|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 30, 2016 9:27:02 GMT
"Shocking that this sick lady represents the US government." Truer words were never spoken. It is pathetic. Just watching her on TV News, I shake my head and wonder, how could Obama appoint this woman as Attorney General. I think the criteria must have been to get someone who is black and female. She is both of those. I don't think competency was ever in play. THERE, truer words were never spoken. lynch is not qualified for ANYTHING. an intelligent word has not passed her lips
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 30, 2016 9:32:16 GMT
Could be she was referring to one of the posted videos which pointed out the fact that Muslims took many more black African slaves and trekked them north than were ever shipped to the Americas. It was also reported that black male slaves were often castrated to prevent them from reproducing. Hi Bush Admirer, I guess MIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT, by your standards. As far as I am concerned, only love ever has a chance, certainly not hate. TIT for TAT behaviour just goes ON & ON or haven't you noticed? you know hon, the truly disturbing thing is that i know that you actually really do believe that lunacy. perhaps you could point out just once instance in the history of mankind that love has ever won a war. point out when love has EVER prevented a tyrant from killing people. just point out where love has EVER changed the course of history. you live in a fantasy world. that is NOT a good thing
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 30, 2016 9:41:15 GMT
Hi Bush Admirer, I guess MIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT, by your standards. As far as I am concerned, only love ever has a chance, certainly not hate. TIT for TAT behaviour just goes ON & ON or haven't you noticed? Scottish Lassie spoke in a reply to BushAdsmirer with, “ . . . Hi Bush Admirer, I guess MIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT, by your standards. As far as I am concerned, only love ever has a chance, certainly not hate. TIT for TAT behaviour just goes ON & ON or haven't you noticed? . . . “ I believe Scottish Lassie that you have totally misconstrued the point. First you have to understand your own cultural base, understand its values, understand the role of love with in it. Then, if you are dealing with someone who has a value system similar to your own, respect for that other, even love, has a place and can be understood and work to make a difference. However, if you are dealing with someone who believes just as deeply in their culture, and those two cultures are so different as to be alien to each other. If that difference is so great that that this other culture is incarnate evil relative to your cultural values then love will not work. If that love is seen by the other culture as a weakness to be used to eliminate your culture and you, then for you to use love is to despise your own culture. At some point you must be able to stand on the values of your own culture in the face of what is alien to your culture and face it down. If that means using some version of might, then that is what you use. If you are not willing to stand against what is evil to your culture, then your culture has no meaning. The absence of love is not always hate, but rather simply facing reality. scottish lassie reminds me of an episode of bonanza. some religious group, quakers i believe, were being harassed by a bunch of bad guys. when the cartwrights were trying to get the group to defend themselves, the group's leader made the idiotic comment that "we cannot do violence to our fellow man". hoss properly informed the fool that "your fellow man can do violence to you" scottish lassie thinks that the world is walden pond. i truly do hope that those of us who do have a grasp on reality can save her, and those like her, from the guaranteed destruction that such irrational thinking is going to bring
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 30, 2016 9:55:30 GMT
To Whoever, This discussion on past History is already sillines in progress, you just haven't noticed.!!! When it has become a TIT FOR TAT response, then it is already stupid to the extreme.!!! Let's rather put our heads together and think of a way to resolve the dilemma of there being so much hatred & violence in this day and age. We know most situations have their beginning in the past but surely we don't need a History lesson to be reminded of that? It is monotonous or aren't you aware? I want what is happening today to be resolved, and what is not happening? The world is full of problems of all kinds, let's touch on some of them. The way I see it, without love, we will always have wars, so this is really what we should be discussing. Give us more LOVE!!! LOVE!!! LOVE!!! REALITY!! THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO FORGET, OR IGNORE, HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. what do you not comprehend about the fact that you can NOT put your head together with a fool who is determined to murder you? only a fool would even think about attempting something that insane. we will always have wars as long as there are two humans on earth. all of the love in the world can NOT, and WILL NOT, change that FACT
