Saddam's son feeds woman to dogs (alive)
William A. Levinson
(Saddam Hussein's son Uday)
> He caught sight of Nahle Sabet, a pretty architecture student from a respected middle-class Christian family he’d
> noticed when he occasionally attended classes. He cruised past her slowly now, honking, trying to get her attention. She refused to
> even look in his direction.
>
> Two days later Sabet was a few blocks from her family’s home in a Baghdad suburb when a Mercedes sedan screeched to a halt on
> the sidewalk in front of her. Two men in dark suits got out and identified themselves as secret police. They told her she was wanted
> at headquarters for questioning and led her into the car.
>
> Headquarters turned out to be a farm Uday owned several miles from Baghdad. The frightened girl was hustled into a drawing room,
> where Uday sat at an antique desk. “You’re very lucky,” he said. “I’ve chosen you as my new girlfriend.”
>
> “You’re insane,” Sabet stammered. “I want to go home!”
>
> “Strip her,” Uday ordered his guards. The burly men pounced on her and ripped at her clothes until she was cowering naked on the
> floor. Uday towered over her, unrolling his favorite wire cable. “First I will beat you. Then, if you’re good, I’ll allow you to please
> myself and my men.”
>
> It took Uday and his men almost three months to break Sabet’s spirit. Then Uday tired of her. Her face was ruined; her body was a
> mass of bruises. He had the guards take her out to the kennels where he kept his attack dogs—Rottweilers, Dobermans, and great
> danes. He’d told the keepers several days before to stop feeding them.
>
> Nahle Sabet was then smeared with honey and tossed into the kennels, where all evidence of the crime disappeared.
>
Feeding a living woman to attack dogs is Uday Hussein's idea of
entertainment. Watching and hearing him writhe and scream with a U.S.
Marine's bayonet through his stomach would be mine. Even better, capture
him alive, give him to the women's family, and let them do whatever they
want to him.
-Bill
NEW (4/12/02) http://www.stentorian.com/politics/un/militant.html
This is militant "Islam" (I use "Islam" very, very loosely)
NEW LEAFLET (4/12/02)
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/un/rabiddog.html
Terrorism as a rabid dog
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/un/warcrime.html
Violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in the Middle East
Militant "Islam" versus Christianity (and Civilization):
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/un/crucify.html
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/un/genassem.html
James
"William A. Levinson" <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> wrote in
message news:3CBB8B42...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com...
> > danes. He'd told the keepers several days before to stop feeding
them.
> >
> > Nahle Sabet was then smeared with honey and tossed into the
kennels, where all evidence of the crime disappeared.
> >
>
> Feeding a living woman to attack dogs is Uday Hussein's idea of
> entertainment. Watching and hearing him writhe and scream with a
U.S.
> Marine's bayonet through his stomach would be mine. Even better,
capture
> him alive, give him to the women's family, and let them do whatever
they
> want to him.
>
>
> -Bill
If this story is true or not I do not know. However, because of a
story about Uday I read in Readers Digest a few years ago I do not
doubt that this story could be true. It seems that Uday has raped
many women in Baghdad with the aid of the police. The Digest said he
went to a wedding where he had the police arrest the groom as soon has
they were pronounced man and wife. He then raped the new bride at the
wedding. Is this the one who would be next it line to rule Iraq?
I don't know but I would bet that Uday is a Muslim. Real nice guy,
Hun?
amigocabal
see the massacre in Jenin right before your nose!
Passerby
"amigocabal" <par...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:H1Nu8.88706$VM5.49...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
g-nome
and talking to the only one that will believe your
vitriol? Only a paranoid schizophrenic mind could
believe anything you post. You seem to believe
yourself. Oh well. Someone has to be you. How can
you live with yourself? You hate everyone else, you
must hate even yourself to place your anti Jewish
propaganda on a Jewish cultural News Group.
All you'll get from here is rejection. Is that what
you seek? It has to make you feel quite the little
manly anonymous bigot. I really think you enjoy the
derision that is heaped on you. A masochistic individual
that thrives on hatred. That from others and of yourself.
Shalom, Michael.
bongo
> The Digest said he
> went to a wedding where he had the police arrest the groom as soon has
> they were pronounced man and wife. He then raped the new bride at the
> wedding.
That's insane. IF this is true, the person to commit such a crime is a low
and most dishonourable cocksucker. No man with a shred of decency and
morals would look up to a man who fucks with another man's marriage. The
crime in itself is brutal, but to do as described above at a wedding has got
to be one of the most repulsive acts I have ever heard of. Suck a
cocksucker deserves to be beaten to a pulp, and thrown in jail for a a very
long time. Putting his head in a vice (remember Casino - Joe Pesci?) would
also be nice.
> I don't know but I would bet that Uday is a Muslim.
I don't think that is fair, and being Muslim has nothing whatsoever to do
with it. BTW I am not Muslim, just in case you thought I was rushing to the
defense. Any person capable to do something like this is not being
motivated nor influenced by religion.
Susan Cohen
bongo wrote:
> "James" <jme...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > The Digest said he
> > went to a wedding where he had the police arrest the groom as soon has
> > they were pronounced man and wife. He then raped the new bride at the
> > wedding.
>
> That's insane. IF this is true, the person to commit such a crime is a low
> and most dishonourable cocksucker. No man with a shred of decency and
> morals would look up to a man who fucks with another man's marriage. The
> crime in itself is brutal, but to do as described above at a wedding has got
> to be one of the most repulsive acts I have ever heard of. Suck a
> cocksucker deserves to be beaten to a pulp, and thrown in jail for a a very
> long time. Putting his head in a vice (remember Casino - Joe Pesci?) would
> also be nice.
