Have you beaten your wife today? Go Saudis!

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

WinsettZ RE:Have you beaten your wife today? Go Saudis! 10/5/2003 8:27:12 PM

I got a 404esque thing...please repost URL.

Quote Reply

swhitebull RE:Have you beaten your wife today? Go Saudis! 10/5/2003 8:33:13 PM

try this one: link Special Dispatch Series - No. 567 September 5, 2003 No.567 Defending Muslim Women from Beatings A recent book by Muhammad Kamal Mustafa, the imam of a mosque in southern Spain, has sparked controversy in that country. The book, 'Women in Islam,' describes how men should beat their wives, citing the Koranic verse: "And [as to] those on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them, expel them from the bed, and beat them [ 4:34]." Othman Al-Rawwaf, a Saudi columnist for the London-based Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, criticized the Spanish imam and other intellectuals who argue that the problem is not wife-beating, but the way in which it is presented to the West. The following are excerpts from Al-Rawwaf's article: [1] Discussing Wife-Beating with Non-Muslims "?I read an article? that criticized the [Spanish imam] for presenting a distorted picture of Islam regarding the issue of wife-beating. [The critic said that] it would have been better to speak about the fact that Islam instructs us to be gradual [about wife-beating] ? namely, first we are instructed to admonish the wife [for her disobedience, and if that doesn't work] to expel her from the bed, and only if that doesn't work either, to beat her. [It would have been better also to recall the fact that] Abdallah bin 'Abbas ruled that the beating must be performed with a toothpick or a handkerchief. The critic concluded that such books serve the conspiracies of the enemies of the Muslim nation. "With all the respect I have for this Islamic critic? and despite my knowing how hard he strives to explain the true Islam to non-Muslims, and especially to the West, the issue of women in Islam and the way in which Muslims and non-Muslims perceive the relationship between men and women in Islam is a complicated issue that must be dealt with seriously [and substantively] by thinkers in the Islamic world. "Wife-beating cannot be explained in terms of necessity and non-painful methods when speaking with non-Muslims, and even with many Muslim women? A few years ago, I participated with a group of Arab and Muslim academics in a symposium on Islam and the West, hosted by the University of Washington in Seattle. "In the follow-up discussion to a research presentation, one of the university professors, who identified himself as a Turkish Muslim, posed a question for the Muslim lecturers. He asked their opinions on wife-beating in Islam. The [participating] Shari'a experts gave various answers, some of them explaining the reasons and justifications for wife-beating. When one of the professors of Shari'a used his pencil [to demonstrate], tapping his hand lightly and explaining to those present, 'Such is wife-beating in Islam, light and not painful,' cries of laughter and astonishment broke out in the hall..." Justifications and Explanations are Unacceptable to Westerners "Such justifications and explanations are unacceptable, because Western intellectuals are fundamentally opposed to the very principle of wife-beating. The best answer I heard from one of the Muslim lecturers at that symposium was not an attempt to explain or justify wife-beating; rather, he merely said that wife-beating in the U.S. is far more prevalent than in any Islamic society. "At a conference of the Middle East Studies Association of North America (MESA), held in Washington a few years ago, I saw a group of young Muslim women handing out [a copy of] a Fatwa issued by a Muslim cleric living in Canada, who said that men are forbidden from beating women. At that same conference, I heard an Afro-American Muslim woman? demand that Muslim clerics ban wife-beating, on the same religious grounds as the ruling banning slavery in Islam? "How is equality among people possible if there is no equality between women and men? How can there be equality between men and women when men think that religious law permits them to beat their wives?? Extremism and terror are transient occurrences in Islamic society, and will not last long. In contrast, the women's issue will continue to exist, because its social roots are ancient and it must be addressed thoroughly." Women Demand a New Interpretation of Shari'a "The issue of women in Islam should not be addressed because the West and international human rights organizations demand equality between men and women in the Muslim world, but because it is a need in Muslim society. Social, political, and economic needs demand that the problems of women in the Islamic world be addressed. Islamic societies suffer many financial losses because half their financial and human resources [i.e. women] are neutralized or not used in the best possible way. "To begin addressing the problem of women in Islamic countries, we must first of all recognize that the problem exists, and not delude ourselves into thinking that the situation of women in our Islamic societies is better than in other societies. It is true that Shari'a granted rights to Islamic women that are not enjoyed by Western women to this day. But everyday acts in some Islamic societies have turned these rights into conditional rights. "I have heard this statement from an increasing number of young Muslim women who speak at international conferences and demand a new interpretation of religious law texts regarding women. Some, like Dr. Rifat Hassan, a lecturer at the University of Louisville, believe this difficult mission cannot be properly accomplished unless Muslim women themselves carry it out. Therefore, some of the new female Muslim intellectuals call on Muslim women to become experts in Islamic law in order to understand the correct Islamic position regarding women. They demand Islamic religious rulings following the path of Aisha, the wife of the Prophet Muhammad. At conferences, I have heard some young Muslim women quoting Aisha, who was opposed to the Hadith portraying women negatively, and offered an alternative interpretation. "This demand for a new interpretation regarding women in Islam, as produced by the Aisha school of thought ? if one can call it that ? must gain special importance in the Islamic world and must get the attention of clerics. These cannot be dismissed as a [Western] plot to destroy the morals and values of Muslim women. When five veiled Muslim women stand up at an international conference ? the first Canadian of Lebanese origin, the second Afro-American, the third a businesswoman from Malaysia, the fourth a Tunisian Frenchwoman, and the fifth an Egyptian student ? and demand reform in religious law regarding women in Islam, it is impossible, in my opinion, to ignore this demand or to assume it is an anti-Muslim act? The traditional Islamic institutions have forsaken them, and they have been forced to turn to international conferences on religious law to express their ideas. "Will Muslim clerics listen to the voices demanding reform in religious law regarding women?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), August 25, 2003. swhitebull- toooooo much time on my hands

