View Full Version : Murders in France
HoreTore
03-20-2012, 02:55
A jewish school was attacked today(someone who reads english news can probably provide a link in english), where a teacher, his two daughters and another girl was killed by a gunman on a scooter. According to French police, the weapon matches the gun previously used to kill 3 off-duty french soldiers. Two of them descended from north africa and the third from the caribbean. The police are reportedly searching for three former members of the paratrooper unit two of the victims belonged to, who were kicked out because a nazi salute in front of a swastika.
Who wants to make some early predictions about motives we can all laugh abut later when they're proven wrong?
Strike For The South
03-20-2012, 05:04
DIRTY DIRTY MUSLIMS
Most likely someone who is an enrichment to French culture but who knows, we'll see
GenosseGeneral
03-20-2012, 10:25
I guess it is right-wing terrorism. Who else hates Jews and Blacks? Muslim terrorists would blow them up and don't shoot them, also the shooter was described as "well skilled in handling a firearm" -> He has maybe a military background, which would also hint at right-wing terrorism. Their role model could be the German NSU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Underground), a Nazi terrorist group which commited multiple murders during the last years until it was covered up.
Greyblades
03-20-2012, 11:22
A nazi :daisy:-wit turns psychomaniac, it's been a while since the last one, I suppose it was due. This is just depressing, killing for outward appearances, how pointless.
A nazi :daisy:-wit turns psychomaniac, it's been a while since the last one, I suppose it was due. This is just depressing, killing for outward appearances, how pointless.
Been a while? Didn't something happen in Norway very very recently, more of an anti-islamphiliac but still rightwing terrorism. But still, things like this usually happen when Israel retaliates and they just exactly that a few days ago, would look elsewhere. Could be wrong of course
rory_20_uk
03-20-2012, 12:26
Whoever it is has killed a variety of different people. I personally can not see a definite trend.
Time will tell. Either they'll be caught, or kill more people.
~:smoking:
Greyblades
03-20-2012, 13:08
Been a while? Didn't something happen in Norway very very recently, more of an anti-islamphiliac but still rightwing terrorism. But still, things like this usually happen when Israel retaliates and they just exactly that a few days ago, would look elsewhere. Could be wrong of course
Correction, its been a while since I've read about one. My mistake.
Papewaio
03-20-2012, 22:21
Neo Vichy?
Neo Vichy?
Nope, as expected it is an enrichment to French culture. Being arrested right now.
Oh, and he wanted to retaliate because Israel. Sorry Horetore you ain't getting your argument of doom, the one that changes everything.
Well, it seems we're in tabernak again.
Additionally, Fragony, he shot two North African (read: Algerian, enrichment-people)before going over to that Jewish school. Are those soldiers enrichment too, or what?
EDIT: So apparently he threw out a pistol out of the window in exchange for a communication device. Apparently he also has some additional weapons, including an uzi. That strikes me as odd.
Well, it seems we're in tabernak again.
Additionally, Fragony, he shot two North African (read: Algerian, enrichment-people)before going over to that Jewish school. Are those soldiers enrichment too, or what?
EDIT: So apparently he threw out a pistol out of the window in exchange for a communication device. Apparently he also has some additional weapons, including an uzi. That strikes me as odd.
They are soldiers mia muca. Sorry if this isn't what some so desperately want it to be for the lack of anything positive say. It is what it is and it isn't really nice. Ever heard of Stockholm-syndrome
It would be an enrichment for this forum if this silly conspiracy talk about enrichment and Stockholm syndrome stopped.
It has no basis in reality.
Yes, he did claim to be an al Queda member/sympathiser, and that's what it is, please spare us the rhetoric about multiculturalists thinking he's an enrichment and blablabla, I've yet to find such a person outside the violent fa-left fringe that is just as lunatic as the violent far-right (which includes islamic terrorists).
It's a case of right wing terrorism and no left-blaming rhetoric is going to change that.
On the other hand that he shot two african soldiers doesn't prove Fragony's basic point (that it was right wing terrorism) wrong because as he said they were soldiers and represented the french state and it's involvement in other countries. At the same time this proves Fragony's other lame point wrong because they were actually an enrichment for France and fought for french values. :2thumbsup: :balloon2:
Sorry Hussie you would have to ban me. There is no inconsistany, do you want there to be any? I despise islam, an islamic country is just a place for me. Your religion is a choice, where you are from is not.
CountArach
03-21-2012, 12:26
Sorry Hussie you would have to ban me. There is no inconsistany, do you want there to be any? I despise islam, an islamic country is just a place for me. Your religion is a choice, where you are from is not.
