Full Version: Islam vs. The West
I've read a lot recently about the historical differences between Islam and Christianity/Judaism. Blood has been spilled by both parties over numerous separate conflicts.
There are many twists and turns this thread could take, as this facet of world history spans hundreds of years.
But I'm interested in everybody thinks about what specifically led to the current crisis between the west and Islamic fundamentalism. Is it deep rooted in the crusades, or from more recent actions?
BUT please lets not turn this into Israel vs. Palestine, this can't be the only reason for our problems today.
There are many twists and turns this thread could take, as this facet of world history spans hundreds of years.
But I'm interested in everybody thinks about what specifically led to the current crisis between the west and Islamic fundamentalism. Is it deep rooted in the crusades, or from more recent actions?
BUT please lets not turn this into Israel vs. Palestine, this can't be the only reason for our problems today.
I think Muslim fundamentalism must be viewed as a modern phenomenon. It does not appear to have driving historical connection.
As nation-states began emerging in the twentieth century, Muslim dominated peoples emerged imperialism (be it Frecnh, British, Ottoman, or other and were faced with self-determination.
Many of these countries began as monarchies. It was in Egypt that the alternative models to monarchy first appeared. One group was the Free Officers that seized and held power with a military coup. It was a dictatorship dressed up as a democracy. It was a secular government in a Muslim society. Nasser saw the benefits of modernization but also wanted to end the western "exploitation" of Egypt. So he nationalized foreign holdings and embarked on programs to modernize Egypt that were partly Marx and partly other programs. But Nasser was a secularist that saw western style economic development as a goal.
The group that initially supported his coup was the Muslim Brotherhood. It was a fundamentalist group with the only claim to a mass following (reportedly 500,000 enlisted in its militia and 1 million members) This model provided for using the government to get society back to a more dedicated following of the teachings of Islam.
The main distraction from this path to salvation was secularism. The prosperity of the west and the distractions of the west (ever been around males from an strict Islamic family letting loose in the states) are the temptations that keep Islamic societies from being as pure as they could be.
The first model created the modern government in Iraq, the latter is the model for Iran, and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that has yet to succumb to either model.
In my opinion, Muslim fundamentalism is one of the twentieth and twenty-first century options for self-determination in Islamic societies. And just like the time of the cold war, the fundamentalist option is more appealing in societies that are more impoverished.
I am sure that many people have a more thorough knowledge of this subject than I, but this is where my studies have taken me in this matter to date.
As nation-states began emerging in the twentieth century, Muslim dominated peoples emerged imperialism (be it Frecnh, British, Ottoman, or other and were faced with self-determination.
Many of these countries began as monarchies. It was in Egypt that the alternative models to monarchy first appeared. One group was the Free Officers that seized and held power with a military coup. It was a dictatorship dressed up as a democracy. It was a secular government in a Muslim society. Nasser saw the benefits of modernization but also wanted to end the western "exploitation" of Egypt. So he nationalized foreign holdings and embarked on programs to modernize Egypt that were partly Marx and partly other programs. But Nasser was a secularist that saw western style economic development as a goal.
The group that initially supported his coup was the Muslim Brotherhood. It was a fundamentalist group with the only claim to a mass following (reportedly 500,000 enlisted in its militia and 1 million members) This model provided for using the government to get society back to a more dedicated following of the teachings of Islam.
The main distraction from this path to salvation was secularism. The prosperity of the west and the distractions of the west (ever been around males from an strict Islamic family letting loose in the states) are the temptations that keep Islamic societies from being as pure as they could be.
The first model created the modern government in Iraq, the latter is the model for Iran, and Saudi Arabia is a monarchy that has yet to succumb to either model.
In my opinion, Muslim fundamentalism is one of the twentieth and twenty-first century options for self-determination in Islamic societies. And just like the time of the cold war, the fundamentalist option is more appealing in societies that are more impoverished.
I am sure that many people have a more thorough knowledge of this subject than I, but this is where my studies have taken me in this matter to date.
There have indeed many twists and turns in the historical clash between the East and the West. All along the borders between the two cultures there was almost always wars - pushing of the envelope, so to speak.
Spain is a classic example with the expulsion of Jews and Moslems in 1492 when Isabella (she got the idea from her personal confessor) that in order to make Spain more pure everyone who wasn't Catholic had to convert or leave. Up until then the three religions had pretty much (not entirely, but pretty much) lived in peace. Portugal soon followed Spain's lead. The Islamic Moors were pushed back to North Africa - from which they had originally conquered Spain.
