent soldiers in to topple Saddam.Just to think we lost young Americans for these backstabbers. |
| Lainey |
Posted - January 11 2003 : 7:00:38 PM
Actually, the "innocent blood" wrongly referenced was that of Muslims. Pope Urban's preaching at Claremont referenced the ongoing reality that Christians were killing Christians. The "wicked race" was the Islamic armies that were sacking cities & slaughtering Christians in the east.
"Jews were killed because they were wrongly accused by an anti-semitic church for the death of the Christ, and eastern Christians were killed mostly because they practiced a different form of Christianity than that of the western Roman/Latin Church."
Very incorrect statement. The Church, founded by a Semite & evangelized by Semites, was the sole source of refuge for Jews who were assaulted & massacred by mobs of Christians, especially in the Rhineland.
I am leaving for the evening & can not continue the conversation at the moment but would love to further discuss this history & its fact vs myth elements as soon as I can. Meanwhile, an interesting article on this very topic. It's long, but well worth the read;
The Battle over the Crusades
By Robert P. Lockwood
When the Showtime premium cable channel planned to air a film version of the viciously anti-Catholic play "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You," the director of the production, Marshall Brickman, was asked to respond to the controversy. "Any institution that has backed the Inquisition, the Crusades and the Roman position on the Holocaust deserves to be the butt of at least a couple of jokes,"1 Brickman gave as an excuse for the bigotry. In doing so, he lumped together two traditional historical excuses for anti-Catholicism – the Inquisition and the Crusades – along with a canard that has developed only in recent years. The "Roman position on the Holocaust" is contemporary code for the alleged "silence" of Pope Pius XII in the face of the Nazism.2
One reason for the persistence of anti-Catholicism is the historical legacy of the post-Reformation world. Myths, legends and anti-Catholic "histories" created in the bitterness of theological, national and cultural divisions in the centuries after the Reformation have colored our understanding of the past, and are often used in the present as a club against the Church. Our understanding of the world in which we live and the events of the past that helped to shape it are often determined by this anti-Catholic legacy. The popular image of the Inquisition, for example, is rooted in the anti-Spanish polemics of the Sixteenth Century. Of course, the current conventional wisdom on Pope Pius XII is of more recent vintage, beginning with a German playwright in 1963.3
With the Crusades, the assumption is of a ruthless Church driving Europe into a barbaric war of aggression and plunder against a peaceful Islamic population in the Holy Land. As the common portrait paints it, led by mad preachers and manipulating popes, the Crusades were a Church-sponsored invasion and slaughter that descended into a massacre at Jerusalem, the sack of Constantinople and the persecution of European Jews.
The Crusades are also viewed as concretizing the schism of the Orthodox churches, a division that remains today. Though that division was not caused by the Crusades, it was certainly exacerbated by the Fourth Crusade, and remains its saddest legacy. When Pope John Paul II visited Greece in the spring of 2001, he apologized for the actions of Western Catholics involved in the sack of Constantinople,4 though that sack had not been ordered, determined or intended by the Church or the papacy itself.
The Crusades, of course, are a far more complicated series of events in history than the anti-Catholic statements of Brickman. The Crusades should be understood within the context of the times and by their reality, rather than through the myths created for purposes of propaganda. Narrowly and traditionally defined, the Crusades involved a military attempt under a vow of faith to regain the Holy Land – containing the sites of the Gospel acco |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - January 11 2003 : 01:31:26 AM
"I'm not clear whose "innocent blood" is being referenced here or why the assumption that European wars were waged against no one is made. The Crusades were preached and fought against Mohammedans (whose history does not pale by comparison) in an attempt to protect Christian lives, preserve Christian sites, & retake Christian lands. These wars, though initially undertaken for honorable & justifiable intentions, evolved into something less as time passed primarily because adventurers, wanderers, & vain, self-interested men involved themselves seeking riches, glory, vengeance, & titles. As this rose the Crusades were condemned."
The "innocent blood" being referenced is most likely the large numbers of Jews and eastern Christians who were murdered, slaughtered and massacred by the Crusaders as they made their way east after Pope Urban II proclaimed the first Crusade in 1095. Jews were killed because they were wrongly accused by an anti-semitic church for the death of the Christ, and eastern Christians were killed mostly because they practiced a different form of Christianity than that of the western Roman/Latin Church. From the very beginning "adventurers, wanderers, & vain, self-interested men" were involved to seek "riches, glory, vengeance, & titles." The crusades were not only waged to protect Christian pilgrims and retake the Holy Land, but for material gain as well. Pope Urban II urged Christians to take up the sword and the cross at the Council of Claremont in France with the words:
"For this land which you inhabit[Europe]...is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another...enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves."
The Crusades were a terrible period of Christian history, which most Christians have tried to forget ever since. I believe that it's important that I and other Christians do not forget the lessons of the Crusades; the sword is never the way to extend the kingdom of the Lord, and in the end, we gain nothing from material possesions (the Holy Land, riches, etc).
|
| Lainey |
Posted - January 08 2003 : 04:51:47 AM
You mean the Assyrians? The children of Mesopotamia? The Cradle of Civilization? Speakers, even today, of the ancient Aramaic/Syriac tongue?
This apostolic land of antiquity that some would like to destroy? Would love to talk about this, Auntie! Yes, it's necessary, isn't it?
Your thoughts??????
|
| ladylight |
Posted - December 20 2002 : 11:27:23 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Lainey
All good stuff re .Saudis, etc., Elaine.