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 30, 2016 10:07:26 GMT
To Whoever, This discussion on past History is already sillines in progress, you just haven't noticed.!!! When it has become a TIT FOR TAT response, then it is already stupid to the extreme.!!! Let's rather put our heads together and think of a way to resolve the dilemma of there being so much hatred & violence in this day and age. We know most situations have their beginning in the past but surely we don't need a History lesson to be reminded of that? It is monotonous or aren't you aware? I want what is happening today to be resolved, and what is not happening? The world is full of problems of all kinds, let's touch on some of them. The way I see it, without love, we will always have wars, so this is really what we should be discussing. Give us more LOVE!!! LOVE!!! LOVE!!! I’m not sure Scottish Lassie, but at a guess it appears that you aren’t getting the answers you like or want. That is okay, but what you seem to want may not have any foundation in reality and therefore be meaningless in at least some environments. Others have tried the glad-hand of love in response to acts of others. And when dealing with those of similar views, it can have positive affect. However, there are some situations where it will not work and can simply make things worse. There are those who want you to believe a specific way and anything short of that they will not accept. There are people who view the acts of others as not representative of what they want, and therefore such acts are considered weakness and not worthy of recognition. Ask the Tibetan Monks. The gentle people who approached things as you suggest, today, except for those who ran away, they are no more. Their love of the invaders was no more than a wisp of smoke that floated away into nothingness. Yet when these same invaders faced others who stood up to them millions of people were saved. It isn’t that love cannot be affective but rather that it must be applied in the right way at the right time. When you are dealing with those who would actually prefer to kill you unless you give up all you believe in and follow them, your love is wrongly applied and detrimental to your own beliefs. You can water a rock all you want but it won’t grow no matter how strongly you wish it to do so. What is suggested is not tit for tat, it is recognizing reality, standing on what you believe and acting in a way to support your beliefs. History is the teacher of reality. But you don’t have to learn that history and instead you can just become that wisp of smoke. the moronic idea of world peace is stupid on its face. it is not only unattainable, but highly undesirable. peace is NOT, in any way, shape, or form, worth the cost. it's simply insane that, so many years after the notion has been so totally discredited, there are still those who wish to fail
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 30, 2016 10:13:02 GMT
Exactly correct Anna. Great cartoon too that makes a solid point --> you can't appease fanatics who hate you just because you are an unbeliever and not a Muslim. Heck, they even hate you if you're a Muslim but a different branch of Islam. There are many examples in history where misguided leaders tried appeasement when dealing with evil fanatics. The most publicized would be British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's failed policy of appeasing the Nazis. This simply meant war was inevitable. Appeasement was an indulgence in wishful thinking at the price of principle. The message Hitler received was that he'd be able to get away with doing whatever he wanted. Anyone who thinks playing nice with groups like ISIS can lead to peaceful coexistence is badly misjudging militant Islam. They don't want peaceful coexistence. That result would be entirely unacceptable to them. They want everyone, worldwide, to convert to Islam or die. You either accept forced conversion to Islam or they cut off your head. They don't offer any other options unless you're an attractive young woman, in which case they might allow you to become a sex slave. They want your head, not your love I believe you to be quite correct in your assessment BushAdmirer. However, it isn’t that such as groups as ISIS exist, they have always existed, but rather, it is that there are people and groups who do not want to face such a reality. The existence of those not wanting to face reality almost assures that we will have to face war at some point. exactly. rational people know that the ONLY way to achieve peace is to kill those who don't want it
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 30, 2016 14:44:16 GMT
