Rich Rich Arab$

cincybearcat

Byrnzie wrote:

But why choose Saudi Arabia? Why not France or Sweden?

Not only is it not a very good option. It's ridiculous.

I didn't choose Saudi....I didn;t start the thread...I was only responding to it.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

this is very true.

Oh wise one has spoken. Therefore it must be so.

cincybearcat

Collin wrote:

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!!!!!

Are you a cheerleader?

Byrnzie

cincybearcat wrote:

I didn;t start the thread...I was only responding to it.

That old chestnut! :rolleyes:

Collin

cincybearcat wrote:

Are you a cheerleader?

a male cheerleader.

Give me an F.

Vedderlution_Baby

Collin wrote:

a male cheerleader.

Give me an F.

F...

cincybearcat

Collin wrote:

a male cheerleader.

Give me an F.

You could be president.

TheVoiceInside

Byrnzie wrote:

The ignorance on this board sometimes amazes me. What do you know about Rich Saudi's, or any Saudi's for that matter? Are you an authority on Arab culture and history?
Please name some rich Puerto Ricans who are currently offering money to help resolve the conflict in the Middle East. I've forgotten their names.

What is your problem? I maybe ignorant but your comment is childish. The same can be said of all countries. But this thread is talking about rich Saudis who always have an opinion about Palestinians. Lets stick to the subject. OK.

Saudi Arabia is a kingdom ruled by the house of Saud. They have all the money in the kingdom and wont share it. And they dont give a fuck about poor saudis. If they dont care about their own people what makes you think that they would care about the Palestinians. Its that simple.

Byrnzie

TheVoiceInside wrote:

What is your problem? I maybe ignorant but your comment is childish. The same can be said of all countries. But this thread is talking about rich Saudis who always have an opinion about Palestinians. Lets stick to the subject. OK.

Saudi Arabia is a kingdom ruled by the house of Saud. They have all the money in the kingdom and wont share it. And they dont give a fuck about poor saudis. If they dont care about their own people what makes you think that they would care about the Palestinians. Its that simple.

I think you'll find that there are rich people in all countries who are reluctant to share their wealth. Why doesn't Bill Gates buy all the land and houses in the West Bank which were illegally seized, and give that land back to the Palestinians. American Republicans 'always have an opinion about' how hard the Israeli's have it. Well, there's your solution to the problem. The U.S has singlehandedly perpetuated the situation there by singularly vetoing every U.N resolution over the past 36 years calling for a peaceful two-state settlement. The U.S also plows $4 Billion into Israel every year. You want a solution to the problem over there? You may want to look a bit closer to home, rather than trying to shift the blame onto the Arabs.

Cosmo

This is a pure guess on my part... but basing on my understanding of the region...
...
If Israel were to pack its bags and move into Baja California (after the U.S. purchased it from Mexico and gave it to Isreal to end the violence over there), there would STILL be killing and violence over there.
My guess... living in the fucking desert makes you want to kill shit.

Byrnzie

Cosmo wrote:

This is a pure guess on my part... but basing on my understanding of the region...
...
If Israel were to pack its bags and move into Baja California (after the U.S. purchased it from Mexico and gave it to Isreal to end the violence over there), there would STILL be killing and violence over there.
My guess... living in the fucking desert makes you want to kill shit.

Thanks for your contribution. Don't give up your interest in basketball.

Cosmo

Byrnzie wrote:

Thanks for your contribution. Don't give up your interest in basketball.

...
You're welcome. Actually, I really don't like basketball all that much... except in March.
And thank you for pointing out that Arabs don't kill Arabs and Persians and vice versa and that they lived in peace for thousands of years, up until 1945 when the U.N. invented Isreal and brought violence to the serene landscape.
I never knew that... thank for your insight.

Byrnzie

Cosmo wrote:

...
You're welcome. Actually, I really don't like basketball all that much... except in March.
And thank you for pointing out that Arabs don't kill Arabs and Persians and vice versa and that they lived in peace for thousands of years, up until 1945 when the U.N. invented Isreal and brought violence to the serene landscape.
I never knew that... thank for your insight.

