Posted on 11/16/2001 1:19:30 PM PST by Diogenesis
Arabs are members of the original ethnic group for which Arabic (a Semitic language related to Hebrew, Aramaic and Syriac) was the dominant language. They originated in the Arabian peninsula and adjacent lands in what is now Jordan and Syria. With the rise of Islam they conquered and spread throughout North Africa and what is now Israel, Lebanon and Syria, Arabizing and largely Islamizing those lands. There are still identifiable ethnic minorities in some of those lands (Copts--who are also Christians rather than Muslims, Berbers,...)
The Persians, Afghans, Turks, Pakistanis, Bengaladeshis, Turkomens, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Azeris, Chechens, Abkhazians, Kazhaks and Indonesians mostly Muslims, but none are Arabs.
Among the Arabs from Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, though increasingly among Arabs who have emigrated to America, Canada or Australia, there has always been a sizable minority of Christians (mostly Eastern Orthodox, though in Lebanon with a fair number of Roman Catholics of various rites). (I am Eastern Orthodox, and though I am not an Arab, my bishop is. Or rather an Arab-American: his family came from a valley in Syria whose Arabic name translates as "The Valley of the Christians" because they have held out against the Jihad since it's beginning.)
Someone posted a link about turbans, so I will not say much, save to note that if you see a man with a large turban here in the U.S., he is almost certainly not a Muslim, and should be greated courteously as a friend: he almost certainly a Sihk. Sihkism is a monotheistic religion which arose in India and Pakistan in reaction against both Islamic absolutism and Hindu paganism. It was mercilessly persecuted by the Muslims. Its male adherent are required to wear beards and turbans, and to carry knives (usually small ceremonial ones here in the West, but in the lands of the faith's birth, ones suitable for self-defense). I believe that Sikhs are sort of practically-modified pacifists--they may only fight in self-defense, but perhaps someone more knowledgable could clarify that point.
More of this type information should be released by the Government, it harms no one and it helps people appreciate the bravery of those who serve us. God Bless and Protect them. We have never been served by better.
There is no longer any such critter as a "heavy weapons NCO" on a team. Only "weapons NCO's". The caliber (no pun intended) of the weapons training had fallen off to the point where it was worse then useless until about 2 years ago,when some changes were made. The students were not only not being taught very much,but some of what they were being taught was wrong. Don't get me started on this. I can rant and rave for hours,and won't be able to sleep for a couple of days.
As I have said before, dictators fear us because we represent freedom, and freedom is contagious, and therefore threatens their power.
Howdy AuntB...OpieMUD
Nam Vet
Hey, I wanna believe you but the covered wagon and the swords (or sabers) kinda make me doubt. :)
Nice pic. Hope he kill lots'o'Taliban with that PK.
Early comment on personal weapons I read that stuck with me - Russians found out early on that Afghans with old bolt-action Enfields and Moisins could be a real problem, as they outranged Russians holding AK's. You didn't want to be 300-400+ yards from a guy with a bolt-action while you were holding an AK, unless you also had a way to bring crew-served weapons or at least a sniper (SVD) to bear on the opposition. Of course, the number of Afghans who could actually hit at those ranges is probably very small, but would *you* want to be the one testing their skills?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.