I, myself, would like to hear a little more verification first - tho'
the idea that the Reader's Digest also had a simialr story does
tend to corroborate it.
> > I don't know but I would bet that Uday is a Muslim.
>
> I don't think that is fair, and being Muslim has nothing whatsoever to do
> with it. BTW I am not Muslim, just in case you thought I was rushing to the
> defense. Any person capable to do something like this is not being
> motivated nor influenced by religion.
Hear, hear!!
Susan
Pär Svensson
"g-nome" <mpc...@lafn.org> skrev i meddelandet
news:3CBBBA7E...@lafn.org...
> Who are you answering? Are you looking in a mirror
> and talking to the only one that will believe your
> vitriol? Only a paranoid schizophrenic mind could
> believe anything you post. You seem to believe
> yourself. Oh well. Someone has to be you. How can
> you live with yourself? You hate everyone else, you
> must hate even yourself to place your anti Jewish
> propaganda on a Jewish cultural News Group.
> All you'll get from here is rejection. Is that what
> you seek? It has to make you feel quite the little
> manly anonymous bigot. I really think you enjoy the
> derision that is heaped on you. A masochistic individual
> that thrives on hatred. That from others and of yourself.
I wonder who's the bigoted idiot who can't understand other people's
situation, only understand the little sphere of self-interest. The little
sphere around the bigoted, war-loving and fascistic leader of Israel, who
believes violence is the solution to every problem. It's fascinating to see
how you manage to avoid certain facts just to make them fit into your little
world of complete Jews righteousness.
Pär Svensson
"bongo" <bo...@mail1.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:v1Qu8.33$iw1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Couldn't agree more
Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd. (Tirana, Albania)
> situation, only understand the little sphere of self-interest. The little
> sphere around the bigoted, war-loving and fascistic leader of Israel, who
> believes violence is the solution to every problem. It's fascinating to
see
> how you manage to avoid certain facts just to make them fit into your
little
> world of complete Jews righteousness.
And this from the great country of Sweden, home to the fascist Ingvar
Kamprad of Nazikea, and the country which did the least to prosecute Nazi
war criminals. This tosser probably has wet dreams when he thinks about how
Arafat wants to finish what his idol Shitler started.
Ian
cobblers
of the material in Maxim's article is drawn (for obvious) reasons from
anonymous sources. That equally gives license to embellishment. For all
that, there is enough credible evidence to say that few would want Uday as a
neighbor. Maxim's authors betray their own inexperience in matters Middle
Eastern by speaking of firing a $730 gun while shouting "Ali Akbar"!!!!!!!!
Ali Baba, perhaps. And one of only two named sources comes from the
University of Haifa, not I would suggest the most independent source for
information on Iraq. Nor is the Reader's Digest any help for corroboration.
In any case, that noted scholar Houseman decades ago debunked the theory
that repetition in many places is as good as confirmation.
But could there be another reason for 'Bill' reading Maxim. I take it, of
course, that he did read the article before posting a section from it. For
the unenlightened, that issue of Maxim also contains the following (hey Bill
you dirty old devil)...............
What Women Want!
Sixteen hot and horny women create a step-by-step, moan-by-moan guide to
help you please every woman every time. Except Oprah. There's no pleasing
her.
Chill Your Chick
From the new issue.Turn any girl into a beer-swilling, Super Bowl-watching,
strip-joint junkie. Then ditch your other friends!
Mind Games
Who said love is fair-or morally defensible.
More Sex Now!
Has bonking your girl become passé? It has for us.Turn your boring sex life
into a headbangers ball.
Stop Her Snooping
She moving in for the bust? Thwart her spying ways.
How to Slip Her a Prenup
The War Between the Sexes.Is Over!
Learn to Speak Her Language
Split Decisions: Divorce Made Easy.for You
Last Longer in Bed
The Sex S.A.T.
YOUR SEX QUESTIONS
Our sexpert answers questions from the ladies. Intrigued? Wait till you read
what they asked!
PICKUP TRICK
Always bring cigarettes. Even if you don't smoke. Leave them sitting out so
girls can bum them from you. It's the one instance in which a woman will
feel comfortable approaching you.
LINK O' SEX
E!'s looking for a new Wild On host! No, Brooke Burke is not being put out
to pasture; the channel's giving her new opportunities with a new show. But
that means your gal has a shot at scoring her old gig. Find out more at E!
How satisfied would you say your woman is with your lovin'? (Be honest-this
is anonymous.)
Reasonably
Not so much-we've been together a while and it's gotten stale
Not so much-I'm inexperienced and could use a few pointers
She's a very, very satisfied woman
Susan Cohen
Of course, the Swedish people did work very hard to save their Jews.
Susan
>
>
> Ian
ddb
are from many nations and from many religions. James I bet your a redneck
who couldn't Israel if given a globe.
"James" <jme...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:_IMu8.98010$gA5.7...@e3500-atl2.usenetserver.com...
cobblers
Still appropriate..............
President Bush Does Not Tell Lies!!
Memo To: Ari Fleisher, White House Press Secretary
From: Jude Wanniski
March 12, 2002
Re: He is sometimes misinformed.
In his almost 14 months in the Oval Office, I'm almost positive the
President has never lied to the American people. There may have been some
"stretchers," as Mark Twain referred to the occupational hazard of the
political class. But I don't think he has ever consciously told an untruth.
The thought occurred to me the other day when I heard him speak of his
determination to deal with Saddam Hussein, a man so evil that "he gassed his
own people."