Now please, do go on with:
{Then there's the Chaldeans & Babylon ... today called Iraq.}This really is neccessary.
|
| Ithiliana |
Posted - December 11 2002 : 9:12:10 PM
oh dear lain...all i can say to that is the same as scott =) |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - December 11 2002 : 8:20:12 PM
 |
| Lainey |
Posted - December 10 2002 : 10:32:40 PM
Let’s see ...
While there may be generalizations about Arabs (as there are about everyone), this
thread has been specifically about Saudis & their track record in US/western relations. The
Gulf War fiasco (on all sides) & the continued refusal of the Saudi government to release American
born children (girls, of course) taken illegally to Saudi Arabia by their Saudi fathers,
against their American mothers' wishes & without their knowledge, to be married off like
so many cattle, are prime examples. Such indifference to rights of others, especially
Christians & females, doesn't endear the Saudis to many hearts. (Ask any mother
whose daughter remains in bondage about her hopes for her daughter's future - or any US
soldier who was prohibited from wearing any religious article while protecting Saudi
borders how it felt to be so ill-used.)
Having said that; Arabs are not all Muslims; many are Christian, some are Jewish, & some
are atheists. Muslims are not all Arabs, many are Iranian (Persian), African (check out the
Sudan & their slave trade of Christian & animist Dinka), & European (converts mostly).
Arabs & Jews are both Semitic people (some might cease calling Arabs "anti-semites" if
they’d only think). Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, & God are all the same ... Jews, Christians, &
Muslims all believe in the one, same, true God. There is no "their god" in this equation.
9/11 was the handiwork of certain Muslim fundamentalists & is rightly classified as a
modern alter-crusade, though not embraced or sanctioned throughout the Muslim world,
as its objective was to strike down powers in the western "infidel" world (Christian),
punish the west for "desecrating holy sites" such as Mecca by western military presence in
Saudi Arabia, & sting the western powers for their blind support of Israel. (Bush isn't the
great Israeli supporter ... that's a long standing American policy &, if anything, Bush
should be credited for being the rare American president to issue public chiding to Israeli
leaders for their actions in Palestine.) I do believe we are heading for a ‘clash of
civilizations’ because that is the intent behind the recent terror waves & I also believe
there will be quite a few surprises. Call it jihad, call it crusade. It’s coming.
The ongoing tragedy of Palestine/Israel is NOT the reason 9/11 occurred, though western
support of Israel is very much an antagonistic situation. Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, & middle
eastern nations in general don't care what becomes of the Palestinian people (evidenced by
the treatment of Palestinians everywhere in the middle east) so long as they remain pawns
of opportunity. Incidentally, a sizeable number of Palestinians are Christians - not
exactly warriors for Islam. The Palestinian-Israeli "conflict" isn't a war of religion so much
as a war of land, historic struggles, & the ongoing consequence of zionism.
If the region's history is not understood its continuing clashes will not be understood.
A little history behind the conflict;
The Palestinians are descendants of the ancient Canaanites [3rd millenium B.C.] &
Philistines [13th century B.C.] & have inhabited Palestine, including Jericho & Jerusalem,
since early biblical ages. The Hebrews had inhabited regions of Palestine since Moses,
after leading the people from Egypt, followed by the forty years in the desert, & under the
leadership of Joshua, sent them into the Land of Milk & Honey - the Land of Canaan, or 'The
Promised Land.' [1230 B.C.]
(Smaller numbers of Hebrews probably immigrated centuries earlier.)
What followed remains the groundwork for what continues to enfold in the Holy Land
today; the eventual defeat of the Canaanites by the Israelites, the defeat of the Israelites by
the Philistines, the defeat of the Philistines by the Israelites (under David), the assimilation
of the Philistines with the Canaanites, the creation of a unified state of Israel with
Jerusalem as its capital (und |
| Ithiliana |
Posted - December 09 2002 : 7:19:10 PM
you guys generalize...in my opinion, all arabs involved in 9/11 (okay, now im generalizing...what can i say, im a hypocrite) and the palestine/israeli war are fighting in the name of Alah (i think that's right  )....you must remember how much innocent blood was shed back in the time of the crusades when europeans fought war after war for their god...the arabs pale in comparison. and i think 9/11 happened, not because of what so many people say (they hate us cuz we're rich and what not) but because bush is supporting israel in the afore mentioned war, and they want him to stop..... |
| richfed |
Posted - November 23 2002 : 05:16:01 AM
Here's one example of how the Saudis can be so very dangerous: 9-11 Hijackers: A Saudi Arabian Money Trail? While the evidence presented here is far from conclusive, it shouldn't really surprise many if it turns out to be true. Certainly, it gives one the incentive to pause ... and ponder. |
| richfed |
Posted - November 20 2002 : 12:42:43 PM
I must've missed this one ...
I agree! The Saudis, for a variety of reasons, may very well be the worst enemy we have.
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 04 2002 : 11:36:02 PM
P.S.- Edmound McKinnon can second my thoughts, he was at Prince Sultan, the same time I was at KKMC.
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - November 04 2002 : 10:54:43 PM
As someone who was there in '90-'91, I couldn't agree with you more. The words I would love to use to describe them, are not fit in a forum where ladies are present.
Your Humble Servant,
Sgt. Duncan Munro
Capt. Graham's Coy
1/42nd Royal Highlanders
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit" |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
