S
silvo
Guest
Pretty good history lesson this thread.
Paris terrorist attacks
- Thread starter DoC!
- Start date
D
dja981
Guest
silvo said:
Well I hope you're taking notes as there will be a test later.
DAVE
Simonr501
Hero member
- Location
- Lympne, Kent. UK
dja981 said:Well I hope you're taking notes as there will be a test later.
Oh goody!
Henry! It was the Angles, the Saxons and the Jutes (all Germanic tribes) that settled in South East England, displacing the Britons (some ended up over the channel in Brittany - perhaps named after the Britons that fled there). The Celts moved west I believe.
Laverda SF
Hero member
To begin with this is not a Topic I generally care to engage in and note what I write should be taken with a grain of salt.
After the Saxon invasion of Briton when Southern Briton was occupied by the Romans (Latin Anglo-Saxon Language) my ancestors did relocate west to Ireland and after the Infamous Potato Famine lot of Celtics migrated further West over sea's to the America's - Canada, New Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Labrador (The Irish River) and America (New York City's Hell's Kitchen).
By the way France (Francis-Saxons) still own a few Islands in the mouth of the St Lawrence River.
From the time of the Stone Age, the Celtic Tribe were the originally indigenous of the British Isles whom were probably a mix race of Saxons and Norseman.
White Skin People to day only make up for 10% of the Human Race but our Gene's are a dominate when it come's to interbreeding Races - Meaning if a White person exists in your Linage your children will most likely be White.
As far as the choice of and individual's Religious Doctrine goes, I don't give a Damn and should be a Personal belief questioning why we exist or expect everlasting life after death but should never be a Jihad reason to kill fellow kind over Religion - That's Terrorism.
My Question is - Who's Funding It?
I'm not Christian, Muslim, Islamic, Judaism or Budeism (Have I missed one) or have Faith in any Specific Region outside of believing in Humanity. I'm Celtic and want to believe but see nothing but Semitism, Destruction and War for our Children.
henry
Hero member
- Location
- bottom left hand corner of germany
the number of jutes was insignificant hence them being left out of the nationality naming process - just as well. anglo-saxon is already a mouthful without having to tag jute on the end of it!!SimonR501 said:
they settled in the area that is sort of portsmouth to southampton and the bottom end of modern hampshire so ultimately they became citizens of wessex (west saxons) with the capital at winchester
it is unlikely that the celts moved west or were displaced, at least not most of them, (anyway, the roads were fairly lousy after 140 years of little or no maintenance, a bit like they are now!) for the most part it seems they assimilated
henry
Hero member
- Location
- bottom left hand corner of germany
laverdakeith said:
come on, keith, you can do better than that - i fell out of my pram laughing at that one!!
Laverda SF
Hero member
You think so - Do not resist as you will be assimilated into the Laverda Forum - LOL
DoC!
Hero member
I also thought the 'Dark Ages' were called that because not much was written about it.
It followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire when the Barbarians took over for a while.
It was called the 'Dark Ages' by historians not because of any nasty goings on (although I am sure there were), but because not much is known about the time. There was a distinct lack of written history.
Cheers
DoC!
It followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire when the Barbarians took over for a while.
It was called the 'Dark Ages' by historians not because of any nasty goings on (although I am sure there were), but because not much is known about the time. There was a distinct lack of written history.
Cheers
DoC!
D
Davo
Guest
I thought the Jutes just sat around the fire knitting sacks. Or was that the Hessians?
Laverda SF
Hero member
Celtic's are not Jutes but do tend to paint in Blue when we Fight.
I suppose Celts are precised as Barbarians with no Religious beliefs; but you're so wrong as we are still here.
I'm defenently not going to be one of the 100,000 choosen few but I'll be a figher for the rest if us no matter what GOD promises in as so far as Salvation.
As long as you're willing to sacrifice your life for your Brothers and Sisters, Religion is just a Slavery Hooky Poky Tool for Political Power and Finances at no regard for our lives and played by a very select wealthy few.
I'm endangering myself as being an extremists just for saying that on line.
Again I say - Who's financing this Terrorism Crap?
Why is the world oil prices dropping in order to cut out the competition and who has the least Expensive and Biggest Oil Reserve?
Terrorism is nothing but a sideline on what's about to unfold over World's Finances and the almighty Monetary System that Enslaves us.
Simonr501
Hero member
- Location
- Lympne, Kent. UK
henry said:
Here it is! Even today there are East Kent (Jutes) and West Kent (Saxons) authorities, they ran their territorities as separate entities which still continues. Hence Man of Kent and Kentish Man:
G
Grant
Guest
I used to live in Kent and they said that if you lived one side of the Medway you were a man of Kent and if you lived the other side you were a Kentish man. Can't remember which way round though.
Simonr501
Hero member
- Location
- Lympne, Kent. UK
Grant said:
I am a Man of Kent - East.
D
Davo
Guest
SimonR501 said:
Is it horribly bent?