I've already posted about eight examples of downright LIES by French. If you'd bothered to read my post instead of obsessing about the SPLC then you'd have seen them and recognized them. In the meantime, anyone who can be stupid and crass enough to imagine that Germans spoke 'Roman' is just on that fact alone obviously unworthy of being taken seriously. NOBODY spoke 'Roman' - Germans OR Romans. So let's try and be charitable to French. He has made SO MANY errors of fact - some of them LAUGHABLY absurd - that the only possible explanations (if you don't want to take the view that he's a deliberate liar) are the following: 1 French is a complete idiot 2 French is too lazy to bother to check his facts before he posts what he thinks 3 French simply accepts as gospel the lies he's been fed by sources who agree with his own prejudices. Now one of those three MUST be the case if you reject the view that he is deliberately LYING. So what do you think? Is he a fool? Is he too lazy to check his facts? Does he simply recycle inaccuracies from other people? Whichever of the four explanations is correct - the fool, the liar, the lazy man or the second-hand recycler of propaganda - any one of them destroys his credibility. He has ZERO credibility simply because of these FUNDAMENTAL errors both in content and in methodology. not one single FACT there at all. you are simply repeating the lies of the splc Everything I wrote is a PROVABLE FACT. Jim, you are simply repeating French's lies. I didn't have YOU down as someone too wimpish to admit that you were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 30, 2016 14:47:52 GMT
not one single FACT there at all. you are simply repeating the lies of the splc Everything I wrote is a PROVABLE FACT. Jim, you are simply repeating French's lies. I didn't have YOU down as someone too wimpish to admit that you were wrong. huh uh. not a single one of them has been proven. some fool at the splc hallucinating is NOT a fact. i ALWAYS admit when i am wrong
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jun 30, 2016 14:48:17 GMT
As you can see from this selection of howlers, French (alias Warner) is either a completely ignorant moron or else a deliberately dishonest LIAR. no hon, you gave your opinion, you presented NO facts at all No, sweetiepie, I presented EIGHT examples of FACTS which showed CLEARLY that French is either a complete moron or a deliberate liar or (my own personal opinion) both. I'll gladly repost them if you want your memory refreshed but let's start with the most obvious blunder. Do you seriously believe the Germans spoke 'Roman?' French claims they DID. So he's either a fool or a liar. No two ways about it/
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 30, 2016 16:55:27 GMT
no hon, you gave your opinion, you presented NO facts at all No, sweetiepie, I presented EIGHT examples of FACTS which showed CLEARLY that French is either a complete moron or a deliberate liar or (my own personal opinion) both. I'll gladly repost them if you want your memory refreshed but let's start with the most obvious blunder. Do you seriously believe the Germans spoke 'Roman?' French claims they DID. So he's either a fool or a liar. No two ways about it/ Again Big Lin invading armies do learn enough of the language of the people they conquer to at least give commands.
The Romans had earlier occupied much of Germany and built a wall to define their Northern border in what was conquered Germany much like Hadrian's wall in Britain. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes_Germanicus The Romans were the occupiers in the part of Germany where I now live back then. Some Germanic tribes submitted and other German tribes rebelled. The Old German language and preceding German dialects adopted the Roman/Latin alphabet which we and the Germans use today along with many Latin words. I know of one story where the Roman rulers stationed in what is now Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt offered the rebelling German tribes a chance to negotiate a peace. It can be assumed that there was a mutual understanding to some degree of each others language to some extent. The Germanic leaders who appeared for the negotiations were seized and killed by the Romans. This is all documented in the historical museum www.stadtmuseum-stuttgart.de/stadtmuseum-bad-cannstatt.html
The ignorant smear campaigning and hate infested SPLC tries to sell us some Hollywood version of savage barbarian Germanic people as being incapable of learning other languages nor even learning essential Latin/Roman phrases and being able to communicate is sheer nonsense. It's always been a part of military operations to learn the language of your enemy on the battlefield to some extent. To date only smear campaigners like SPLC deny this as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jun 30, 2016 17:07:54 GMT