Now I'm not sure that is true, Mr. Fleisher, but I know it has been a
factoid in the papers and on TV so often that he believes it is absolutely
true, and is one of many good reasons to send our military into Iraq to
replace him with a new "regime."
As his press secretary, you are the one person who stands directly between
President George W. Bush and the Fourth Estate. You might want to have one
of your assistants call over to the Pentagon and ask for its 1990 report,
"Iraqi Power and U.S. Security in the Middle East," which concluded the
Iraqi Kurds who were gassed were probably the victims of the Iranians. At
least, "it seemed likely that it was the Iranian bombardment that had
actually killed the Kurds."
Why would this information be ignored now that the President is
contemplating war with Iraq? It is because the people who want to go to war
with Iraq find it inconvenient. There is nobody in either party in the
Congress who wishes to appear to be defending the monster, Saddam Hussein.
Oh, by the way, the papers also insist Saddam tried to assassinate the
President's father, after he had left the presidency and was visiting Kuwait
City in April 1993.
Our Central Intelligence Agency, which gets much of its information from our
newspapers, also seems to think so, although it bases its conclusion on the
Iraqi whisky smuggler who confessed under torture by the Kuwaitis to having
been sent by Iraqi intelligence. After he was convicted and before he was
executed, he said he was not sent by Iraq, but was seeking revenge against
President George Bush, Sr. who had killed 16 members of his family in the
Gulf War.
I've always thought the idea improbable, as the never-planted bomb was not
only of questionable origin, but the timing was not right. It was
"discovered" by Kuwaiti police in a van only a few weeks after President
Bill Clinton was inaugurated. Clinton had publicly said he would try to
resolve problems with Saddam, and Saddam had no incentive to disrupt that
possibility. The Kuwaitis did and so did Perle & Co.
If you really want an independent assessment, read Seymour Hersh's report of
November 1, 1993, "Case Not Closed." Show it to the boss. It might cool him
off a bit. And remember, Clinton bombed Iraq on June 26, 1993, killing eight
civilians when the missiles went off course, including one of Iraq's most
gifted artists. No wonder the CIA still has to say Saddam did it. Whoops!
There is so much to read these days that one never knows what is the truth
and what is a "stretcher," Mr. Fleisher. For your own guidance, you should
know that anything written about Iraq on the editorial pages of The Wall
Street Journal or Washington Times is actually dictated by the second most
powerful man in Washington, Richard Perle, the chairman of the Defense
Policy Board and a fellow I've known for over 30 years. Richard, known to
his close friends as "The Prince of Darkness," is responsible for most the
stretchers told about Saddam Hussein, as far as I can tell, although there
are surely a lot of skeletons in Saddam's closet that have not been
stretched.
There has been a rumor that Paul Gigot is the editorial page editor of the
WSJ, but I can tell you for certain that Perle is the de facto editor who
runs that page. He ran it for years when Bob Bartley was editor, at least on
national security matters. Perle has a vast network of warriors scattered
all over Washington, which he has cultivated over the years with his
sidekick, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard is the primary house organ for Perle
Propaganda in Washington. His buddy Bill Kristol is the editor. Perle also
dictates William Safire's NTTimes columns on national security and the
Middle East (yesterday's was a pip, about that Monster, Yasir Arafat), and
ABC's George Will has been a Perle-handled pistol for more than 30 years.
Just ask around and you will find well over half of all members of Congress
have Perle acolytes on their staffs -- Senator Joe Lieberman, who was on the
ticket with Al Gore, among them.
Perle's themes and variations go into the columns of Richard Lowery, editor
of the National Review, and the reportage of Bill Gertz of The Washington
Times. Syndicated columnist Frank Gaffney, who appears regularly on the tv
news shows, is Perle's deputy sheriff, with a license of kill by character
assassination.
Then there is Jim Woolsey, former director of Central Intelligence in the
Clinton administration, who has been fetching Perle's coffee and donuts for
the last 30 years, rewarded with the CIA job when Perle snuck him into the
Clinton administration in 1993, as he had been a nominal Democrat from his
days as a Senate staffer. Woolsey is the designated propagandist of the
Defense Policy Board, which is why he gets so much air time.
Over the weekend, he announced that we should not even bother with weapons
inspectors in Iraq, that the only way to be sure Saddam is no longer a
threat is to go in and kill him. It was Woolsey at the CIA in 1993 who urged
the bombing of Iraq on the evidence Saddam had tried to kill your boss's
Dad.
Read Hersh's story and you should see Perle's coffee-and-donut man was
"stretching." It is highly likely that Perle and Woolsey orchestrated the
whole thing with their Kuwaiti contacts. The same PR outfit that was
supposed to run the Office of Strategic Influence was behind the stories of
atrocities by the Iraqi army in 1990, stories later found to be bogus. In
its expose of the OSI last month, the NYT made that connection. The OSI was
supposedly killed, but do not believe it, Mr. Fleisher. The PR firm is still
working at the Pentagon, cooking up stories.
Perle, by the way, does not mind collateral damage, as witness the 1.5
million Iraqi civilians who have been sacrificed to Allah in accord with
Perle's plan to bring down Saddam by starving Iraq until the people decided
to overthrow the guy.
If you go back further, Mr. Fleisher, you will find that a lot of this junk
began piling up when Perle masterminded Israel's bombing of the Iraq nuclear
power plant in the early days of the Reagan administration. Perle was then
inside the Pentagon, in daily contact with the Israeli government.
He seems to have concluded, with his mentor, the late Albert Wohlstetter,
that if the new French-built power plant were permitted to open, just
outside Baghdad, that it could not be bombed, as radioactivity would be
released and Israel would be condemned for the massive loss of life. So the
Israeli Air Force bombed it before the French delivered the fissile
material.