Quote Reply

appleciderus Are your daughters... 10/5/2003 9:54:52 PM

...condemned to this future?

Quote Reply

swhitebull RE:Have you beaten your wife today? Go Saudis! 10/21/2003 11:35:56 AM

In what context? This is a post of Muslim treatment of their women, with an emphasis on Saudi Arabia. If you want to confine your comments to that, I will engage in a discussion. If you want to go off topic, and ask rhetorical questions, have fun with yourself, like the sound of one hand clapping. swhitebull

Quote Reply

swhitebull RE:Have you beaten your wife today? Go Saudis! 10/21/2003 2:31:26 PM

?Bombing muslim women... is that violence?? You make a throwaway comment about bombing muslim women, and then switch to accusing me of denigrating Islam - I asked you what context that comment was made in, and you failed to respond. Were you trying to make some political statement, or linkage to another issue? If so, please spell it out, so that the rest of us know your POV. Instead, you ask me to clarify my very obvious. My posting comments regarding the justification in the Quran of the beating of Islamic women, and their reaction to such practices, are entirely within the purview of StrategyPage's Rules of Use, and needs no further clarification - except to you, it seems. The post stands on its own, and if it shows Islam in a less than bright light, so be it, since the customs and laws are from the Quran. If my post were a violation of the Rules of the Board, I am sure the thread would have been deleted by now - and it hasn?t been. If you construe the actual words of the Quran and the Prophet that were cited in the article as promoting hatred, that?s YOUR interpretation, not mine, since I made no judgments. I suggest you read the article again - I am merely pointing out what is in the Quran, and how Islamic women have reacted to the law and the practice.. But don?t shoot the messenger that merely relates it. Unless you don?t like what you read. As it says in the Torah, if thine eyes offend thee, pluck them out. My posting quotes Arabic and Islamic sources, as translated by MEMRI, and illustrates NOT my ethnocentrism or denigration of the most populous religion in the world, but the practices in the Muslim world as related in their own writings. You have a problem with that? Take it up with the sources quoted. If you think the article is faulty in what it quotes and relates, then YOU must on some level have concluded that there is something wrong with the Quran and the Fatwahs of Imans promoting the practice. Maybe cause you are embarrassed at either the exposure of the practice, or the verity of the practice- take your pick. Nor have I commented on the incidence rates or statistics regarding domestic abuse among Arabic or Islamic cultures, merely citing what is ALLOWED by the Quran, and what Muslim women do have issues with. Again, you have a problem with the facts, that?s your problem. It doesnt take away from the argument that Islam isnt all goodness and light, and the exposure of the warts is fair game. If you want me to provide you with such statistics, it would be an honor to do so. My guess is that we can start with the status of women in Afghanistan during the Taliban, and move onto the beheadings and stonings of women in Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, as State law? I will do so upon your request. NO denigration intended, just the straight statistics. swhitebull - how about we post on honor killings in Islam next? And cite the references and customs in the Quran for those as well? From the horse's mouth, so to speak. Any information that I can show that doesnt sanitize the idyllic ideal Islamic world that Islamic authorities would have you believe is fine in my book. If you dont like that, I am sincerely sorry.

