Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Really? Seriously?Republic, Roman Law and the letters you're using to type this out don't spring into your mind before ''bloodthirsty''?
Interesting...
we have very different ideas of what culture means...
for instance, I wouldn't use the term "alphabet" to describe roman society.
Originally posted by inimalist
we have very different ideas of what culture means...for instance, I wouldn't use the term "alphabet" to describe roman society.
No, but if Roman brutal conquest overshadows the fact that you're using their letters to express that, or ideas of Republic, Law and Order...then well, it's strange.
Anyway, more on this book burning drama -
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/09/1816922/new-twists-in-pastor-and-quran.html
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
No, but if Roman brutal conquest overshadows the fact that you're using their letters to express that, or ideas of Republic, Law and Order...then well, it's strange.
well, their contribution to language is overshadowed by the arabs, indians, greeks and british, probably the germans too...
Their ideas of law weren't even progressive for their time...
and I'd argue that, aside from just warfare, combat and bloodlust existed in even the most mundane activities in Rome. Whether this is specific to them or represents a time when life (human and otherwise) was less sacrosanct is debateable...
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/09/1816922/new-twists-in-pastor-and-quran.html
what a ****ed up situation...
Originally posted by inimalist
how would this stop any fight?in fact, it escalates the fight and probably ensures that Pakistan gives nuclear material to terrorist groups...
probably the worst possible idea ever (not that you disagreed with that part)
I should have said, even if... I was giving him the benefit of doubt.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Brigham Young sent a letter reply back to let the travelers pass through, without harm. Young excommunicated several of the participants in the massacre, that were Mormon. John D. Lee was later excommunicated and executed for his actions.There were also very high tensions at the time because there was a Utah War going on. Not that their actions were justified.
What it boils down to: Militiamen acting independently of the Territory leader's directions, and going too far in a military campaign. How many Indians were massacred by non-Mormon Americans in early American history?
Wait, what is this thread about, again?
That's not true at all. There was more of an apathetic perspective on Mormons, once they moved west, from D.C. (Didn't become a big deal until later when the territory started towards "state-hood."😉
What I find wrong with the whole ordeal is the interrogation from Brigham Young to Lee that resulted in Young believing Lee that it was the Native Americans who perpetuated the attack. Young should have seen right through his BS lies..cause like...he was a prophet. 😐
They had to move West, or else they would have been exterminated. The Govnr. of Missouri submitted a Declaration of War against the Mormons.
And the Muslims can at least cite Koranic passages on the conduct of war; how exactly do the Mormons justify that massacre?
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
coliseums
Very bloodthirsty.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
From a Yahoo article about this guy:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/quran_burning"We are, of course, now against any other group burning Qurans," Jones said. "We would right now ask no one to burn Qurans. We are absolutely strong on that. It is not the time to do it."
He's nuttier than a whole bag of nuts dipped in peanut butter and dragged through a tub of walnuts by Alex Jones.
That and it's obvious now it was nothing more than a publicity stunt.
Apparently, he's claimed that he spoke with the "9/11 Mosque" developer and they've agreed that the building wouldn't commence in return that the 50-person church not burn Qur'ans. A complete lie, not talks were had to begin with.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
They had to move West, or else they would have been exterminated. The Govnr. of Missouri submitted a Declaration of War against the Mormons.And the Muslims can at least cite Koranic passages on the conduct of war; how exactly do the Mormons justify that massacre?
Very bloodthirsty.
Not any more bloodthirsty few thousand years later in America - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4353934/.
Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Not any more bloodthirsty few thousand years later in America - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4353934/.
so now items of a culture include things that don't exist? There are no televised executions in America. That would be like saying the desire for wealth and food in Ethopia indicate that their society has an abundance of those things...
less glib, I think you are taking my point a little too literally. There is always going to be war and violence in all societies, and by no means are the Romans the most violent that human civilization has ever seen.