I'm confused. Is France Islamic now?
Algeria not being French confused France as well. What's your point I don't understand leftist logic.
CountArach
03-21-2012, 12:58
Algeria not being French confused France as well. What's your point I don't understand leftist logic.
I haven't got a point, I'm trying to figure out what your point is.
I haven't got a point, I'm trying to figure out what your point is.
How could you have missed it as I am pretty clear on it, it's the islam.
How could you have missed it as I am pretty clear on it, it's the islam.
That can't be! Islam is a religion of peace!!! Please do not badmouth Muslims' peaceful religion, otherwise they'll have to kill you.
The latest stories are that the murderer was a petty criminal who went off to wage jihad in Afghanistan, where he was imprisoned for planting IEDs but escaped in a mass breakout in 2008. He's been under surveillance by French authorities for some time and was fingered for the current outrages when a garage recalled that he had his bike sprayed a different colour between the attacks (the attacker's bike changed colour between the attacks). The French are determined to catch him alive to stand trial. I hope they succeed, because I am not convinced he acted in isolation and getting more information on his contacts would be useful.
Apparently he is cornered, and it's now a question of whether this will end with his arrest or death (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17446999).
CountArach
03-21-2012, 15:11
How could you have missed it as I am pretty clear on it, it's the islam.
You're really going to politicise these deaths?
You're really going to politicise these deaths?
It's not politics it's a religion, shove it on the plate you eat from as long as it isn't mine, not my problem as long as it keeps a distance.
PanzerJaeger
03-21-2012, 16:15
Nazis were much more politically correct bad guys. The authorities must have been quite dismayed to discover it was an Islamist.
Nazis were much more politically correct bad guys. The authorities much have been quite dismayed to discover it was an Islamist.
Dismayed, but hardly surprised.
gaelic cowboy
03-21-2012, 17:31
hopefully this standoff will be resolved peacefully and the nutter brought to justice.
Nazis were much more politically correct bad guys. The authorities must have been quite dismayed to discover it was an Islamist.
One could imagine twas a secret hope many a rogue had on the left due to the election coming up.
Now of course the Left have to a face potential hardening of public opinion just when Le Pen and Sarko are appealing to same.
There best way to spin this is not to spin it at all, then claim revulsion that the Right would use tragedy to win vote.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-21-2012, 18:18
You're really going to politicise these deaths?
I believe Frag's point is that the "religion" is "kill the infidel for the glory of Allah" in this case.
So the fact those Algerians were targeted makes perfect sense, they supported the Infidel.
If I read Frag right his point is that it doesn't matter how much you try to accomodate these people, because they have a fundamental hatred for everything you stand for, right down to what you do and don't believe about their God. There is no reasoning and accomodation for these people, only war, and trying to live with them just isn't on the cards.
It is, of course, true that this isn't the case for all or even the majority of Muslims, but for those who few where it is true that is what "Islam" means to them.
I believe Frag is oblique about this because he sees it as obvious.
I believe FRag is oblique about this because he sees it as obvious.
Thanks for that
So the fact those Algerians were targeted makes perfect sense, they supported the Infidel
And yet these same Algerians will now be regarded as somehow inherently hostile to France. That makes a lot of sense, right.
Algeria not being French confused France as well.
You're not seriously claiming Algeria is an Islamic country, right?
You're not seriously claiming Algeria is an Islamic country, right?
Why not? It's almost 100% muslim and has a very significant salafist presence.
Noncommunist
03-21-2012, 20:52
Yes, he did claim to be an al Queda member/sympathiser, and that's what it is, please spare us the rhetoric about multiculturalists thinking he's an enrichment and blablabla, I've yet to find such a person outside the violent fa-left fringe that is just as lunatic as the violent far-right (which includes islamic terrorists).
It's a case of right wing terrorism and no left-blaming rhetoric is going to change that.
On the other hand that he shot two african soldiers doesn't prove Fragony's basic point (that it was right wing terrorism) wrong because as he said they were soldiers and represented the french state and it's involvement in other countries. At the same time this proves Fragony's other lame point wrong because they were actually an enrichment for France and fought for french values. :2thumbsup: :balloon2:
What about FARC and other communist terrorists? Shouldn't they count as left wing terrorists?
What about FARC and other communist terrorists? Shouldn't they count as left wing terrorists?
Sure, and how is that relevant here?
And why does Fragony keep playing captain obvious in stating that violent islamic extremism is bad?
Who exactly disagrees with that?
And since when does "islam" mean "violent islamic extremism" anyway? It's like saying the problem is catholicism and then claiming you just mean the IRA but that should've been obvious.