Quote Reply

swhitebull RE:Koran 10/22/2003 11:25:40 AM

..You are passing yourself off as an Islamic scholar, whatwith your unqualified interpretations of selected Koranic scripture. I think we all know not to take the allegories of ancient texts as literal instructions.. I haven?t passed myself off as any kind of Islamic scholar, and nowhere make that claim, but thanks for the complement anyhow. I merely post an article citing MUSLIMS writing about MUSLIMS practices. If you don?t like what you read when MUSLIMS bash their religious practices, too bad. Take it up with them. And don?t let the door hit you on the backside on your way out. And are you saying that the words of the Quran are False? Can I have your name, Email address, and phone number? I will gladly pass them off to the Iranian Ayatollahs, the former Taliban who had street police publicly beat women, the Nigeria Imans who have imposed Sharia and stone women to death, and all of those wonderfully peace-loving Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia. They may want to have a long discussion with you. Preferably in a dark dank cell, after cutting your tongue out for preaching blasphemy and heresy. Under those circumstances, I?d watch your tongue, if you would still have one left. I thought EVERY word of the Quran was the Word of Allah, and therefore True? Do you know otherwise? Swhitebull - I have nothing but CONTEMPT for a religion that imposes itself on everyone, preaches violence as a way of life, and tolerates NO other religious beliefs as an equal in lands that Islam is practiced, If you don?t like that, I really don?t care WHAT you think ? feel free to find it hateful and racist, I doubt that my posting an piece written by ISLAMIC writers writing about THEIR OWN religious practices and attributing it to ME would as MY racism or ethnocentricity would hold up very well in a court of law, even an Islamic one. And what was your email address again? Oh, and btw ? given the hatful and racist comments you made on the Israeli board with your inflammatory use of language, I wouldnt be casting the first stones here, bucko.

Quote Reply

capitalist72 RE:Koran 10/22/2003 12:22:38 PM

"I think we all know not to take the allegories of ancient texts as literal instructions." You're right - after all, none of us are Islamic scholars capable of appropriately interpreting those texts. To better understand Islam, we should go to the works of real Islamic scholars who do interpret those texts: i.e. the numerous fatwas pronounced daily around the world, and the Islamic sharia law formulated by Islamic scholars and enacted into law in countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan. Would this be better methodology?

Quote Reply

SGTObvious Define -WE- 10/22/2003 12:41:18 PM

"I think we all know not to take the allegories of ancient texts as literal instructions." We? Who? The world is full of people who think like this. A few have talk shows in the US. Millions have automatic rifles and RPG's in the middle east.