Not sure about anyone else, but I readily accept your description of Islam as being INVENTED. Can't be more of a fake religion than that. DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) ♫anna♫ @menantol Well, ALL religions are invented by human beings (mostly men). But being an interpretation of the universe by fallible human beings is one thing; being a fake is another. Scientology for example pretty clearly IS a fake religion; Islam, like the MAJORITY of religions, is NOT. Now you don't have to believe or even respect other people's religious beliefs but there's a whole difference between calling an idea or belief system 'fake' and between disagreeing or dismissing it. I would say all religions are pretty much the same. They're started by a con man. In the case of Scientology, that was L Ron Hubbard. For the Mormons, it was Joseph Smith. For Islam it was Mohammad, and for Christianity it was Jesus. The con man surrounds himself with easily duped followers and demonizes those who won't buy his line of bull. He uses the carrot and the stick motivation: "Buy into my BS and you get rewarded with a wonderful afterlife for eternity. Reject my line of BS and you burn in the fires of hell forever. Sometimes there are a few facts mixed in but most of it is fantasy. For instance, no doubt Jesus was executed by the Romans, probably by cruxifixction. However, he certainly wasn't ever resurrected from the dead. Nor did Mohammad ever converse with the imaginary being Angel Gabriel.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jun 30, 2016 17:23:02 GMT
not one single FACT there at all. you are simply repeating the lies of the splc Everything I wrote is a PROVABLE FACT. Jim, you are simply repeating French's lies. I didn't have YOU down as someone too wimpish to admit that you were wrong. It is the big picture that Warner brings into 20-20 razor sharp focus. It is the broad sweep of history over fourteen centuries and the inescapable conclusions that he draws. Warner is a concepts guy more than a details guy. It really isn't important if he misspeaks and calls the Latin language Roman. That's an factual error but an unimportant one. What I found so informative in Warner's videos were important concepts. For instance, that Muslim Jihadists have been attacking other cultures for fourteen centuries. Not only Christendom, but India, the Byzantine empire, and many more. That those Jihadist attacks have generally been carried out in the manner of Mohammad as with ISIS (forced religious conversion or die, taking slaves, wholesale genocide, etc.). That control of the Mediterranean Sea was so crucial because sea transport was much easier than land transport for commerce. That Jihad is so central to Islam because it is the only way they've been really successful over the centuries, at least until oil entered the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 17:39:39 GMT
I have been very involved with other things of recent times, and as such have not responded as often as I wanted to, or in the detail that is needed. Over the next several days I’ll try to correct this lack of response. As of this point I can say that relative to Bill Warner, Big Lin and I fundamentally disagree. That is, I have found Bill Warner to be both convincing and accurate in his comments relative to Islam. For example, the reference of Bill Warner saying that others spoke Roman is, in my opinion, a euphemism for those who spoke the languages commonly used in Rome. Primarily this would be both Latin and Greek which were comprised of multiple versions as befit most languages with a version for the high educated and others for those of the more common speaking of the people. The language umbrella of the term ‘Roman’ covers all of these versions. Even so, there were many languages in Roman world and following is a small description of such from Wikipedia with the associated references. Languages of the Roman Empire ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Roman_Empi ) Latin and Greek were the dominant languages of the Roman Empire, but other languages were important regionally. The language of the ancient Romans was Latin, which served as the "language of power".[2] Latin was pervasive in the Roman Empire[3] as the language of the law courts in the West, and of the military everywhere.[4] After all freeborn inhabitants of the Empire were universally enfranchised in 212 AD, a great number of Roman citizens would have lacked Latin, though they were expected to acquire at least a token knowledge, and Latin remained a marker of "Romanness".[5] Koine Greek had become a shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor as a consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great.[6] The "linguistic frontier" dividing the Latin West and the Greek East passed through the Balkan peninsula.[7] Educated Romans, particularly those of the ruling elite, studied and often achieved a high degree of fluency in Greek, which was useful for diplomatic communications in the East even beyond the borders of the Empire. The international use of Greek was one condition that enabled the spread of Christianity, as indicated for example by the choice of Greek as the language of the Epistles of Paul[8] and its use for the ecumenical councils of the Christian Roman Empire. With the dissolution of the Empire in the West, Greek became the dominant language of the Eastern Roman Empire, later known as the Byzantine Empire. Because communication in ancient society was predominantly oral, it can be difficult to determine the extent to which regional or local languages continued to be spoken or used for other purposes under Roman rule. Some evidence exists in inscriptions, or in references in Greek and Roman texts to other languages and the need for interpreters. For Punic, Coptic, and Aramaic or Syriac, a significant amount of epigraphy or literature survives.