Why not? It's almost 100% muslim and has a very significant salafist presence.
Hey, have you taken a look at the government there lately?
Hey, have you taken a look at the government there lately?
Umm...same guy running the show since 1999, what's your point?
Right, go ahead and tell me all you know about Algeria; tell me about how the secular government murdered entire villages that were supposedly connected to the FIS or when they assassinated dissidents in Spain and France. Algeria is not an Islamic state. Not at all.
Let's face it, you don't know a whole lot about Algeria; neither do I, but at least I don't pretend to. There's a lot I don't know about the Middle East, but what I do know is that saying something like "Algeria is an Islamic country" is an unfounded and ignorant thing to say. Let's just leave it at that, because this thread evidently is not really about the Algerian state.
HoreTore
03-22-2012, 00:29
When "one of your own" sides with "the enemy", they are always regarded as worse scum than the enemy itself. An enemy is an enemy, but when "one of us" supports them, they are traitors and much lower on the scale. This is why Quisling was shot and universally hated, while Terboven was shipped back to Germany and largely ignored.
So killing Algerians serving in the French forces fits a war-scenario nicely.
I have to say that I too suspected a nazi. A group of three nazis were suspected after all, and the method fits ABB's description of how to conduct a "bonus operation". On one level, I'm relieved we didn't get a copycat so soon.
Oh, and as for a muslim killer not fitting a "leftie government/media agenda", consider this: ABB has already insipired killings. Two neo-nazi's in Sweden claims to be inspired by him when they whacked a few immigrants. How much news coverage did that get, hm? Forgotten the day after it happened, that's what happened.
Sorry, the media conspiracy to glorify Islamic extremists and villify right-wingers just doesn't exist. Make a good story though, one could almost wish it was true, it would've been a great movie...
Right, go ahead and tell me all you know about Algeria; tell me about how the secular government murdered entire villages that were supposedly connected to the FIS or when they assassinated dissidents in Spain and France. Algeria is not an Islamic state. Not at all.
Sure it is. A lot of its laws are based on sharia, especially when it comes to family law, women's rights, religious freedom, etc.
Let's face it, you don't know a whole lot about Algeria; neither do I, but at least I don't pretend to.
Yet, you claim to know things about me, which I assure you, you do not.
There's a lot I don't know about the Middle East, but what I do know is that saying something like "Algeria is an Islamic country" is an unfounded and ignorant thing to say. Let's just leave it at that, because this thread evidently is not really about the Algerian state.
It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Is it as bad as Saudi Arabia? No. It is still run on islamist principles though.
gaelic cowboy
03-22-2012, 10:56
Sure it is. A lot of its laws are based on sharia, especially when it comes to family law, women's rights, religious freedom, etc.
Yet, you claim to know things about me, which I assure you, you do not.
It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Is it as bad as Saudi Arabia? No. It is still run on islamist principles though.
They might have an elected government but millitary are still the ones really in charge like in Eygpt or Pakistan.
Sure it is. A lot of its laws are based on sharia, especially when it comes to family law, women's rights, religious freedom, etc
Right. So actually Algerian law is pretty much based on French law, seeing how it was actually part of France up until 1963. Not a colony, not a protectorate, it was a part of France. In fact, unlike many other countries in the Middle East, the law stipulates that women and men have the right to equal pay. If you want to base this on shari'a, be my guest, but it's actually so far removed from the truth that the very concept is laughable.
Usually I can pretty much understand why people think this way about certain countries in the Middle-East, and I'm really sorry to say it, but your idea of Algeria as being founded on Islamist principles is so ludicrous in its own right that I don't even know where to begin to dispell that myth. If you take a glance at the history of Algeria after the War of Independence, the violent crackdown on the FIS movement in the 1990s springs out immediately. The Algerian government is doing everything to keep Islamists out of the government.
No, I don't know you personally and really, I'm not that interested. But please refrain from making generalising statements about a country like Algeria, and as someone whose father was born in Algeria and whose family members and personal friends were detained, tortured or sometimes even assassinated because government officials merely suspected them of being sympathetic (!) to Islamist movements, it's not just ignorant, it's actually quite offensive.
Right. So actually Algerian law is pretty much based on French law, seeing how it was actually part of France up until 1963. Not a colony, not a protectorate, it was a part of France. In fact, unlike many other countries in the Middle East, the law stipulates that women and men have the right to equal pay. If you want to base this on shari'a, be my guest, but it's actually so far removed from the truth that the very concept is laughable.
http://www.law.emory.edu/ifl/legal/Algeria.htm Here, have a laugh then.