Another point of contact was in Eastern Europe just east of Vienna - but all through those countries there was an ebb and flow of the 'battle of ideas.' We still see that clash in the recent problems in Kosovo and its religious underpinnings.
The Battle of Lepanto was an epic, a real turning point of history, a battle for the Western Mediterranean - you can read about it here:
Lepanto
(by the way, Cervantes was in that battle)
There was also Islamic expansion through what is now Georgia, Azerbajan, and most of the other 'stans.' There is a large Moslem population there now. Islam at one time was going up the Volga delta and there was a group of people there, the Kaspars (where we get the name Caspian Sea) that were so afraid of both the Christians in the West and the Moslems in the East that they chose to convert to Judiasiam.
Islam also expanded into India - that's how modern Pakistan and Bangladesh came into being after the end of the British Raj.
Then, of course, even earlier were the Crusades. But the Crusades were in themselves a Western response (albeit framed in religious terms) to military movement coming from the East. Islam from the beginning was a religion on the move - as Christianity was. Neither was passive.
I believe that one of the things that helped Christianity and its view of itself was the Reformation and the Counter Reformation. It made Christianity able to endure change - to accept that others were not always a threat. It took a while but Christianity was able to modernize itself and adapt. Islam, to my knowledge, has never had a Reformation.
Spain is a classic example with the expulsion of Jews and Moslems in 1492 when Isabella (she got the idea from her personal confessor) that in order to make Spain more pure everyone who wasn't Catholic had to convert or leave. Up until then the three religions had pretty much (not entirely, but pretty much) lived in peace. Portugal soon followed Spain's lead. The Islamic Moors were pushed back to North Africa - from which they had originally conquered Spain.
Another point of contact was in Eastern Europe just east of Vienna - but all through those countries there was an ebb and flow of the 'battle of ideas.' We still see that clash in the recent problems in Kosovo and its religious underpinnings.
The Battle of Lepanto was an epic, a real turning point of history, a battle for the Western Mediterranean - you can read about it here:
Lepanto
(by the way, Cervantes was in that battle)
There was also Islamic expansion through what is now Georgia, Azerbajan, and most of the other 'stans.' There is a large Moslem population there now. Islam at one time was going up the Volga delta and there was a group of people there, the Kaspars (where we get the name Caspian Sea) that were so afraid of both the Christians in the West and the Moslems in the East that they chose to convert to Judiasiam.
Islam also expanded into India - that's how modern Pakistan and Bangladesh came into being after the end of the British Raj.
Then, of course, even earlier were the Crusades. But the Crusades were in themselves a Western response (albeit framed in religious terms) to military movement coming from the East. Islam from the beginning was a religion on the move - as Christianity was. Neither was passive.
I believe that one of the things that helped Christianity and its view of itself was the Reformation and the Counter Reformation. It made Christianity able to endure change - to accept that others were not always a threat. It took a while but Christianity was able to modernize itself and adapt. Islam, to my knowledge, has never had a Reformation.
I must add something....the more correct spelling of Kaspars is Khazars....and you can read about them here:
The Khazars
(when you get there - the bar on the right hand side of the screen will disappear after a few seconds.)
The Khazars
(when you get there - the bar on the right hand side of the screen will disappear after a few seconds.)
QUOTE(Basheva @ Jan 22 2003, 03:27 PM)
I believe that one of the things that helped Christianity and its view of itself was the Reformation and the Counter Reformation. It made Christianity able to endure change - to accept that others were not always a threat.
I disagree--the reformation splintered a Europe united under Christendom, caused widespread death and destruction in the Wars of Religon of the early 17th C, and resulted in many weakened, smorgasbord-type faiths from what was once one coherent, consistent faith.
I question whether Islam can ever coexist with the West. Does Islam not call for the destruction of all infidels? Are all non-Muslims "infidels?" Islamic scholars, put my mind at ease, if you can. President Bush calls Islam "a religion of peace"--I'm wondering what about Islam suggest to him that it is so.
While I do agree that the Reformation did splinter Europe and cause a great deal of death and destruction for quite a number of years, it also made Christianity eventually learn to live with, and adapt to dissent. That's an important thing for a religion to learn. Except for a couple of places, Ireland being one of them, Catholicism and Protestantism (and other varieties of Christianity) manage to live in peace side by side in today's world. Islam doesn't seem to have learned this yet.