[9] The Celtic languages were widespread throughout much of western Europe, and while the orality of Celtic education left scant written records,[10] Celtic epigraphy is limited in quantity but not rare.[11] The Germanic languages of the Empire have left next to no inscriptions or texts, with the exception of Gothic.[12] Multilingualism contributed to the "cultural triangulation" by means of which an individual who was neither Greek nor Roman might construct an identity through the processes of Romanization and Hellenization.[13] After the decentralization of political power in late antiquity, Latin developed locally in the Western provinces into branches that became the Romance languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian. In the early 21st century, the first or second language of more than a billion people derived from Latin.[14] Latin itself remained an international medium of expression for diplomacy and for intellectual developments identified with Renaissance humanism up to the 17th century, and for law and the Roman Catholic Church to the present. References 1. Richard Brilliant, "Scenic Representations," in Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979), pp. 96–97. 2. Bruno Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," translated by James Clackson, in A Companion to the Latin Language (Blackwell, 2011), p. 560. 3. Alex Mullen, "Introduction: Multiple Languages, Multiple Identities," in Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds (Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 28. 4. Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," pp. 554, 556. 5. J.N. Adams, "Romanitas and the Latin Language," Classical Quarterly 53.1 (2003), pp. 185–186, 205. 6. Fergus Millar, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408–450) (University of California Press, 2006), p. 279; Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford University Press, 1997), p. 5. 7. Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," p. 553. 8. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State, p. 5. 9. Richard Valantasis, introduction to Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice (Princeton University Press, 2000), p. 11. 10. MacMullen, "Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire," pp. 15–16. 11. Joseph Eska, "Inscriptions in the Celtic World," in Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia (ABC-Clio, 2006), pp. 965–970. 12. Tore Janson, A Natural History of Latin (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 87. 13. Mullen, Southern Gaul and the Mediterranean, pp. 264–265.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jun 30, 2016 21:06:32 GMT
I have been very involved with other things of recent times, and as such have not responded as often as I wanted to, or in the detail that is needed. Over the next several days I’ll try to correct this lack of response. As of this point I can say that relative to Bill Warner, Big Lin and I fundamentally disagree. That is, I have found Bill Warner to be both convincing and accurate in his comments relative to Islam. For example, the reference of Bill Warner saying that others spoke Roman is, in my opinion, a euphemism for those who spoke the languages commonly used in Rome. Primarily this would be both Latin and Greek which were comprised of multiple versions as befit most languages with a version for the high educated and others for those of the more common speaking of the people. The language umbrella of the term ‘Roman’ covers all of these versions. Even so, there were many languages in Roman world and following is a small description of such from Wikipedia with the associated references. Languages of the Roman Empire ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Roman_Empi ) Latin and Greek were the dominant languages of the Roman Empire, but other languages were important regionally. The language of the ancient Romans was Latin, which served as the "language of power".[2] Latin was pervasive in the Roman Empire[3] as the language of the law courts in the West, and of the military everywhere.[4] After all freeborn inhabitants of the Empire were universally enfranchised in 212 AD, a great number of Roman citizens would have lacked Latin, though they were expected to acquire at least a token knowledge, and Latin remained a marker of "Romanness".[5] Koine Greek had become a shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor as a consequence of the conquests of Alexander the Great.[6] The "linguistic frontier" dividing the Latin West and the Greek East passed through the Balkan peninsula.