Quote Reply

swhitebull And a definition of THEY 10/22/2003 12:48:50 PM

A bit strident in tone, but Gaffney has a way of telling it like it is. If it insults some islamic terrorist or the islamic terrorist supporter, oh well: link Know thy enemy By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. The biggest imponderable concerning the war on terror is whether the American people and their leaders are clear on a central question: Exactly who is the enemy in this war? We are, after all, not fighting some abstraction called "terror." The truth is we are engaged in a death struggle with people who use terror ? usually involving the deliberate murder of innocent civilians ? as an instrument to advance their agendas. As to precisely who those people are, the past twenty-five months have brought to light a bewildering array of terrorist organizations pursuing a variety of stated objectives, usually with help from this or that rogue state-sponsor. But one thing should be clear post-9/11: The most determined, numerous and dangerous of these enemies are radical, violent Muslims known as "Islamists." Most experts believe that the Islamists are, at present, a small percentage of the Muslim faithful worldwide. The danger is that, since there are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims, even a small percentage could mean there are millions available to serve as cannon-fodder for the radicals. Worse yet, all things being equal, their numbers will continue to grow, thanks in no small measure to the assiduous efforts of Islamist regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran (the former of the Sunni Wahhabi stripe, the latter favoring Shiite extremism). All too often, such efforts are accompanied ? and systematically advanced ? by an insidious disinformation campaign. Its main thrust is that anyone who dares to point out the threat posed by the Islamists is a racist, bigot or ignoramus. Why? Because, we are told, such observations impugn all Muslims. This is, of course, absurd. Law-abiding and tolerant Muslims first and foremost understand that there are real differences between themselves and the Islamists ? so much so that the radicals view their peaceable co-religionists with at least as much hostility as they do people of other faiths. Among those most aggressively promoting the idea that Islamists are indistinguishable from any other Muslims are a number of Arab-American and Muslim-American organizations long associated with jihadists and their causes. Since 9/11, they have tried to obscure their true colors by promoting the fiction that they are defenders of all people of the Islamic faith, rather than what they actually are: apologists for the radicals among them, focused on initiatives that have the effect of excusing, protecting or otherwise benefitting the latter. Fortunately, some of these organizations (notably several founded by or associated with Abdurahman Alamoudi - the Islamist-sympathizer indicted last month for receiving illegal funding from Libya) have recently come under increasing scrutiny from law enforcement and the Congress. The American Muslim Council, the American Muslim Foundation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim Student Association have had officials arrested and/or troubling questions raised on Capitol Hill about their activities in our prisons, military chaplain corps, mosques and colleges. In light of the arrests and worrisome revelations, it is all the more astounding that such groups enjoy any credibility at all when they denounce those who warn of Islamists hijacking and perverting the Muslim faith. The latest example of this phenomenon has been an attack mounted in the past week by the Islamists' proponents on one of the Nation's most highly regarded, experienced and decorated Special Forces officers, Lieutenant General William "Jerry" Boykin. Gen. Boykin recently assumed the post of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence. In that capacity, he is charged with the priority tasks of hunting down Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and their ilk. This respected Pentagon official became the subject of intense and mostly hostile media attention after an inveterate leftist activist-turned columnist and TV commentator named William Arkin circulated videotaped and other materials. In them, the general professed his Christian faith and reviled Muslim extremists ? yes, extremists ? on both religious and strategic grounds. Whatever one thinks of Gen. Boykin's obviously deeply held personal beliefs, he must be credited with one thing: He understands that Islamists have declared war on this country and that we have no alternative but to defeat them. For stating this truth, the general has been roundly criticized by the Islamists' admirers and their friends. Notably, one of the most visible of the professional Muslim agitators ? CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad ? has accused Gen. Boykin of "ignorance," having "extremist views" and exhibiting sufficiently defective judgment as to require his reassignment. To their credit, President Bush, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard Myers have thus far declined to accede to this sort of pressure. While the Administration's party line remains that the United States has no interest in waging war against Islam, it would be a significant breakthrough if American officials can now frankly address the nature of our most dangerous foes: Radicals seeking to justify their terror by masquerading as bonafide adherents to the Islamic faith. If we are to fight the Islamists effectively, we need to appreciate and highlight the threat they pose not only to non-Muslims but also to the non-jihadist Muslim world. This will, in turn, require the sharpest possible clarity about whether, to paraphrase President Bush, Muslims ? at home and abroad ? are with us, or with the Islamists. swhitebull- citizen sane, your arguments about the peaceful religion of Islam appear weaker and weaker, in light of 9/11. And to expose the violent aspects of Islam is a duty, not hatred. Adios, muchacha

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE:Koran 10/22/2003 1:00:21 PM

"I think we all know not to take the allegories of ancient texts as literal instructions" I'm not so sure that Prophet Muhammad, after killing the Jews at Khaibar and taking Safiya Bint Huyai as his "wife" while still drenched with her husband's blood, whispered in her ear, "Lighten up, baby. I'm just making an allegory."

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Koran___Mr. Kafir 10/22/2003 4:48:56 PM

I think what AK was saying is that parts of the Koran are more likely to be literal descriptions of actual events, rather than allegories, such as a 3000+ year old Genesis. And hating people based on their religion isn't racism, its bigotry. Racism is hating someone because of ethnicity. Hating Arabs, that is Racism. MOre to come, don't have time to respond now.

Quote Reply

Final Historian Ethnocentrism 10/22/2003 5:25:34 PM

Ahh, the wonderful thing that is moral relativism. Which says that it is ok for other cultures to beat their women, rape young girls, and kill Jews to their heart's content, and that it is not ok to have corporal punishment, as it is "too cruel." Ethnocentrism is nothing more than a whitewashing of all the ugly and evil aspects of human behavior. By saying that no culture is better than any other, or that you can't critique the culture of others, you effectively legitimize Nasism, Communism, Imperialism, the Inquisition, and of course, Islamofacism. After all, who are you to judge that the Nazis were wrong? Were you a 1930's era German who wasn't Jewish? If not, how can you claim that the Germans were wrong, much less evil? After all, that was their culture of the time, and it would be ethnocentric to say theirs was inferior or wrong. I could go on, but I think the point is made.