I was told Perle celebrated at the Pentagon with his staff. Of course, all
of the above pressniks hailed the bombing at Osiraq. The excuse was that if
Iraq were to open the plant, it would learn how to deal with nuclear stuff
and might someday make a nuke, to match Israel's nuke.
History reveals that Iraq at the time did not have a nuke weapons program
and was (and is) a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, which is why
the French were allowed to provide it with fissile material. But after the
bombing, for which the Israelis offered "not a brass farthing" for
compensation, Saddam embarked on his nuke program.
By the way, the press corps keeps writing that Saddam is still trying to
make a nuke. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which regularly
inspects Iraq, says he ain't. Please advise the President of this
information, Mr. Press Secretary.
And if you want more leads on strategic misinformation, you know how to get
hold of me. Maybe my facts are not always right, but at least I try to get
them, and I don't ever, ever do stretchers.
Amigocabal
And Jewish Ordningspolizei in Warsaw ghetto killed thousands of their own
Jews!
William A. Levinson
bongo wrote:
> "James" <jme...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > The Digest said he
> > went to a wedding where he had the police arrest the groom as soon has
> > they were pronounced man and wife. He then raped the new bride at the
> > wedding.
>
> That's insane. IF this is true, the person to commit such a crime is a low
> and most dishonourable cocksucker. No man with a shred of decency and
> morals would look up to a man who fucks with another man's marriage. The
> crime in itself is brutal, but to do as described above at a wedding has got
> to be one of the most repulsive acts I have ever heard of.
In Europe, the "right of the first night" entitled a nobleman to sleep with a
bride on the night of her marriage. (See the movie "Braveheart.") Uday Hussein
obviously thinks he is entitled to this privilege.
> Suck a
> cocksucker deserves to be beaten to a pulp, and thrown in jail for a a very
> long time. Putting his head in a vice (remember Casino - Joe Pesci?) would
> also be nice.
After the United States finishes his father's government, I'd like to see Uday
handed over to the family of the woman he had torn apart by attack dogs, so they
can do whatever they want to him. I'll be happy to donate them a book of
medieval forms of capital punishments to stimulate their imaginations.
>
>
> > I don't know but I would bet that Uday is a Muslim.
>
> I don't think that is fair, and being Muslim has nothing whatsoever to do
> with it.
Militant Muslims like Uday Hussein are about as Muslim as the Inquisition was
Christian. Inquisitors also used their positions to violate women. "Satisfy me
and I won't have you burned as a heretic."
> BTW I am not Muslim, just in case you thought I was rushing to the
> defense. Any person capable to do something like this is not being
> motivated nor influenced by religion.
-Bill
NEW (4/16/02) http://www.omdurman.org/ Exposing militant "Islam" and Palestine
(Militant "Islam" is about as Islamic as the Inquisition was Christian)
NEW LEAFLET (4/12/02) http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/rabiddog.html
Terrorism as a rabid dog
http://www.omdurman.org//warcrime.html
Violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in the Middle East
Militant "Islam" versus Christianity (and Civilization):
http://www.omdurman.org/crucify.html
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/genassem.html
William A. Levinson
cobblers wrote:
> The source's for 'Bill's' postings become more interesting by the day. Most
> of the material in Maxim's article is drawn (for obvious) reasons from
> anonymous sources. That equally gives license to embellishment. For all
> that, there is enough credible evidence to say that few would want Uday as a
> neighbor. Maxim's authors betray their own inexperience in matters Middle
> Eastern by speaking of firing a $730 gun while shouting "Ali Akbar"!!!!!!!!
> Ali Baba, perhaps. And one of only two named sources comes from the
> University of Haifa, not I would suggest the most independent source for
> information on Iraq. Nor is the Reader's Digest any help for corroboration.
> In any case, that noted scholar Houseman decades ago debunked the theory
> that repetition in many places is as good as confirmation.
I read about this incident many years ago and I decided to try to find it
online.
> But could there be another reason for 'Bill' reading Maxim. I take it, of
> course, that he did read the article before posting a section from it.
No, I just used "search for" the keyword of interest--- "Hussein," I think it
was--- and went down to the incident in question.
> For
> the unenlightened, that issue of Maxim also contains the following (hey Bill
> you dirty old devil)...............
>
> What Women Want!
> Sixteen hot and horny women create a step-by-step, moan-by-moan guide to
> help you please every woman every time. Except Oprah. There's no pleasing
> her.
Well, they sure don't want it from your friend Uday Hussein.
> Chill Your Chick
> From the new issue.Turn any girl into a beer-swilling, Super Bowl-watching,
> strip-joint junkie. Then ditch your other friends!
Uday ought to read this.
Are you a Roland or are you a Ganelon?
http://www.omdurman.org/#Roncesvalles
-Bill
NEW (4/16/02) http://www.omdurman.org/ Exposing militant "Islam" and Palestine
(Militant "Islam" is about as Islamic as the Inquisition was Christian)
NEW LEAFLET (4/12/02) http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/rabiddog.html
Terrorism as a rabid dog
http://www.omdurman.org//warcrime.html
Violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in the Middle East
Militant "Islam" versus Christianity (and Civilization):
http://www.omdurman.org/crucify.html
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/genassem.html
BUSHBADEE
<bo...@mail1.com> writes:
>
>That's insane. IF this is true, the person to commit such a crime is a low
>and most dishonourable cocksucker. No man with a shred of decency and
>morals would look up to a man who fucks with another man's marriage. The
>crime in itself is bruta
It was regularly done in Europe.
The king had the right to have sex with every woman before her new husband
.
.