Christianity has extended its welcome to others - notice all the Moslems that are living here and in Europe; free to build mosques and worship. However, Islamic countries have not extended that welcome to Christians living in their lands. A Christian woman still has to veil in Saudi (as well as other Islamic countries - and churches are forbidden to be built). They haven't learned to accept dissent.
Learning to adapt to others is an important step upon the milestone to maturity in a civilization. It remains to be seen if Christianity's welcome to others may ultimately be its downfall.
Christianity has extended its welcome to others - notice all the Moslems that are living here and in Europe; free to build mosques and worship. However, Islamic countries have not extended that welcome to Christians living in their lands. A Christian woman still has to veil in Saudi (as well as other Islamic countries - and churches are forbidden to be built). They haven't learned to accept dissent.
Learning to adapt to others is an important step upon the milestone to maturity in a civilization. It remains to be seen if Christianity's welcome to others may ultimately be its downfall.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Jan 22 2003, 04:29 AM)
I think Muslim fundamentalism must be viewed as a modern phenomenon. It does not appear to have driving historical connection.
A very thoughtful and informative post eyore. I would also look towards the nationalist versus fundamentalist question. States like Syria and Iraq, both of which are controlled by the Baathist party are secular, and thus the opposite of the Iranian situation. THe Baathist party looked towards fascism and specifically Hitler's Nazi party for inspiration. Religion is subordinate to the state. In Iraq, the population is majority Shi'ite, the more fundamentalist sect of Islam. But the sunni Baathist maintain power. Western governments prefer the sunni version of Islam. It is less fundamental, more open to western ways and capitalism. But I always felt that the Shi'ites, especially in Egypt, ALgeria, and perhaps one day in Iraq would take power. The whole mindset of Shi'ite is different. To them, economic prosperity, human rights, peace in general, is not important. What is important is the conversion of the whole world to SHi'ite Islam. SO I would say the conflict is between the Western world and Shi'ite Islam. I haven't even mentioned the Wahhabism sect that is in power in Saudi Arabia. They are just as fundamental as Shi'ite, but they are two-faced. Eager to collect the oil profits, but in their deep consciouness, they despise westerners, all non-muslims, and deal with us only to maintain their extravagant lifestyles. I can somewhat respect the Shi'ites, they are blunt and straightforward.
Thank you for that post, HeatherRob.
If you have the time or inclination, I think a similar post may be in order for the thread Who do the Muslims hate more?. It is important to distinguish the many different kinds of people in the Middle East.
As far as answering DTOM's initial question...most of my opinions on this involve some negative commentary about all religions. I best just keep them to myself until I can think of a more constructive way to say my piece
If you have the time or inclination, I think a similar post may be in order for the thread Who do the Muslims hate more?. It is important to distinguish the many different kinds of people in the Middle East.
As far as answering DTOM's initial question...most of my opinions on this involve some negative commentary about all religions. I best just keep them to myself until I can think of a more constructive way to say my piece
I personally feel that Islam, like Christianity, is ultimately flawed, that organized theology only leads to exclusion and separation. One can be tolerant, surely, but is tolerance really acceptance?
That said, however...
I grew up in a Muslim majority part of India, and I have visited several Muslim countries in Africa. Muslim people, almost without exception, are the most welcoming and generous people in the world. Part of their religion requires a very strict adherance to the rules of guests and generosity.
I can't help but think that the fanatical Muslims who are bent on Jihad against the West are more power mongers, really, than they are true Muslims. In fact, most Muslim scholars agree that the term Jihad itself represents an inner, personal struggle, and that turning its meaning to war against non-Muslims is a pretty far stretch of the meaning.
Is Islam a religion of peace? I think mostly it is. Like Christians, Muslims of every stripe can be found. I think that the rise of Fundamentalist Islamic governments is a sad thing - no government should be run on the basis of religion as its driving force. But ultimately it is wrong to generalize whole groups of people on the basis of the way the few power hungry "leaders" behave.
This is also not to say that people in any nation don't get caught up in the fever of governmental policies. That is evident in many places, including the U.S. But when people use reason instead of blind faith, when people seek out each other, when people see how others in the world live their lives - not the politicians, but the masons, the potters, the bus drivers, the farmers - they see that we all live the same life of love, loss, suffering, and joy.
That said, however...