Quote Reply

swhitebull RE:Ethnocentrism 10/22/2003 6:47:41 PM

..I could go on, but I think the point is made. ... But not taken. FH, we are dealing with another moral relativist. Notice how he doesnt address any of the points of the gaffney or the Memri articles on the merits, except to claim they are racist and that the articles incite hatred? Specious reasoning at best, reverse racism at best. And my feeling is that there should be MORE of these articles printed here, not less. So I, and others, will continue posting as I have, and I dare people of his ilk to find anything wrong on the merits, since it comes from the Islamic writings themselves. I think that he finds the articles hateful and racist NOT because of their content, but because they dare to expose the truth that is Islamic lawa and practice. Fair game in my book. If we are to compbat the terrorism that comes from Islamic radicalism, and if the writings of the Quran supports it- it is not only our right, but our moral obligation and duty to point out the foibles, inaccuracies, and warts of this young religion that forced converts at the penalty of death when it expanded out of the deserts. The readers of this board have a right to know these facts. If he doesnt like it, too damn bad - let him complain to the SysOps. My gut feeling is that it will get him nowhere. swhitebull

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE:Koran___Mr. Kafir 10/22/2003 8:18:59 PM

>> I'm not so sure that Prophet Muhammad, after killing the Jews at Khaibar and taking Safiya Bint Huyai as his "wife" while still drenched with her husband's blood, whispered in her ear, "Lighten up, baby. I'm just making an allegory."<< "You're not seriously using thousand-year-old stories & myths to justify anything, right?" Justify what? My contempt for a belief system that was laid down by a serial raping child molesting mass murdering ignorage savage barbarian thug with delusions of recieving an epiphany from the moon? Nah. I'm far more subtle than that. It's enough for me to percieve something inherently wrong with the idea of a man, Prophet or not, slaughtering the men of a village and taking the women as slaves and concubines, or even sicker, as "wifes." I just can't get my head around the audacity of Muhammad, still soaked with the blood of the slaughter of the men of Kaibar, trading one of his captive slave girls to one of his soldiers who captured Safiya, because she was the best looking chick among the survivors of the massacre. This is the actual recorded history of Muhammad's "courtship" to Safiya after the battle of Kaibar, as told in the Hadiths. It's pretty sick sh*t, not because it's Muslim or Islamic, but because it's sick sh*t. "My goodness. If that is the case, let us speak of the various christian inquisitions." Which would accomplish what? Competing lists of barbaric behavior? Two wrongs make a right? Certainly you wouldn't use historical instances of Christian atrocities to justify the existence of unrelated Islamic atrocities, right?