Don't mention it. Whilst we're at it. Please name a race that has lived in peaceful serenity throughout it's entire history. It's on the tip of my tongue...I just can't seem to think of it.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

I think you'll find that there are rich people in all countries who are reluctant to share their wealth. Why doesn't Bill Gates buy all the land and houses in the West Bank which were illegally seized, and give that land back to the Palestinians. American Republicans 'always have an opinion about' how hard the Israeli's have it. Well, there's your solution to the problem. The U.S has singlehandedly perpetuated the situation there by singularly vetoing every U.N resolution over the past 36 years calling for a peaceful two-state settlement. The U.S also plows $4 Billion into Israel every year. You want a solution to the problem over there? You may want to look a bit closer to home, rather than trying to shift the blame onto the Arabs.

your ignorance amazes me. nice bill gates reference. he gives billions around the world.

and YES big bad USA is always at fault for everything.

you biggest issue is the lands Israel seized during the 1967 war. you find it acceptable for palastines to do whatever means necessary to get them back.

and you seem to be perfectly fine with saudi sitting on its enormous wealth and NOT helping its fellow arabs. cuz its americans fault

Cosmo

Byrnzie wrote:

Don't mention it. Whilst we're at it. Please name a race that has lived in peaceful serenity throughout it's entire history. It's on the tip of my tongue...I just can't seem to think of it.

...
Aboriginies? Polynesians? Great Plains Indians?
...
Those would be my guesses.

Byrnzie

Cosmo wrote:

...
Aboriginies? Polynesians? Great Plains Indians?
...
Those would be my guesses.

Polynesians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_Wars

Great plains Indians? http://www.isnie.org/ISNIE06/Papers06/08.3/benson.doc

Aborigines? You could be right...

'The survival of any local group eventually depended on its solidarity and there was strong feeling against serious quarrels within it. Nevertheless personal conflicts were common. Where possible these were confined to the person immediately concerned, but it was one of the weaknesses of Aboriginal society that quarrels tended to spread widely because of kinship and marriage loyalties. there was no juridical machinery to prevent this from happening and the moral feeling against it was often ineffective. However, there was a deeply-ingrained principle of 'equivalent injury', and this helped to limit the passion for revenge. Antagonists often fought a duel with spears, clubs or stone knives, striking at each other, torn and torn about, until one submitted. Usually they took care not to disable each other permanently, as the loss of an able-bodied man to a small hunting community was a serious matter. Even in large-scale fights a sense of prudence and common interest made itself felt. On most occasions the fighting ceased when several men were badly hurt or killed. Grievances between local groups often led to massed duets of a formal character conducted under strict convention. the most intractable offenders, especially against religious codes, were judged secretly by elders, and they were injured or killed by younger men acting under orders. Sometimes the retributive methods involved magical ritual. Pitched battles were common, but not warfare in the sense of protracted campaigns. There were no military or social organizations suited to warfare in that sense and, indeed, little to be gained by it. Material wealth, conquest and slavery were alien to the Aboriginal way of life. perhaps the nearest approach to warfare resulted when repeated murders, deaths attributed to sorcery, and thefts of women gave rise to an uncontrolled series of revenge killings. Most tribes had a favourite enemy of this kind.'
http://www.janesoceania.com/australian_aboriginal_anthropology/index1.htm

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

you biggest issue is the lands Israel seized during the 1967 war. you find it acceptable for palastines to do whatever means necessary to get them back.

and you seem to be perfectly fine with saudi sitting on its enormous wealth and NOT helping its fellow arabs. cuz its americans fault

Whatever you say.

Cosmo

Byrnzie wrote:

Polynesians? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māori_Wars

Great plains Indians? http://www.isnie.org/ISNIE06/Papers06/08.3/benson.doc

Aborigines? You could be right...

...
Note: The War you stated (New Zealand) was primarily caused by the introduction of Europeans to the landscape.
As for te Great Plains Indians, many peaceful tribes were forced into conflict by infringement of European settlers migrating from the East Coast, into the West.
...
Back to the Middle East... wasn't that Mohammed's gig... uniting the warring tribes of Arabs? They have been disputing the ownership of that part of the planet since day one. Give them a common enemy (Israel) and sure, they'll band up. Take away that enemy and my guess... back to killing each other.

MrBrian

Well to answer a few questions, the saudis have a duty to do it, I mean after all the "for palestine" talk they do. I want some action.

But Of course they should not have to buy this settlers land, it should not be the settlers to start with but that's not what the reality is.

All I'm pointing out is that these so called religious sauds with billions should spend more on people than on a palace.

Also I wish the arabs would unite, but arab history shows that being united is hard for them to do.

Byrnzie

Cosmo wrote:

...
Note: The War you stated (New Zealand) was primarily caused by the introduction of Europeans to the landscape.
As for te Great Plains Indians, many peaceful tribes were forced into conflict by infringement of European settlers migrating from the East Coast, into the West.
...
Back to the Middle East... wasn't that Mohammed's gig... uniting the warring tribes of Arabs? They have been disputing the ownership of that part of the planet since day one. Give them a common enemy (Israel) and sure, they'll band up. Take away that enemy and my guess... back to killing each other.

The Maori warriors were fighting in that part of the world thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans. The same goes for the Plains indians - Lakota vs Crow e.t.c. Read the articles.
As for Australian aboriginals - you have a point. And an interesting subject it is too.