[7] Educated Romans, particularly those of the ruling elite, studied and often achieved a high degree of fluency in Greek, which was useful for diplomatic communications in the East even beyond the borders of the Empire. The international use of Greek was one condition that enabled the spread of Christianity, as indicated for example by the choice of Greek as the language of the Epistles of Paul[8] and its use for the ecumenical councils of the Christian Roman Empire. With the dissolution of the Empire in the West, Greek became the dominant language of the Eastern Roman Empire, later known as the Byzantine Empire. Because communication in ancient society was predominantly oral, it can be difficult to determine the extent to which regional or local languages continued to be spoken or used for other purposes under Roman rule. Some evidence exists in inscriptions, or in references in Greek and Roman texts to other languages and the need for interpreters. For Punic, Coptic, and Aramaic or Syriac, a significant amount of epigraphy or literature survives.[9] The Celtic languages were widespread throughout much of western Europe, and while the orality of Celtic education left scant written records,[10] Celtic epigraphy is limited in quantity but not rare.[11] The Germanic languages of the Empire have left next to no inscriptions or texts, with the exception of Gothic.[12] Multilingualism contributed to the "cultural triangulation" by means of which an individual who was neither Greek nor Roman might construct an identity through the processes of Romanization and Hellenization.[13] After the decentralization of political power in late antiquity, Latin developed locally in the Western provinces into branches that became the Romance languages, including Spanish, Portuguese, French, and Italian. In the early 21st century, the first or second language of more than a billion people derived from Latin.[14] Latin itself remained an international medium of expression for diplomacy and for intellectual developments identified with Renaissance humanism up to the 17th century, and for law and the Roman Catholic Church to the present. References 1. Richard Brilliant, "Scenic Representations," in Age of Spirituality: Late Antique and Early Christian Art, Third to Seventh Century (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1979), pp. 96–97. 2. Bruno Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," translated by James Clackson, in A Companion to the Latin Language (Blackwell, 2011), p. 560. 3. Alex Mullen, "Introduction: Multiple Languages, Multiple Identities," in Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds (Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 28. 4. Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," pp. 554, 556. 5. J.N. Adams, "Romanitas and the Latin Language," Classical Quarterly 53.1 (2003), pp. 185–186, 205. 6. Fergus Millar, A Greek Roman Empire: Power and Belief under Theodosius II (408–450) (University of California Press, 2006), p. 279; Warren Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State and Society (Stanford University Press, 1997), p. 5. 7. Rochette, "Language Policies in the Roman Republic and Empire," p. 553. 8. Treadgold, A History of the Byzantine State, p. 5. 9. Richard Valantasis, introduction to Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice (Princeton University Press, 2000), p. 11. 10. MacMullen, "Provincial Languages in the Roman Empire," pp. 15–16. 11. Joseph Eska, "Inscriptions in the Celtic World," in Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia (ABC-Clio, 2006), pp. 965–970. 12. Tore Janson, A Natural History of Latin (Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 87. 13. Mullen, Southern Gaul and the Mediterranean, pp. 264–265. Since slavery was so popular in Roman times and the early days of Islam, there would have been quite a bit of language mixing. The Romans were good at documenting their history but Islam not so much. Though we tend to think in terms of large entities like empires and religions, I believe much of the world was a patchwork of fiefdoms, warlords, and tribes along with marauding bandits and pirates. .
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2016 22:26:51 GMT
Slavery was a staple of many kingdoms and cultures. Although we never discuss them, farther to the East was the Han Empire of China and their wars with the confederacy of the Xiongnu (the pre-Mongols). Slavery was a significant part of the interchanges between these people.
More to the West were the Western Steppes and the Central Steppes with the Scythians, who were an Iranian-speaking nomadic people and they also fought with China. And then farther West of the Central Steppes were the Parthians, another Iranian-speaking nomadic peoples who were an offshoot of the Scythians. Here too slavery was an element with the society of these people.
So too farther along the Silk Road there were two other nomadic peoples: The Sacae and the Kushans. These on their Western flanks interfaced with the Romans and before that ancestors of the Celts. Again slavery was a normal part of society and yes, language was comprised of many different tongues and dialects.