Usually I can pretty much understand why people think this way about certain countries in the Middle-East, and I'm really sorry to say it, but your idea of Algeria as being founded on Islamist principles is so ludicrous in its own right that I don't even know where to begin to dispell that myth. If you take a glance at the history of Algeria after the War of Independence, the violent crackdown on the FIS movement in the 1990s springs out immediately. The Algerian government is doing everything to keep Islamists out of the government.
The government is islamist. They are trying to keep hardline islamists from power, but that doesn't mean that the government is secular. It is not.
No, I don't know you personally and really, I'm not that interested. But please refrain from making generalising statements about a country like Algeria, and as someone whose father was born in Algeria and whose family members and personal friends were detained, tortured or sometimes even assassinated because government officials merely suspected them of being sympathetic (!) to Islamist movements, it's not just ignorant, it's actually quite offensive.
I'm merely stating facts. If the facts are offensive to you, then so be it.
'I have to say that I too suspected a nazi. A group of three nazis were suspected after all, and the method fits ABB's description of how to conduct a "bonus operation".'
Maybe you are right, it's perfectly possible these two incidents aren't even related in the first place
gaelic cowboy
03-22-2012, 15:04
RTE news is reporting that he is dead and apparently he admitted to all the murders.
Gunman dead as Toulouse siege ends (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0322/france.html)
Suspected French gunman Mohammed Merah died during a police assault on his flat after jumping out the window while still shooting.
A 23-year-old gunman suspected of killing seven people in France in the name of al-Qaeda has died after a two-day siege.
Mohammed Merah jumped from a window to his death in a hail of bullets after police stormed his apartment.
"At the moment when a video probe was sent into the bathroom, the killer came out of the bathroom, firing with extreme violence," Interior Minister Claude Gueant said, adding that Mr Merah was firing several guns at once.
"In the end, Mohammed Merah jumped from the window with his gun in his hand, continuing to fire. He was found dead on the ground," he told reporters at the scene.
Two police commandos were wounded.
Special forces entered the five-storey building in a suburb of Toulouse after surrounding Mr Merah since early yesterday morning.
Mr Gueant said earlier police hoped to capture Mr Merah alive.
He had confessed to police negotiators to killing three soldiers as well as three Jewish children and a rabbi at a school.
President Nicolas Sarkozy had vowed justice would be done and urged people not to seek revenge.
There had been a long silence overnight from Mr Merah, who said he wanted to avenge the deaths of Palestinian children and French army involvement in Afghanistan.
"Despite renewed efforts all through the night to re-establish contact by voice and radio, there has been no contact, no showing from him," Mr Gueant said.
Mr Merah, a French citizen of Algerian origin who had been under intelligence surveillance for years, shot at police as they closed in on him in the early hours of Wednesday.
He later boasted to negotiators that he had brought France to its knees. He said his only regret was not having been able to carry out more killings.
Strike For The South
03-22-2012, 15:55
DIRTY DIRTY MUSLIMS
Where is my prize?
PanzerJaeger
03-22-2012, 17:27
What a way to go... out a window in a hail of gunfire. You've got to give it to AQ types, they know how to go out in dramatic fashion. Whether it be planes, trains, or automobiles, when your life’s goal is martyrdom, you can apparently come up with some whacky modi oporandi. Deep down I kind of hope my own demise will be equally as epic, although of course not proceeded by the killing of several innocent people.
Deep down I kind of hope my own demise will be equally as epic, although of course not proceeded by the killing of several innocent people.
Epic exits generally go together with dying young(ish). Screw that.
gaelic cowboy
03-22-2012, 18:01
Epic exits generally go together with dying young(ish). Screw that.
seconded
The government is islamist. They are trying to keep hardline islamists from power, but that doesn't mean that the government is secular. It is not.
Calling the FIS party hardline Islamists is actually really misguided, they have more in common with the Tunisian al-Nahda party or with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt than with the Islamic Jihad movement or the old Mujahideen-ê Ghalq in Iran.
So when you look at the kind of line the government has been utilising, of course they pander to the predominantly Muslim population, in fact, they're probably willing to call any law they pass as being consistent with Shari'a, which is actually a popular trend that has existed in the Islamic world for more than a hundred years now. Does this mean it's actually taken from the Qur'an? Not at all. You're confusing rhetoric and practice here.
Calling the FIS party hardline Islamists is actually really misguided, they have more in common with the Tunisian al-Nahda party or with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt than with the Islamic Jihad movement or the old Mujahideen-ê Ghalq in Iran.