Simonr501
Hero member
- Location
- Lympne, Kent. UK
Davo said:
Ha ha, No!
I think what is evident from this point is that multiculturism has been going on for thousands of years, tribes eventually learnt to get on with each other and assimilate, they inter-married and bred new citizens that had a mix of ethnic groups, eventually forging a national identity but with regional differences.
So in short we are all mongrels I'm afraid.
The same will eventually happen with the most recent immigrants. The children of the most recent arrivals don't always have the same values as their parents, which causes all sorts of problems. Especially with arranged marriages, status of men verses women etc. The parents of course fight back and try to keep them away from 'western influences', but they are fighting a losing battle.
The struggle to forge a hard line Islamic following in Europe is a good example. There are Shariah courts here that go against the laws of the land, these people do not accept that things have changed in their new home.
Laverda SF said:
We are...
Why were the afghan poppy fields not burnt to the ground to stem drug traficking? Instead, they became a welcome source of income for the terrorists. Ruthless dealers and fuckwit addicts worldwide made large-volume weapon supplies possible once the poppy fields were under control of the Taliban. Neither Russia nor the western world offered real alternatives to the poppy fields, figuring these would at least keep a few tribes alive until a "proper" economy could be installed.
IS has generated billions from their seized oil fields, the oil went onto the world market and in part helped satisfy oil-greedy westerners.
Deep down, I have a hunch the present oil price drop is just an agreement between the oil-producing countries to deprive IS of much of their income. Just as there is an international alliegance combating IS in the field, there could just as well be an alliegance of oil-producers. Many oil-producing countries are threatened by "religious" terrorists, be it IS, Boko Haram or whatever the fuckers call themselves, so there is a mutual fear. Of course each is giving the others the blame for the plummeting prices, but that may only be part of the game, so we don't suspect the real reasoning behind these actions (never heard of the capitalist world ever voluntarily sacrificing a single dollar without a very ligitimate reason).
At least running costs of our bikes will be considerably reduced this year... :
piet
DoC!
Hero member
Although some part of the financing comes from drug trafficking, the vast majority of money comes from oil rich (sometimes semi) hard line Muslim countries like Saudi, Yemen, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar etc.
The many families in charge of these countries are so mega rich that it is very hard to track down and trace where they send their money.
The current oil glut is simply OPEC's attempt to put the American shale oil fracking industry out of business. The American costs are so much higher that if the oil price drops any further it won't be economical for the Yanks to get the oil or gas out of the ground.
Game set and match then.....
Mind you, the world could do with a lower oil price as the cost of everything we do, use or enjoy is based on the price of oil.
Cheers
DoC!
The many families in charge of these countries are so mega rich that it is very hard to track down and trace where they send their money.
The current oil glut is simply OPEC's attempt to put the American shale oil fracking industry out of business. The American costs are so much higher that if the oil price drops any further it won't be economical for the Yanks to get the oil or gas out of the ground.
Game set and match then.....
Mind you, the world could do with a lower oil price as the cost of everything we do, use or enjoy is based on the price of oil.
Cheers
DoC!
madrid
Hero member
- Location
- Madrid, Spain
Back to Charlie... 8)
An interesting article here, from an Al Jazeera journalist, considering what Muhammad himself might have opined, "Would Prophet Muhammad say 'Je Suis Charlie'?":
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/would-prophet-muhammad-say-je-su-20151146331116908.html
Some interesting observations include:
"Significantly, the constitution Muhammad drew up in Medina included in its definition of the "umma" all the oasis' inhabitants, not just its Muslims. These included both the "people of the book", ie: Christians and Jews, but also, perhaps surprisingly, pagans - all of whom were granted equal political, cultural and religious rights as Muslims.
There was so much freedom of thought and expression in the early centuries of Islam that it would put much of the current Muslim world to shame. Although many contemporary Muslims are convinced that ridiculing Islam and rejecting religion are western innovations, this is closer to wishful thinking than historical fact."
An interesting article here, from an Al Jazeera journalist, considering what Muhammad himself might have opined, "Would Prophet Muhammad say 'Je Suis Charlie'?":
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/01/would-prophet-muhammad-say-je-su-20151146331116908.html
Some interesting observations include:
"Significantly, the constitution Muhammad drew up in Medina included in its definition of the "umma" all the oasis' inhabitants, not just its Muslims. These included both the "people of the book", ie: Christians and Jews, but also, perhaps surprisingly, pagans - all of whom were granted equal political, cultural and religious rights as Muslims.
There was so much freedom of thought and expression in the early centuries of Islam that it would put much of the current Muslim world to shame. Although many contemporary Muslims are convinced that ridiculing Islam and rejecting religion are western innovations, this is closer to wishful thinking than historical fact."
laves
Full member
My 2 cents worth:
In response to the Paris massacres, Western leaders (including Lothar) and also Muslim community leaders called to avoid ?any confusion?: il faut ?viter l'amalgame. It is probably quite true that the overwhelming majority of Muslims vomit the Charlie murderers. It is also quite true that a radical, but numerous, minority (hopefully without being ready to take up arms themselves) says that the blasphemers did not stole their fate. Meaning that Charb, Cabu, Wolinski and Tignous somehow deserved their end.
