middle east war.

I have the perfect solution to wars going on the Middle East,do nothing to stop them just let them kill each other off, they have been killing each other for hundreds of years.What makes people think they will ever stop? I worry over the children,but why ahould I,they don't.

My, World Wars I and II, Northern Ireland, Basque separatists (ETA) etc seem to have passed you by Nicko.

nicko wrote:I have the perfect solution to wars going on the Middle East,do nothing to stop them just let them kill each other off, they have been killing each other for hundreds of years.What makes people think they will ever stop? I worry over the children,but why ahould I,they don't.

Richard our Lion heart tried to help and he failed.  They as you very correctly point out have been doing it very successfully for centuries and without can you Adam and Eve it renaissance of Messers Bush and Bliar.

He certainly did.   Not a nice man was Richard:


In the aftermath of the Fall of Acre, during the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart attempted to negotiate terms of surrender with the Saracens. Richard wanted to exchange over 3,000 captured prisoners for the True Cross, as well as a hefty ransom and imprisoned Christians. The True Cross was believed to be the actual physical cross upon which Jesus Christ was crucified.

After much delay by Saladin and the Muslims, Richard, frustrated and angered, personally marched his prisoners to a hill called Ayyadieh. There, in full view of the nearby Muslim army encampment, Richard ordered the slaughter of the over 3,000 prisoners, women and children included. They were all mercilessly beaten to death, axed and cut down by swords and lances. A Muslim force, so enraged by this act, attempted to charge the crusader lines but was repeatedly beaten back, allowing Richard and his army to retire in good order. Thus concluded one of the most unusually ruthless battles/massacres, even by Crusades’ standards.

http://listverse.com/2011/09/14/10-more-little-known-massacres/

A bit like BO then swapping a prisoner / desserter for three major planners in the world of terrorism then..............  


very interesting Sassy, not taking the Michael, honest........

I like the 'desserter' lol, particularly fond of apple pie was he?

Well, at least he was brought home, and the doctors have said he was definitely living in terrible conditions, unlike some of the poor sods who were left after the Vietnam War.

I've lost track of who's fighting in the Middle East and which countries are involved.

Is it because of the heat?

Sassy,please elaborate on what you mean.

Sassy wrote:He certainly did.   Not a nice man was Richard:


In the aftermath of the Fall of Acre, during the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart attempted to negotiate terms of surrender with the Saracens. Richard wanted to exchange over 3,000 captured prisoners for the True Cross, as well as a hefty ransom and imprisoned Christians. The True Cross was believed to be the actual physical cross upon which Jesus Christ was crucified.

After much delay by Saladin and the Muslims, Richard, frustrated and angered, personally marched his prisoners to a hill called Ayyadieh. There, in full view of the nearby Muslim army encampment, Richard ordered the slaughter of the over 3,000 prisoners, women and children included. They were all mercilessly beaten to death, axed and cut down by swords and lances. A Muslim force, so enraged by this act, attempted to charge the crusader lines but was repeatedly beaten back, allowing Richard and his army to retire in good order. Thus concluded one of the most unusually ruthless battles/massacres, even by Crusades’ standards.

http://listverse.com/2011/09/14/10-more-little-known-massacres/

True, but you can't judge the character of a war leader in those times by the standards of today. Religious intolerance and the sheer mindless cruelty and violence that it engendered was extreme - on both sides.

Many of the acts carried out in the name of both the cross and the crescent would make the activities of the Kempeitai and Gestapo appear almost playful by comparison.

nicko wrote:Sassy,please elaborate on what you mean.

Well Nicko, over the last 100 years, how many of each other have we ie Europe, killed off?

In the millions I'd guess but that's nothing to do with my post is it?

It is, we have been killing each other for hundreds of years.

In WW1 history experts estimates around 16.5 million and in WW2 anywhere from 50-70 million, others say 72 million. Combining both would ruffly give 88.5 Million

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_World_War_1_and_ww2?#slide=3

That's just world wars, never mind the rest, so I don't think we can stand and point to ourselves as being better, do you?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Sassy wrote:He certainly did.   Not a nice man was Richard:


In the aftermath of the Fall of Acre, during the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionheart attempted to negotiate terms of surrender with the Saracens. Richard wanted to exchange over 3,000 captured prisoners for the True Cross, as well as a hefty ransom and imprisoned Christians. The True Cross was believed to be the actual physical cross upon which Jesus Christ was crucified.

After much delay by Saladin and the Muslims, Richard, frustrated and angered, personally marched his prisoners to a hill called Ayyadieh. There, in full view of the nearby Muslim army encampment, Richard ordered the slaughter of the over 3,000 prisoners, women and children included. They were all mercilessly beaten to death, axed and cut down by swords and lances. A Muslim force, so enraged by this act, attempted to charge the crusader lines but was repeatedly beaten back, allowing Richard and his army to retire in good order. Thus concluded one of the most unusually ruthless battles/massacres, even by Crusades’ standards.

http://listverse.com/2011/09/14/10-more-little-known-massacres/

True, but you can't judge the character of a war leader in those times by the standards of today. Religious intolerance and the sheer mindless cruelty and violence that it engendered was extreme - on both sides.

Many of the acts carried out in the name of both the cross and the crescent would make the activities of the Kempeitai and Gestapo appear almost playful by comparison.

No Richard was a Monster and Considered Barbaric by most people in the Mediterranean and Middle East. He was an Uneducated leader that didn't see the need to bathe... I doubt the Perfumed heads of state woudl have considered him much different than we view men like Osama now

veya_victaous wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

True, but you can't judge the character of a war leader in those times by the standards of today. Religious intolerance and the sheer mindless cruelty and violence that it engendered was extreme - on both sides.

Many of the acts carried out in the name of both the cross and the crescent would make the activities of the Kempeitai and Gestapo appear almost playful by comparison.

No Richard was a Monster and Considered Barbaric by most people in the Mediterranean and Middle East. He was an Uneducated leader that didn't see the need to bathe... I doubt the Perfumed heads of state woudl have considered him much different than we view men like Osama now

But that was then.. The dark ages  - the middle ages have long since gone as far as we westerners are concerned.

The mere fact the comparison has been drawn between the two says everything that needs to be contemplated nevermind considered and hero worshipped.

We are living in the Twentyfirst century A.D.  not the the Eleventh Century that they seem to want to revert too.

Question..................

They so want to revert back to uneducated females.  A dress code not worthy of Channel,  a way of life so retarded without comfort but cannot survive nor recruit with technology, why are the oilfields of Iraq to important to them ?