I grew up in a Muslim majority part of India, and I have visited several Muslim countries in Africa. Muslim people, almost without exception, are the most welcoming and generous people in the world. Part of their religion requires a very strict adherance to the rules of guests and generosity.
I can't help but think that the fanatical Muslims who are bent on Jihad against the West are more power mongers, really, than they are true Muslims. In fact, most Muslim scholars agree that the term Jihad itself represents an inner, personal struggle, and that turning its meaning to war against non-Muslims is a pretty far stretch of the meaning.
Is Islam a religion of peace? I think mostly it is. Like Christians, Muslims of every stripe can be found. I think that the rise of Fundamentalist Islamic governments is a sad thing - no government should be run on the basis of religion as its driving force. But ultimately it is wrong to generalize whole groups of people on the basis of the way the few power hungry "leaders" behave.
This is also not to say that people in any nation don't get caught up in the fever of governmental policies. That is evident in many places, including the U.S. But when people use reason instead of blind faith, when people seek out each other, when people see how others in the world live their lives - not the politicians, but the masons, the potters, the bus drivers, the farmers - they see that we all live the same life of love, loss, suffering, and joy.
First of all I would like to comment on what the admin asked about. The image the media often portrait is that these people just hate America and everything American. I don't believe that is true, instead I think they hate American foreign policy. There is a history of helping where help is not always wanted, and in ways that suit US economic interests better that they serve the humanitarian interests.
Comment to Cyclone:
To say that Islam calls for the destructions of all infidels is the same as saying that just because some nut cases in Georgia think that Jesus wanted the whole world white Christianity as a whole feels the same way. There are groups within all religions that choose to read certain things into their holy texts.
Comment to Basheva:
It's actually the other way around. In the early years of Islam and for a long time all other religions were accepted in the Arabic world. Baghdad was for example home to a very large Jewish enclave. I don't really think we're very accepting either. In the west we have this idea that our systems and our way of doing things are the best and so it goes without saying that everyone else should follow our lead. We accept everyone as long as the they act like we want them to act. Do you not thing there would be a outrage if a Muslim preaching channel was started much like the Christian ones that are out there. Millions of soccer-moms protesting.
One of the main differences between Christianity and Islam is that the church has always been separate from the government while in the Moslem world they have been incorporated with each other.
Christianity as we know it today took form in the roman empire where the emperor was very powerful. The church thus had to subordinate itself under the emperor and not try to compete with him for power. In the Moslem world on the other hand Mohammed was both ruler and religious leader. This is what has led to the sharia, the Islamic law, that often causes such outrage in the west.
I think it's very dangerous to think about these series of conflicts as something between Islam and the west. This only makes the gap bigger.
Comment to Cyclone:
To say that Islam calls for the destructions of all infidels is the same as saying that just because some nut cases in Georgia think that Jesus wanted the whole world white Christianity as a whole feels the same way. There are groups within all religions that choose to read certain things into their holy texts.
Comment to Basheva:
It's actually the other way around. In the early years of Islam and for a long time all other religions were accepted in the Arabic world. Baghdad was for example home to a very large Jewish enclave. I don't really think we're very accepting either. In the west we have this idea that our systems and our way of doing things are the best and so it goes without saying that everyone else should follow our lead. We accept everyone as long as the they act like we want them to act. Do you not thing there would be a outrage if a Muslim preaching channel was started much like the Christian ones that are out there. Millions of soccer-moms protesting.
One of the main differences between Christianity and Islam is that the church has always been separate from the government while in the Moslem world they have been incorporated with each other.
Christianity as we know it today took form in the roman empire where the emperor was very powerful. The church thus had to subordinate itself under the emperor and not try to compete with him for power. In the Moslem world on the other hand Mohammed was both ruler and religious leader. This is what has led to the sharia, the Islamic law, that often causes such outrage in the west.
I think it's very dangerous to think about these series of conflicts as something between Islam and the west. This only makes the gap bigger.
QUOTE
Comment to Basheva:
It's actually the other way around. In the early years of Islam and for a long time all other religions were accepted in the Arabic world. Baghdad was for example home to a very large Jewish enclave. I don't really think we're very accepting either.
It's actually the other way around. In the early years of Islam and for a long time all other religions were accepted in the Arabic world. Baghdad was for example home to a very large Jewish enclave. I don't really think we're very accepting either.
Yes, it is true that there were/are Jewish enclaves in many Islamic cities Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus, and others. But they were always held at arms length, their presence and actitivities curtailed, often severely.