Quote Reply

swhitebull Arab massacres 10/22/2003 9:16:19 PM

..In terms of present day atrocities, say, in the last 100 years, who has killed more people? It wasn't the Arabs who killed Jews so mercilessly.. Oh, you want to talk of modern day massacres. Let's start: In order: These were posted in response to a poster who accused the Israelis of massacring 1000s of Palestinians. link the relevant points: We start with those fun-loving Syrians: Now lets talk about some other massacres, shall we? Gotta love the massacre of Syrians by Syrians in Hama? From the Syrian Human Rights Committee: ?Although seventeen years [written in 1999 ? that would make this 1982, right?] have elapsed since the massacre perpetrated on Hama- a town lay in the heart of Syria with population amounts to 350000 inhabitants- it is still considered the most ruthless campaign, during which the government of president Asad employed the regular army, forces especially trained and units of secret security services to crush and root out the Syrian opposition. For 27 days starting from February 2nd 1982, the Syrian forces put Hama under a siege, shelled the town with all kinds of artillery, then Hama was ravaged by military and special forces, and its civilians were severely punished. The estimated victims range between 30000 and 40000 civilians including ladies, children and elderlies. 15000 civilians were considered lost since then and had never traced back. Thousands of civilians were obliged to desert the town, as one third of Hama had been completely destroyed. Many mosques, churches and historical buildings were left in rubbles as a consequence to the government?s artillery bombardment. Foreign press reports said that the Syrian government had given the military forces full authority to finish the opposition and to punish all sympathisers. To avoid any popular protests or world condemnation, hushing up on Hama was imposed, all transport and communication links with the town were suspended. An embargo to the entry and parting was imposed on the town. During that period, Hama was a target to military operations on a large scale. Units of the army, special forces, defence brigades, military intelligence, general intelligence and militia of the ruling Ba?ath party took part in the operations against Hama. The campaign was led by the president?s younger brother brigadier Rifa?at Asad who was appointed two months earlier the martial ruler of the northern and middle districts of the country. An estimated number of 12000 especially trained soldiers were put under his authorities.? So what was that number of victims again? ESTIMATED AT 30-40,000!!! At their worst, the Christian Phalange killed FAR less in the entire time of the civil war, than the Syrians did over several days. And the Israelis are PIKERS compared to this. And the rest: ...Let?s discuss ALL of the massacres that Arabs have perpetrated on non-Muslims, or other Arabs [in this century] Lets start in the 1920s, for a good reference point. I?ll let you do that one. [in reference to ALL of the massacres of Jews in the British Mandate from the 1920s thru the 1940s].. ..I?ll just mention several, just for your greater edification and education. But as a reference, and Ive written about this before, lets start with: Iraqi Arab massacres of Kurds- oh, about 20-30,000. POISON GAS USED. WHERE WAS THE EUROPEAN PROTEST AND CONDEMNATION? Iraqi massacre of Shiites - oh , upwards of 75,000 murdered. WHERE WAS THE EUROPEAN PROTEST AND CONDEMNATION? Iraqi slaughter of Iranians POWs- at LEAST 15,000 confirmed. Not to mention the Iraqi use of poison gas (100,000+ dead Iranians). WHERE WAS THE EUROPEAN PROTEST AND CONDEMNATION? link So the IDF goes into Jenin to wipe out terrorists using the refugee camp, IN VIOLATION OF the Geneva Convention Protocols, to launch attacks on Israeli citizens. How many PALIS were killed of military age? HOW MANY PALIS IN TOTO WERE KILLED IN JENIN? 52 ? but THIS is WHERE THE EUROPEANS CHOOSE TO PROTEST AND CONDEMN the action of the Israelis. IT?S THOSE BLOODTHIRSTY JEWS at it again. How DARE they protect themselves! Now lets do the math: Arabs killing Arabs, or Kafir massacred since the 1950s - I come up with more than 1,500,000 Arabs and non Arabs MASSACRED by ARABS. Now how many Arabs - lets actually include Arabs of military age that were actually MASSACRED In cold blood by the IDF- did you say were killed? Please do the math again. What? i cant hear you! Did you say 52? 1,500,000 vs 52? OUCH!! Sure sounds like EUROTRASH selective use of CONDEMNATION - OR CONDONING - massacres, doesn?t it? Sudanese Muslims slaughter of non- Muslims in the Sudan ? upwards of 500,000~!! That?s right, 500,000. WHERE WAS THE EUROPEAN PROTEST AND CONDEMNATION? Egyptian gassing of Yemeni - 1963-1967 (Egypt, Yemen) Egypt employs chemical weapons in attacks against royalist forces in the Yemen civil war. Reports indicate that Egypt uses mustard gas, phosgene, and tear gas in the attacks. Egypt uses Soviet-built AOKh-25 aerial bombs to deliver phosgene, and Soviet-built KHAB-200 R5 aerial bombs as well as artillery shells abandoned by British forces after World War I to deliver mustard gas. Some reports also suggest that Egypt uses a nerve agent. WHERE WAS THE EUROPEAN PROTEST AND CONDEMNATION? The Algerian Civil War - upwards of 500,000 civilians have been massacred by Arabs on Arabs. WHERE WAS THE EUROPEAN PROTEST AND CONDEMNATION? The Jordanian Army kills about 5000+ Palestinian PLO members in a civil war when the PLO threatened to overthrow the government. WHERE WAS THE EUROPEAN PROTEST AND CONDEMNATION? The Taliban- how many Afghanis were slaughtered by the Taliban? Reports are still coming in, but could be as high as 50,000. WHERE WAS THE EUROPEAN PROTEST AND CONDEMNATION? 500,000 Palestinians uprooted and forced to leave their HOMES in Kuwait following GW1 by fellow Arabs. WHERE WAS THE EUROPEAN PROTEST AND CONDEMNATION?.. swhitebull- you ask, i supply the facts, and i was corrected on the Sudanese figures as being WAY too low: link Have fun with your peaceful arab people and Peaceful Islamic religion

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2 3 4 NEXT

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us