I DO NOT FOLLOW MANY OF THESE NEWS GROUPS
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
MCCS
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 07:03:55 GMT, "bongo" <bo...@mail1.com> wrote:
>
>> IF this is true, the person to commit such a crime is a low
>>and most dishonourable cocksucker.
>
>Welcome to the wide, wide world of islamic dictatorships.
>
>
What an incredibly stupid comment.
Mark
cobblers
source of history.
Larry R
of England to free Scotland, and was betrayed by the Burn's Clan was a true
story.
Perhaps you should quote from historical fact, rather than regurgitated
bullshit.
LARRY R.
"cobblers" <cobble...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SM_u8.6928$5J3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
g-nome
religion created out of Catholicism by Martin Luther. I do not
live in an isolated sphere of my own self-interest. I've studied
World History quite thoroughly. What I see here is one individual
poorly attempting to pass off Hate as rhetoric. Believe what you
will, that's your rights. I really don't care what your personal mindset
is. I just find it self deprecating for someone who
is a self proclaimed bigot and Jew hater post such a vast
quantity of Hatred and Bigotry on this NG.
As I wrote, only a masochist or someone that thrives on Hatred
would post such vitriol, garbage, and outright lies to a NG
that obviously dislikes most of the "material" he posts.
Shalom, Michael.
ddb
hysterical value.
"Larry R" <fut...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:V1%u8.23398$Yt.11...@read1.cgocable.net...
James
"bongo" <bo...@mail1.com> wrote in message
news:v1Qu8.33$iw1...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Muslims right now.
The Readers Digest that carried this story said that the rape at the
wedding was not an isolated incident. They said that raping women
with the help of the police was a regular habit for Uday. The bride
at the wedding as so upset she committed suicide as soon as Uday was
finished.
al953
g-nome wrote:
I think he makes a valid point!
al953
"Creedmoor Chronicles, Ltd. (Tirana, Albania)" wrote:
A zionist criticizing Sweden. What is this world coming to?
Larry R
the exception of a couple of battle scenes the movie was historically
correct.
You can't wipe your ass with what you know about the history of Scotland,
the paper its on is too small.
LARRY R.
"ddb" <fa...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:q41v8.45278$G72.36647@sccrnsc01...
Susan Cohen
Reuben King wrote:
> Have you ever read any of the Koran? I have. It actually seems to be a
> rather enlightened and peaceful scripture for the most part. Certainly
> not any more "violent" than our Bible.
>
> It even has a whole book dedicated to Women and setting out rules for
> equal rights and property ownership.
>
> Its obvious its the filthy animals who call themselves "Arabs" who are
> mostly to blame for "Islamic" violence.
It is people who *pervert* the Qu'ran that are responsible
for the bad reputation Islam has in the world!
Thanks for pointing this out!
Susan
Susan Cohen
"William A. Levinson" wrote:
> bongo wrote:
>
> > "James" <jme...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > The Digest said he
> > > went to a wedding where he had the police arrest the groom as soon has
> > > they were pronounced man and wife. He then raped the new bride at the
> > > wedding.
> >
> > That's insane. IF this is true, the person to commit such a crime is a low
> > and most dishonourable cocksucker. No man with a shred of decency and
> > morals would look up to a man who fucks with another man's marriage. The
> > crime in itself is brutal, but to do as described above at a wedding has got
> > to be one of the most repulsive acts I have ever heard of.
>
> In Europe, the "right of the first night" entitled a nobleman to sleep with a
> bride on the night of her marriage.
This was more in the form of a tax!! I don't think this was *ever* exercised!!
> (See the movie "Braveheart.")
Oh, G-d! For historical accuracy, stay as far away from that trash as possible!!!
Susan
Susan Cohen
Larry R wrote:
> Braveheart, the story of William Wallace a Scot who fought Longchamps King
> of England to free Scotland, and was betrayed by the Burn's Clan was a true
> story.
But the *movie* was full of garbage!!
Susan
Susan Cohen
Larry R wrote:
> You wouldn't recognize history if it was written on your diner napkin. With
> the exception of a couple of battle scenes the movie was historically
> correct.
Uh, no it was NOT!! You must be joking!!
Edward I *never* threw a man out a window -
William Wallace never even *met* Isabel the Fair, much less slept
with her!!
Wearing *woad* had gone out with the Roman occupation!!
And the "fought like warrior poets" crap at the end was just that -
at Bannockburn, the Scots violated every known rule of war by
"preparing the field" (digging up holes and putting spiked balls to
hurt the horses all over it) - and that's how they won.
And that's just the beginning
>
> You can't wipe your ass with what you know about the history of Scotland,
> the paper its on is too small.
Even Mel Gibson admits the movie lies, but he's a lot more
subtle in the actual words he uses....
Susan
ddb
since they did not fight the battles in a conventional manner.
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3CBD117E...@his.com...
peace
al953 <al...@xyz.com> wrote in message news:<3CBCA99E...@xyz.com>...
abdul hai
Israeli's think ti acceptable
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/geneticdiseases/
"amigocabal" <par...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<H1Nu8.88706$VM5.49...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com>...
William A. Levinson
Susan Cohen wrote:
Maybe Uday got the idea from the movie. :-)
William A. Levinson
ddb wrote:
> That's right Susan one might even refer to the Scots as terrorist savages
> since they did not fight the battles in a conventional manner.
They fought English soldiers and knights, they did not slaughter English
civilians.