We do accept Moslems within our midst. The city I live in has quite a number of mosques (many newly built), they walk the streets in the dress they prefer (the women often completely veiled), and no one stops them or hinders them. Their children go to public schools and the little girls are often severely covered, but if they should wish to build their own schools, no one would prohibit it. If anyone were to hinder them, they would be in legal trouble.
If a Christian or Jew should want to build a church or synagogue in many Moslem countries - it is forbidden.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 21 2003, 10:11 PM)
But I'm interested in everybody thinks about what specifically led to the current crisis between the west and Islamic fundamentalism. Is it deep rooted in the crusades, or from more recent actions?
I think i've found a link that could help:
Click Here
It might or might not help...i haven't read it thoroughly
Is it deep rooted in the crusades, or from more recent actions?
I doubt it is the Crusades. After all they kind of brought that on themselves.
Moorish invasion of Europe
Modern events...Like what the billions of dollars we have pumped into the region over the years?
I often wonder what would Saudi Arabia etc. would do if we suddenly managed to start using alternative fuels? What if by some breakthrough discovery Fuel cells suddenly became feasible? How would the economy's of these nations deal with it? Suddenly they have nothing to trade. They are completely dependant on ...guess who?....The Christian world to feed them and even protect them. Consider that the Arab nations have only what we have provided them. They dont have all the coolest new toys etc. As we know America has oil reserves of its own. Plus the technology to create alternative fuel sources if we need to. Need becomes the driving force here. Imagine if the US consumer had to pay the same amount as say the English for a gallon of gas. Suddenly in a matter of months there would be alternatives. High Methanol content fuels etc. Within a year or two there would be big changes in how we fuel our cars.
This would mean certain economic ruin for all of the oil rich Arab nations.
I think it possible that certain sects of the Muslim religion have seen the proverbial writing on the wall. They see what lay in the future for their people. They see that the 'west' (read Christians) will thrive when the changes come. They see that their greedy brethren are lead by the capitalist devil down the road of decadence etc. They see that soon very soon things will change and the golden ride on the black crude they have enjoyed for so long is now coming to an end.
Is it wrong for these radicals to be so upset with the 'west'? They DO see us as the eventual cause of their demise. It is just that we are sometimes to blinded by our own giving nature to see that what we have really done. We have really set up an entire region of the world to eventually fall flat on its face.
Now mind you I think they are handling it completely wrong. They should be building industry and desalinization plants etc. Huge canal systems that rival anything ever seen on Earth. They should be preparing for the eventual future. Alas they have decided it will be easier to take us via war and propaganda. Ruin our economies etc. Then steal what they are too lazy to build for themselves.
We as the west should be doing exactly what we are doing. Supporting their economy as long as we can. Trying to build progressive peaceful governments with fresh new ideas for growth. Those that resist and fall back on the old Arab ways of life need to be removed. Those that result to terrorism to be heard will be heard. But then they will be killed. It is all they understand. Meanwhile Christians of the world could help a bit. Maybe by convincing the Arab states to invest their wealth in their peoples future. Instead of their demise...
GBYA
Aahz
I doubt it is the Crusades. After all they kind of brought that on themselves.
Moorish invasion of Europe
Modern events...Like what the billions of dollars we have pumped into the region over the years?
I often wonder what would Saudi Arabia etc. would do if we suddenly managed to start using alternative fuels? What if by some breakthrough discovery Fuel cells suddenly became feasible? How would the economy's of these nations deal with it? Suddenly they have nothing to trade. They are completely dependant on ...guess who?....The Christian world to feed them and even protect them. Consider that the Arab nations have only what we have provided them. They dont have all the coolest new toys etc. As we know America has oil reserves of its own. Plus the technology to create alternative fuel sources if we need to. Need becomes the driving force here. Imagine if the US consumer had to pay the same amount as say the English for a gallon of gas. Suddenly in a matter of months there would be alternatives. High Methanol content fuels etc. Within a year or two there would be big changes in how we fuel our cars.
This would mean certain economic ruin for all of the oil rich Arab nations.
I think it possible that certain sects of the Muslim religion have seen the proverbial writing on the wall. They see what lay in the future for their people. They see that the 'west' (read Christians) will thrive when the changes come. They see that their greedy brethren are lead by the capitalist devil down the road of decadence etc. They see that soon very soon things will change and the golden ride on the black crude they have enjoyed for so long is now coming to an end.