And, while Rome did have many periods with different laws, the brutality of the police, the acceptance of violence as a form of penance or retribution, violence, not just in terms of the Collesium and killing criminals, but the mentally/physically handicapped, pitting exotic animals against eachother, building structures which can host mock naval battles, hell, even the circus maximus, all of these things show an inherent acceptance of violence in society.
That these "games" were used to appease other, more direct social complaints of the lower classes, also speaks volumes. People were willing to give up complaints of lack of food because they were given murder as entertainment. Or because the roman legionaires would butcher them and their loved ones. I think both options lend some weight to my point.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That would be foolish, and it's emotional too. Think about the consequences. You would stop the fight for now, but it would just be another failed crusade. We need to be more creative then that.
it wouldn't be foolish i'd be effective. and think about the consequences? this is war. islamofascists certainly didn't think about the consequences when they knock our 2 front teeth out in full view.
desperate times call for desperate measures. and yes, remember pearl harbor. a cowardly sneak attack led to a couple a nukes in a couple of cities in a couple of days followed by a swift japanese surrender.
like i wrote all's fair in love and war. muslim fanatics thinks so. nothings too emotional or too consequential. anything goes. no matter the scale.
would you wanna pick a fist fight with the biggest, toughest, and strongest 8th grader in middle school as a scrawny 6th grader? maybe maybe not, point is you shouldn't cause you'll get your ass kicked. but the u.s. is that 8th grader that'd get sucker punched in the face by that scrawny 6th grader in front of eveyone, not do anything cause it might offend others while watching the kid verbalyl bash him and threaten him everyday.
forget turning the other cheek. they don't do it to u.s.
the effects of 9/11 are still affecting this country hard almost ten years later and we should still be nice, and tolerant of abuse by muslims, and not be offensive.? forget that. this is war.
"don't burn our koran or there'll be consequenses for you americans in the form of death and destruction but we want to build a mosque near ground zero and we don't want you to say anything about it."
lol. please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lne0NoxEoz8
roaches at work..
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I just heard on the radio that the book burning will not be taking place.
Yep, aparently he´s binned the plan, some waffle about him and some Imam comming to some agreement about the location of that Mosque in New York. Which also seems now not to be the case, as the Imam has denied this.
Basically he´s backing down, COWARD🙂 😱
Originally posted by lil bitchinessBut their lasting influnce is the direct product of military conquest and, more importantly, the cultural subjugation of the peoples they conquered through the supression of their native cultures and compulsory adherence to roman customs and language.
Really? Seriously?Republic, Roman Law, roads, bath houses, wells, coliseums, Julius, and the letters you're using to type this out don't spring into your mind before ''bloodthirsty''?
Interesting...
Probably be hard pressed to find a civilization that benefited mankind as a whole that didn't conquer and subjugate others.
The Romans didn't really invent much themselves, what they did was improve on known technologies which they came into through conquest. This conquest also spread knowledge and connected cultures; that aspect is a positive.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
And the Muslims can at least cite Koranic passages on the conduct of war; how exactly do the Mormons justify that massacre?
They don't: why do you think that some most of the Mormons confirmed to be involved were excommunicated and Lee was executed? 🙂
If I asked if I can go on a killing spree, I'm then turned down 2 days later, but I went on the killing spree, right now, then I'm excommunicated, THEN executed by Mormons (lawfully), this some how makes my actions condoned by my church?
Anyway, more on topic: the guy might change his mind on the book burning a 3rd or 4th time.
Originally posted by RobtardWell, what you look at as benefitial to mankind as a whole is pretty subjective, alhough I would agree the interexchange between cultures conducted under roman rule had positive angles to it. But, yes, most largelly influential cultures spread their infuence through conquest.
Probably be hard pressed to find a civilization that benefited mankind as a whole that didn't conquer and subjugate others.The Romans didn't really invent much themselves, what they did was improve on known technologies which they came into through conquest. This conquest also spread knowledge and connected cultures; that aspect is a positive.