-Bill
NEW (4/16/02) http://www.omdurman.org/ Exposing militant "Islam" and Palestine
(Militant "Islam" is about as Islamic as the Inquisition was Christian)
NEW LEAFLET (4/12/02) http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/rabiddog.html
Terrorism as a rabid dog
http://www.omdurman.org//warcrime.html
Violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in the Middle East
Militant "Islam" versus Christianity (and Civilization):
http://www.omdurman.org/crucify.html
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/genassem.html
William A. Levinson
Susan Cohen wrote:
> Larry R wrote:
>
> > You wouldn't recognize history if it was written on your diner napkin. With
> > the exception of a couple of battle scenes the movie was historically
> > correct.
>
> Uh, no it was NOT!! You must be joking!!
> Edward I *never* threw a man out a window -
I think "The Black Rose," with Robert Taylor and Orson Welles, portrays
Longshanks as a benevolent king who is trying to unify Normans and Saxons. Or
maybe it was another Edward (II or III?)
>
> William Wallace never even *met* Isabel the Fair, much less slept
> with her!!
> Wearing *woad* had gone out with the Roman occupation!!
> And the "fought like warrior poets" crap at the end was just that -
> at Bannockburn, the Scots violated every known rule of war by
> "preparing the field" (digging up holes and putting spiked balls to
> hurt the horses all over it) - and that's how they won.
> And that's just the beginning
There weren't that many rules. It was, I think, illegal to strike the opponent's
horse in a tournament, but a tournament was a sport like a football game. The
combatants weren't really trying to kill each other.
The spiked balls to which you refer are known as caltrops, and they had been
around for a LONG time. War had very few "rules" back then. For example, taking
prisoners was optional. If an enemy surrendered, he had to take his chances that
you thought he was worth ransoming. There was no real rule that said you couldn't
simply cut his throat. (Witness the exchange between Ancient Pistol and his
French prisoner in King Henry V.)
I think pikemen often aimed at the enemy horses (it was then easier to finish the
unhorsed knight).
-Bill
NEW (4/16/02) http://www.omdurman.org/ Exposing militant "Islam" and Palestine
(Militant "Islam" is about as Islamic as the Inquisition was Christian)
NEW LEAFLET (4/12/02) http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/rabiddog.html
Terrorism as a rabid dog
http://www.omdurman.org//warcrime.html
Violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in the Middle East
Militant "Islam" versus Christianity (and Civilization):
http://www.omdurman.org/crucify.html
http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/genassem.html
Susan Cohen
"William A. Levinson" wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> > Larry R wrote:
> >
> > > You wouldn't recognize history if it was written on your diner napkin. With
> > > the exception of a couple of battle scenes the movie was historically
> > > correct.
> >
> > Uh, no it was NOT!! You must be joking!!
> > Edward I *never* threw a man out a window -
>
> I think "The Black Rose," with Robert Taylor and Orson Welles, portrays
> Longshanks as a benevolent king who is trying to unify Normans and Saxons. Or
> maybe it was another Edward (II or III?)
I've seen that movie,and it couldn't have been Edward I, as the
"Norman/Saxon" issue was long gone by then.(Okay, it
*shouldn't* have been Edw I, but with Hollyweird, who knows?)
They might even have meant the Conqueror himself, which makes
his portrayer all the funnier (I believe it was Michael Rennie,
who was extraordinarily tall, while Wllm the C was very *short*.
Either way the actor was too tall to have played him realistically..
> > William Wallace never even *met* Isabel the Fair, much less slept
> > with her!!
> > Wearing *woad* had gone out with the Roman occupation!!
> > And the "fought like warrior poets" crap at the end was just that -
> > at Bannockburn, the Scots violated every known rule of war by
> > "preparing the field" (digging up holes and putting spiked balls to
> > hurt the horses all over it) - and that's how they won.
> > And that's just the beginning
>
> There weren't that many rules. It was, I think, illegal to strike the opponent's
> horse in a tournament, but a tournament was a sport like a football game. The
> combatants weren't really trying to kill each other.
And yet a lot of people did die in them. Morons!
(Heck, a king of France died in one of them. One of the Henris -
a Valois, with a daughter named Elisabeth (I know that because
she went on to marry Philip II of Spain, and the marriage was
delayed because of her father's death).)
> The spiked balls to which you refer are known as caltrops, and they had been
> around for a LONG time. War had very few "rules" back then.
Sure, but what rules there were were adhered to!
I was pretty sure that no civilized nation used the balls in the field,
but hey, I've been wrong before - this wouldn't be the first time!
Either way, it's certainly not the behavior of "warrior poets" (puke!!)
> For example, taking
> prisoners was optional. If an enemy surrendered, he had to take his chances that
> you thought he was worth ransoming. There was no real rule that said you couldn't
> simply cut his throat. (Witness the exchange between Ancient Pistol and his
> French prisoner in King Henry V.)
>
> I think pikemen often aimed at the enemy horses (it was then easier to finish the
> unhorsed knight).
That's what the claymore was really for - it was too big a sword to
actually swing.
You just braced yourself and aimed at the horse breast.
Susan
ddb
about Israel and the attack the messenger. The messenger then has to prove
that they have credible answers which takes the topic away from the issue.
"peace" <last...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b9182795.02041...@posting.google.com...
amtg...@yahoo.com
> In talk.politics.mideast, Susan Cohen wrote (article ID
> <3CBD0FF9...@his.com>):
>
> Exactly, which is why we must kill them all. This planet is now
> officially overcrowded and there "isn't room for the two of us".
>
> Maybe we'll luck out and they'll all kill themselves anyway and save us
> the trouble.. Seems things are going that way..
>
WOW - and this makes you a better person by making such statements - it
amazes me how many Jews can say such things and do such horrible acts that
reflect what has been done to your people -- what makes you a superior
being -- this type of statement makes you even less than the shit that comes
out of Bin Laden's cruddy ass!