It is frightening that Western leaders and 'mediacrates' call to reject the ?amalgame?. I must assume they do so to avoid throwing oil on the fire but is this the right response? Pro-jihadists and Muslims who say that blasphemers merit death must be signified strongly that they have nothing to expect from the West than implacable ostracism. How many imams call to pray for the killed, and 'excommunicate' the jihadists? Hopefully they are innumerable. It is Islam to reject any equation with blood thirsty maniacs and not for the West to speak for, explain and excuse Islam. Amalgam and confusion about the Muslim positioning wrt terrorism is there since long and to avoid further confusion and escalation Muslims - in all their plurality and variety - must position themselves much clearer and with far less ambiguity.
A corollary question is when will the eastern world be able to produce itself their Charlies and Brians? When will eastern societies be capable of creating and ingesting peacefully humoristic statements on Muhammad a la ?Life of Brian?? For when an Egyptian / Turkish / Irakian production of ?Momo?s life? viewable from the Euphrates to the Nile? Why the Ibn al-Rawandis and Abu al-Ala' al-Maarris (thanks Liz) of today do not stand-up and make their point in eastern societies as was done in the 'dark ages'? Maybe because they know that today's Muslim society at large condemns them and will not prevent them from being murdered?
Why should I accept that Muhammad's critics are not only threatened with death but that big Muslim minorities do not condemn or even consider their murder as ineluctable and deserved? Why should we feel it as a problem to discuss about Islam as a fertile ground for terrorism? It is not because other religions - amongst which not the least Christian religion - have joyfully murdered in the past - and might lapse again - that we should avoid debating the issues Islam has with terrorism, no?
F... religions - including Islam!
In Dog I trust
PS Not to say that ?Life of Brian? was broadly 'approved' by Western society? Ireland and Norway banned the movie though as a satire on religion it is considered a rather slight production and certainly does not carry the more extreme and vulgar slant that Charlie conveys.
In response to the Paris massacres, Western leaders (including Lothar) and also Muslim community leaders called to avoid ?any confusion?: il faut ?viter l'amalgame. It is probably quite true that the overwhelming majority of Muslims vomit the Charlie murderers. It is also quite true that a radical, but numerous, minority (hopefully without being ready to take up arms themselves) says that the blasphemers did not stole their fate. Meaning that Charb, Cabu, Wolinski and Tignous somehow deserved their end.
It is frightening that Western leaders and 'mediacrates' call to reject the ?amalgame?. I must assume they do so to avoid throwing oil on the fire but is this the right response? Pro-jihadists and Muslims who say that blasphemers merit death must be signified strongly that they have nothing to expect from the West than implacable ostracism. How many imams call to pray for the killed, and 'excommunicate' the jihadists? Hopefully they are innumerable. It is Islam to reject any equation with blood thirsty maniacs and not for the West to speak for, explain and excuse Islam. Amalgam and confusion about the Muslim positioning wrt terrorism is there since long and to avoid further confusion and escalation Muslims - in all their plurality and variety - must position themselves much clearer and with far less ambiguity.
A corollary question is when will the eastern world be able to produce itself their Charlies and Brians? When will eastern societies be capable of creating and ingesting peacefully humoristic statements on Muhammad a la ?Life of Brian?? For when an Egyptian / Turkish / Irakian production of ?Momo?s life? viewable from the Euphrates to the Nile? Why the Ibn al-Rawandis and Abu al-Ala' al-Maarris (thanks Liz) of today do not stand-up and make their point in eastern societies as was done in the 'dark ages'? Maybe because they know that today's Muslim society at large condemns them and will not prevent them from being murdered?
Why should I accept that Muhammad's critics are not only threatened with death but that big Muslim minorities do not condemn or even consider their murder as ineluctable and deserved? Why should we feel it as a problem to discuss about Islam as a fertile ground for terrorism? It is not because other religions - amongst which not the least Christian religion - have joyfully murdered in the past - and might lapse again - that we should avoid debating the issues Islam has with terrorism, no?
F... religions - including Islam!
In Dog I trust
PS Not to say that ?Life of Brian? was broadly 'approved' by Western society? Ireland and Norway banned the movie though as a satire on religion it is considered a rather slight production and certainly does not carry the more extreme and vulgar slant that Charlie conveys.
All these geopolitical conversations are very interesting, instructive
But I still have trouble understanding the reasons for the action of Muslim extremists around the world, and this, for years, with an acceleration of these actions in particular since 9/11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents)
Attacks, hostage taking, and their beheading, return to a mediaeval Islam ...
But I still have trouble understanding the reasons for the action of Muslim extremists around the world, and this, for years, with an acceleration of these actions in particular since 9/11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents)
Attacks, hostage taking, and their beheading, return to a mediaeval Islam ...