Riverboat33

Mosques get attack.

Rate this topic

394 posts in this topic

55 mins ago, Shipwreck said:

This is ****ed up beyond belief.  

Understatement!

20 mins ago, Markushook said:

Well it has been declared an act of terrorism, so...

They have that going for them. In the UK, it would never be admitted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 mins ago, Fishy Fisher said:

Oh please... Their very existence is an act of war. Dar al-harb. Would you say the same of any American soldier in Afghanistan? 

Worshipers in their place of worship.   Innocent victims.

 

"Their very existence is an act of war"     ??? 

 

That is beyond the pale effed up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

11 mins ago, fishweewee said:

A02GCbx.jpg

Didn't "they" lose the first time around?

 

As a gun owner, this act will hurt is even more.   

Edited by Heron25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 mins ago, KnewBee said:

Worshipers in their place of worship.   Innocent victims.

 

"Their very existence is an act of war"     ??? 

 

That is beyond the pale effed up. 

Interesting phraseology. 

 

Pale is an old name for a pointed piece of wood driven into the ground and — by an obvious extension — to a barrier made of such stakes, a palisade or fence. Pole is from the same source, as are impale, paling and palisade. This meaning has been around in English since the fourteenth century and by the end of that century pale had taken on various figurative senses — a defence, a safeguard, a barrier, an enclosure, or a limit beyond which it was not permissible to go. The idea of an enclosed area still exists in some English dialects.

 

If there were a pale through which the enemy could not enter, we wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place. The very idea would never have arisen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, Fishy Fisher said:

Interesting phraseology. 

 

Pale is an old name for a pointed piece of wood driven into the ground and — by an obvious extension — to a barrier made of such stakes, a palisade or fence. Pole is from the same source, as are impale, paling and palisade. This meaning has been around in English since the fourteenth century and by the end of that century pale had taken on various figurative senses — a defence, a safeguard, a barrier, an enclosure, or a limit beyond which it was not permissible to go. The idea of an enclosed area still exists in some English dialects.

 

If there were a pale through which the enemy could not enter, we wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place. The very idea would never have arisen. 

Phrase:

 

 

"beyond the pale

phrase of pale

outside the bounds of acceptable behavior.

"the language my father used was beyond the pale"

synonyms: unacceptable, unseemly, improper, indiscreet, unsuitable, irregular, unreasonable, intolerable, disgraceful, deplorable, outrageous, scandalous, shocking, insupportable, objectionable, offensive, distasteful;"

 

When the shoe fits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 min ago, Harf said:

Where was the Outrage when Christians were rounded up in the Middle East over the Last few years and Murdered, 

If you missed it, you were not paying attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 mins ago, Heron25 said:

Didn't "they" lose the first time around?

You have to define both "lose" and "the first time". If you mean the original Muslim invasions, Spain certainly lost, butthe muslims were permanently turned back in France by Charles Martel, effectively stopping the takeover of Europe. If you're referring to the ottomans, they more or less owned eastern and central Europe for hundreds of years, making slow, steady progress westward until their decisive defeat in Vienna with the help of polish king Sobieski. After that they fell in power while Europe gained strength, eventually tossing the goat lovers from Europe everywhere except a few enclaves in Bosnia and surrounding areas. 

 

I wouldn't say "they" (christendom)  lost at any time in any decisive manner. Lost parts, yes, but never the whole. 

 

The crusades were different insofar add they were never a purely defensive stance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.