In the 5th century CE Islam began its movements and also used slavery as both an economic tool as well as a tool to control various peoples. But for Rome, there was no singular language that people were forced to speak and so of speaking-Roman may not be specific but was representative of the polyglot of the existing mixture of languages. I suspect that walking through Rome was an experience for the ear with such a wide divergence of tongues.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jun 30, 2016 22:45:38 GMT
U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said this week, after the Orlando massacre, that our most powerful weapon against people like Omar Mateen is “love.” She wants us to show love toward murderous Islamic Jihadist terrorists. She is wrong. Love won't work and would not have worked against the Nazis or the totalitarians in the Stalin's Soviet state. We are facing another totalitarian enemy that will not be negotiated with and that will not stop unless every “infidel” is enslaved or crushed. That truth is impossible for this President and his bubble-dwelling coterie to believe. As a result, we will continue to face an escalating risk until we have a change of administration. The question is, will the new Commander-in-Chief perpetuate the lies and distortions of the last eight years or finally talk truthfully about the incarnate Evil that we face and what it will take to destroy it? I know Trump would. Hillary, on the other hand, will say whatever the overnight popularity poll tells her to say. This nutty lady is the personification of political correctness which is in reality some kind of Stockholm syndrome. She's also encouraging more jihadists to strike just like DR pen pals feed the murder cult. Shocking that this sick lady represents the US government. Loretta Lynch is much worse than nutty Anna. How about this? Attorney General's 'greatest fear' isn't Islamic terrorism - it's attacks on Muslims because of a backlash in wake of shootings By FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM Attorney General Loretta Lynch told a group of Muslims in Washington that her 'greatest fear' since the Paris terror attack is retaliatory violence against members of the religion. Lynch said as a prosecutor, she worries that the anti-Muslim rhetoric 'will be accompanied by acts of violence,' and said, 'We cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on.' Speaking broadly on Thursday about religious tensions in America, Lynch told attendees of Muslim Advocate’s 10th anniversary dinner that she had observed an 'incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric' in the wake of the ISIS assault on Paris and the talk 'edges towards violence.' In the weeks that have followed the onslaught American mosques have been vandalized, and in at least one case fired upon, and Muslim believers have been repeatedly threatened with acts of violence. 'When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American. They are not who we are, they are not what we do, and they will be prosecuted,' Lynch said, according to Buzzed. She derided congressional attempts to keep refugees from ISIS-ravaged Syria and a House-passed bill that would require federal agencies to swear the migrants are not radicals. 'You know, this is not the way,' she said, per Politico's report. 'I will look at anything and consider anything that will keep the American people safe but … you take aggressive action you don’t take impetuous action.' 'My message to the Muslim community is we stand with you in this.'
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 30, 2016 23:10:58 GMT
I was looking for your post DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) where you described how the Romans recorded history better that the Islamists. In fact the Islamists typically destroyed the libraries of conquered people and all written and cultural works they could find. The survivors were forced to convert to Islam or die and their culture was lost. The Muslim rulers believed only their Islamist literature and their history ( which was often censored, destroyed and rewritten ) was worthy of preservation.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jul 1, 2016 7:23:05 GMT
no hon, you gave your opinion, you presented NO facts at all No, sweetiepie, I presented EIGHT examples of FACTS which showed CLEARLY that French is either a complete moron or a deliberate liar or (my own personal opinion) both. I'll gladly repost them if you want your memory refreshed but let's start with the most obvious blunder. Do you seriously believe the Germans spoke 'Roman?' French claims they DID. So he's either a fool or a liar. No two ways about it/ no hon. NOTHING that comes from the racist splc is fact. try and find some facts to back up your claim. you have to get it from a legitimate source, and not from a bunchof racist bigots
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jul 1, 2016 9:45:04 GMT
Religion of Peace: A Brief History of Islam - Brigitte Gabriel Mrs. Gabriel gives a condensed summary of Islamic history.
Muhammed simply hijacked parts of Judao-Christianity and called his criminality a holy religion.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jul 1, 2016 15:14:41 GMT
Religion of Peace: A Brief History of Islam - Brigitte Gabriel Mrs. Gabriel gives a condensed summary of Islamic history.
Muhammed simply hijacked parts of Judao-Christianity and called his criminality a holy religion. She's a great spokeswoman who has Islam in sharp focus. I also liked this video of hers:
|
|