Susan Cohen
Reuben King wrote:
> In talk.politics.mideast, Susan Cohen wrote (article ID
> <3CBD0FF9...@his.com>):
> >
> >
> Exactly, which is why we must kill them all.
Er, I assume you mean terrorists, and not all Muslims.....
Susan
cobblers
historian and stick to sex mags.
cobblers
calling you a moron as well.
William A. Levinson
Susan Cohen wrote:
> "William A. Levinson" wrote:
>
> > Susan Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > Larry R wrote:
> > >
> > > > You wouldn't recognize history if it was written on your diner napkin. With
> > > > the exception of a couple of battle scenes the movie was historically
> > > > correct.
> > >
> > > Uh, no it was NOT!! You must be joking!!
> > > Edward I *never* threw a man out a window -
> >
> > I think "The Black Rose," with Robert Taylor and Orson Welles, portrays
> > Longshanks as a benevolent king who is trying to unify Normans and Saxons. Or
> > maybe it was another Edward (II or III?)
>
> I've seen that movie,and it couldn't have been Edward I, as the
> "Norman/Saxon" issue was long gone by then.(Okay, it
> *shouldn't* have been Edw I, but with Hollyweird, who knows?)
> They might even have meant the Conqueror himself, which makes
> his portrayer all the funnier (I believe it was Michael Rennie,
> who was extraordinarily tall, while Wllm the C was very *short*.
> Either way the actor was too tall to have played him realistically..
Well, it was definitely post-William the Conqueror.
> > > William Wallace never even *met* Isabel the Fair, much less slept
> > > with her!!
> > > Wearing *woad* had gone out with the Roman occupation!!
> > > And the "fought like warrior poets" crap at the end was just that -
> > > at Bannockburn, the Scots violated every known rule of war by
> > > "preparing the field" (digging up holes and putting spiked balls to
> > > hurt the horses all over it) - and that's how they won.
> > > And that's just the beginning
> >
> > There weren't that many rules. It was, I think, illegal to strike the opponent's
> > horse in a tournament, but a tournament was a sport like a football game. The
> > combatants weren't really trying to kill each other.
>
> And yet a lot of people did die in them. Morons!
It's possible to get killed in a football game (American football, not soccer), an
equestrian event, and definitely in a motor car race.
> (Heck, a king of France died in one of them. One of the Henris -
I think his opponent's lance broke and a splinter went through his helmet's visor.
> a Valois, with a daughter named Elisabeth (I know that because
> she went on to marry Philip II of Spain, and the marriage was
> delayed because of her father's death).)
>
> > The spiked balls to which you refer are known as caltrops, and they had been
> > around for a LONG time. War had very few "rules" back then.
>
> Sure, but what rules there were were adhered to!
> I was pretty sure that no civilized nation used the balls in the field,
> but hey, I've been wrong before - this wouldn't be the first time!
They tried to outlaw the crossbow, at least for use against fellow Christians, as
inhumane. (Also, the gentry resented the idea of being killed at a distance by a common
foot soldier.) The weapon proved far too useful for the ban to stick. The French
detested longbowmen so much that they cut off the fingers of any they captured. So much
for chivalrous conduct.
Somone developed a multi-barrel gun with exchangeable barrels. One set was to fire
round bullets at Christians, the other was for firing square bullets at Turks!
Susan Cohen
"amyg...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> > In talk.politics.mideast, Susan Cohen wrote (article ID
> > <3CBD0FF9...@his.com>):
>
> >
> > Exactly, which is why we must kill them all. This planet is now
> > officially overcrowded and there "isn't room for the two of us".
> >
> > Maybe we'll luck out and they'll all kill themselves anyway and save us
> > the trouble.. Seems things are going that way..
> >
>
> WOW - and this makes you a better person by making such statements -
Hey, moron want to get the attributions correct?
I didn't say any of this.
> it
> amazes me how many Jews can say such things and do such horrible acts that
> reflect what has been done to your people -- what makes you a superior
> being -- this type of statement makes you even less than the shit that comes
> out of Bin Laden's cruddy ass!
And what does it make you for trying to pin this statement on me?
Susan Cohen
"William A. Levinson" wrote:
> Susan Cohen wrote:
>
> > "William A. Levinson" wrote:
> >
> > > There weren't that many rules. It was, I think, illegal to strike the opponent's
> > > horse in a tournament, but a tournament was a sport like a football game. The
> > > combatants weren't really trying to kill each other.
> >
> > And yet a lot of people did die in them. Morons!
>
> It's possible to get killed in a football game (American football, not soccer), an
> equestrian event,
Especially if you are a horse
> and definitely in a motor car race.
While this is all true, these events are not *designed* to *mimic* *killing*.
> > (Heck, a king of France died in one of them. One of the Henris -
>
> I think his opponent's lance broke and a splinter went through his helmet's visor.
Yes, that's precisely what happened.
> > > The spiked balls to which you refer are known as caltrops, and they had been
> > > around for a LONG time. War had very few "rules" back then.
> >
> > Sure, but what rules there were were adhered to!
> > I was pretty sure that no civilized nation used the balls in the field,
> > but hey, I've been wrong before - this wouldn't be the first time!
>
> They tried to outlaw the crossbow, at least for use against fellow Christians, as
> inhumane. (Also, the gentry resented the idea of being killed at a distance by a common
> foot soldier.)
Heehee. You got that right. They didn't like the idea that peasants
would notice how easily they could kill them....
> The weapon proved far too useful for the ban to stick. The French
> detested longbowmen so much that they cut off the fingers of any they captured. So much
> for chivalrous conduct.