Is it wrong for these radicals to be so upset with the 'west'? They DO see us as the eventual cause of their demise. It is just that we are sometimes to blinded by our own giving nature to see that what we have really done. We have really set up an entire region of the world to eventually fall flat on its face.
Now mind you I think they are handling it completely wrong. They should be building industry and desalinization plants etc. Huge canal systems that rival anything ever seen on Earth. They should be preparing for the eventual future. Alas they have decided it will be easier to take us via war and propaganda. Ruin our economies etc. Then steal what they are too lazy to build for themselves.
We as the west should be doing exactly what we are doing. Supporting their economy as long as we can. Trying to build progressive peaceful governments with fresh new ideas for growth. Those that resist and fall back on the old Arab ways of life need to be removed. Those that result to terrorism to be heard will be heard. But then they will be killed. It is all they understand. Meanwhile Christians of the world could help a bit. Maybe by convincing the Arab states to invest their wealth in their peoples future. Instead of their demise...
GBYA
Aahz
QUOTE(Aahz @ Feb 4 2003, 12:14 AM)
Is it deep rooted in the crusades, or from more recent actions?
I doubt it is the Crusades. After all they kind of brought that on themselves.
Moorish invasion of Europe
Modern events...Like what the billions of dollars we have pumped into the region over the years?
I often wonder what would Saudi Arabia etc. would do if we suddenly managed to start using alternative fuels? What if by some breakthrough discovery Fuel cells suddenly became feasible? How would the economy's of these nations deal with it?
I doubt it is the Crusades. After all they kind of brought that on themselves.
Moorish invasion of Europe
Modern events...Like what the billions of dollars we have pumped into the region over the years?
I often wonder what would Saudi Arabia etc. would do if we suddenly managed to start using alternative fuels? What if by some breakthrough discovery Fuel cells suddenly became feasible? How would the economy's of these nations deal with it?
Saudi Arabia would economically collapse but oil prioces would drop because the United States, the biggest customer, would have pulled out of the oil market & there would be tons of oil to go around to others
What is the root cause of Islam vs others (West, Christianity, Jews, etc)?
Abraham was not patient with God's promise of a child and went to Hagar and produced Ishmael, the fore-father of Arabs (Muslims).
Abraham was not patient with God's promise of a child and went to Hagar and produced Ishmael, the fore-father of Arabs (Muslims).
QUOTE(otseng @ Feb 4 2003, 05:28 AM)
What is the root cause of Islam vs others (West, Christianity, Jews, etc)?
Abraham was not patient with God's promise of a child and went to Hagar and produced Ishmael, the fore-father of Arabs (Muslims).
Abraham was not patient with God's promise of a child and went to Hagar and produced Ishmael, the fore-father of Arabs (Muslims).
Or perhaps one could say, the root cause is systems of thought (like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc) which are exclusive rather than inclusive, which are defined by separation from "the other," and all of which define a chosen group in opposition to non-members.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Jan 21 2003, 10:11 PM)
BUT please lets not turn this into Israel vs. Palestine, this can't be the only reason for our problems today.
No, but our partisanship toward Israel and her expansionism has been a great recruiting poster for AL Queda and other terrorist outfits.
My 9/11 explanation for the day? We shoveled too much money into the bank account of old man bin Laden. With 50+ kids one of them was bound to go wrong.
QUOTE(Dingo @ Feb 4 2003, 02:16 PM)
My 9/11 explanation for the day? We shoveled too much money into the bank account of old man bin Laden. With 50+ kids one of them was bound to go wrong.
Do you have proof?
A severe accusation like that needs some evidence
It is a reference to bin-Laden's father who made a boat load of money in construction. We have been in on a lot of construction projects in Saudi Arabia. No accusation of treason there that I see.
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Feb 4 2003, 05:42 PM)
It is a reference to bin-Laden's father who made a boat load of money in construction. We have been in on a lot of construction projects in Saudi Arabia. No accusation of treason there that I see.
Exactly...a harmless business dealing in the past
QUOTE(goamerica @ Feb 4 2003, 06:13 PM)
QUOTE(Eeyore @ Feb 4 2003, 05:42 PM)
It is a reference to bin-Laden's father who made a boat load of money in construction. We have been in on a lot of construction projects in Saudi Arabia. No accusation of treason there that I see.
Exactly...a harmless business dealing in the past
Not so harmless as it turned out.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.