No comment about the French :-)
> Somone developed a multi-barrel gun with exchangeable barrels. One set was to fire
> round bullets at Christians, the other was for firing square bullets at Turks!
Incredible! Where did you hear about this?
No, I am not doubting you -sounds just like something someone would do....
Susan
cobblers
at last found common subjects -- films and medieval practises -- on which
you can communicate. Congratulations and I look forward to your abandoning
subjects about which you appear to know little.
Anyone explained South African colored and blacks to you yet?
Land registration certificates?
Land transfers in Jerusalem?
Stick with Bill and his square-bullet machine guns.
William A. Levinson
Susan Cohen wrote:
> "
>
> > Somone developed a multi-barrel gun with exchangeable barrels. One set was to fire
> > round bullets at Christians, the other was for firing square bullets at Turks!
>
> Incredible! Where did you hear about this?
> No, I am not doubting you -sounds just like something someone would do....
>
> Susan
Here's one reference:
http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/news/PuckleGun.htm
-Bill
Susan Cohen
"William A. Levinson" wrote:
Thanks muchly!!
Susan
>
>
> -Bill
William A. Levinson
Watcher wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:37:52 -0400, "William A. Levinson"
> <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> thought hard and then typed :
>
> >
> >
> >ddb wrote:
> >
> >> That's right Susan one might even refer to the Scots as terrorist savages
> >> since they did not fight the battles in a conventional manner.
> >
> >They fought English soldiers and knights, they did not slaughter English
> >civilians.
> >
> I do believe they sacked York
Soldiers tended to loot and sack in those days. Did you ever read King Henry V's
threat to the governor of Harfleur?--- and Henry had made it a capital offense for
his soldiers to loot and sack. The problem was, they were out of view of their
officers once they broke into a city.
-Bill
NEW (4/16/02) http://www.omdurman.org/ Exposing militant "Islam" and Palestine
"Militant Islam"- an oxymoron like "Kosher ham"
NEW (4/18/02) Genuine Islam versus militant "Islam"
http://www.omdurman.org/militant.html
amtg...@yahoo.com
messages that try to get the reaction -- so I fell for it -- didn't mean to
keep your tag on this -
"Susan Cohen" <fla...@his.com> wrote in message
news:3CBE22CE...@his.com...
Susan Cohen
"amyg...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> Sorry Susan - I usually just try to decipher and blowoff these types of
> messages that try to get the reaction -- so I fell for it -- didn't mean to
> keep your tag on this -
And I should have realized it was a simple mistake in attribution.
Susan
William A. Levinson
Watcher wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 00:00:27 -0400, "William A. Levinson"
> <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> thought hard and then typed :
>
> >
> >
> >Watcher wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:37:52 -0400, "William A. Levinson"
> >> <wlev...@ix.NOSPAM4MEnetcom.com> thought hard and then typed :
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >ddb wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That's right Susan one might even refer to the Scots as terrorist savages
> >> >> since they did not fight the battles in a conventional manner.
> >> >
> >> >They fought English soldiers and knights, they did not slaughter English
> >> >civilians.
> >> >
> >> I do believe they sacked York
> >
> >Soldiers tended to loot and sack in those days. Did you ever read King Henry V's
> >threat to the governor of Harfleur?--- and Henry had made it a capital offense for
> >his soldiers to loot and sack. The problem was, they were out of view of their
> >officers once they broke into a city.
> >
> cheers, but you said civvies were not slaughtered and in the case of
> York I would imagine a fair few were knocked off.
Contrary to their officers' orders, if Henry V's conduct was an example.
Henry warned Harfleur that, if he had to storm the city, he would not be able to
control his soldiers.
He also acquiesced to the hanging of Bardolph, one of his old drinking companions from
the Boar's Head Tavern, for robbing a French church.
Aleksandr Suvorov empowered his officers to shoot men on sight for looting.
MCCS
Wasn't this the origin of the "V" sign as in "Up you frenchie I've
still got my fingers"?
<snip>
Mark
ddb
> cheers, but you said civvies were not slaughtered and in the case of
> York I would imagine a fair few were knocked off.
>
> >-Bill
> >NEW (4/16/02) http://www.omdurman.org/ Exposing militant "Islam" and
Palestine
> >"Militant Islam"- an oxymoron like "Kosher ham"
> >NEW (4/18/02) Genuine Islam versus militant "Islam"
> >http://www.omdurman.org/militant.html
> >NEW LEAFLET (4/12/02) http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/rabiddog.html
> >Terrorism as a rabid dog
> >
> >http://www.omdurman.org//warcrime.html
> >Violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions in the Middle East
> >
> >Militant "Islam" versus Christianity (and Civilization):
> >http://www.omdurman.org/crucify.html
> >http://www.omdurman.org/leaflets/genassem.html
>
> regards
> watcher
>
> mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind
> JFK
uday...@gmail.com
Go blow yourself and suck my dick you weazened cocksucker coward liar faggot.î know uday was hardly fuck your faggot anus and your coward pussyhole violently when you was young bitch in your suburb brothel.therefore your coward liar cuntmouth still cry, beg and scream to hero udays dick.İf your liar cuntmouth still say lie about brave hero uday î will fuck your gods faggot anus î will fuck your faggot prophets deadcunt î will fuck your bloody weazened virgin marys pussyhole î will put your dickeater bible and crucifix to your coward faggot sewerhole and pussyhole in your dicklicker brothel church.now continue suck and lick to hero udays dick like your faggot family you dirt cheap liar coward brothel bitch.fuck your all familys faggot anus fuck your dickeater large pussyhole. Î will fuck your religions sewerhole.