So when you look at the kind of line the government has been utilising, of course they pander to the predominantly Muslim population, in fact, they're probably willing to call any law they pass as being consistent with Shari'a, which is actually a popular trend that has existed in the Islamic world for more than a hundred years now. Does this mean it's actually taken from the Qur'an? Not at all. You're confusing rhetoric and practice here.
I am calling GIA and GSPC hardline islamists. FIS is more or less part of the establishment. Still very much an islamist movement.
As I said, I think you're really confusing rhetoric and practice here. Of course the government will try to do its best to pander to that part of the population, they're not stupid. However, when you look at the way they're effectively controlling the country, there's virtually no trace of political Islamism there.
HoreTore
03-22-2012, 22:02
I am calling GIA and GSPC hardline islamists. FIS is more or less part of the establishment. Still very much an islamist movement.
Algeria's rise as an independent state was a part of a liberation wave that swept most the arab world in the 50's and 60's. It.s politial makeup was quite unique to the region. We had the Baath party, Nasserism, etc, and they all shared three main components. Firstly nationalism, in that they sought to create independent states, or in the case of pan-arabism, independent unions/blocs. Secondly, the anti-oppression aspect of socialism, as well as some form of protection to the poor. It's important to note that they were not at all marxist, Nasser sought "positive neutrality" in the cold war Thirdly, a positive stance towards religion, in that they did not seek to abolish it like the commies.
Labelling the ideologies that emerged in the arab world after the war simply "islamist" is a gross oversimplification, and quite simply wrong as well. Oh well, I'm sure that there are those who would happily call the Baath party, founded by a greek orthodox, islamist as well...
Algeria's rise as an independent state was a part of a liberation wave that swept most the arab world in the 50's and 60's. It.s politial makeup was quite unique to the region. We had the Baath party, Nasserism, etc, and they all shared three main components. Firstly nationalism, in that they sought to create independent states, or in the case of pan-arabism, independent unions/blocs. Secondly, the anti-oppression aspect of socialism, as well as some form of protection to the poor. It's important to note that they were not at all marxist, Nasser sought "positive neutrality" in the cold war Thirdly, a positive stance towards religion, in that they did not seek to abolish it like the commies.
Labelling the ideologies that emerged in the arab world after the war simply "islamist" is a gross oversimplification, and quite simply wrong as well. Oh well, I'm sure that there are those who would happily call the Baath party, founded by a greek orthodox, islamist as well...
Well, the thing is that I provided a link with the information on the Algerian legal system which looks rather blatantly islamist. All you're providing is an opinion....
HoreTore
03-22-2012, 23:31
Well, the thing is that I provided a link with the information on the Algerian legal system which looks rather blatantly islamist. All you're providing is an opinion....
I have no desire to debate with people who obsess with links. When discussing the politics of a given country after a specific claim has been made, I take it for granted that the people who engage in said debate already has the required pre-knowledge.
As I said, I think you're really confusing rhetoric and practice here. Of course the government will try to do its best to pander to that part of the population, they're not stupid. However, when you look at the way they're effectively controlling the country, there's virtually no trace of political Islamism there.
So... the Salafist Front for Preaching and Combat in your opinion is not an islamist organization? Alrighty then!
I have no desire to debate with people who obsess with links...
Especially when those links provide facts that invalidate your opinions.
HoreTore
03-23-2012, 00:27
Especially when those links provide facts that invalidate your opinions.
If you say so.
If you say so.
I just did.
I have no desire to debate with people who obsess with links. When discussing the politics of a given country after a specific claim has been made, I take it for granted that the people who engage in said debate already has the required pre-knowledge.
Good for you, Nasser is an Egyptian by the way
Major Robert Dump
03-24-2012, 18:48
I like it how all the witty speculation dries up when the badguy turns out to be exactly what folks were hoping he wasn't for the sake of proving that others commit crimes just as bad as "those people."
When you have a Christian Democrat Party, do we considered the country as a Christian Republic? I am not a lover of Islam (err, religions in general in fact) but because there are Muslim Parties it doesn't mean that the country is Islamic.
As the murderer who built his fantasy world around what he read in the Net, he is dead, a shame for his family and a burden for his co-religionists who are most of them atheist, and just follow the Islamic way as part of the family tradition.
You did notice that the ban of the burkha didn't result in a wave of emigration from France, nor mass demonstration or riots...
That is the answer to this stupid murderer, who got caught because he used his mother's computer and din't know how to switch off the GPS of the motorbike he has stolen to his first victim. I wonder what they are trained for, in Pakistan...
He will finish forgotten as Kelkhal, and only useful as temporary fertilizer for plants and food for bugs.
I like it how all the witty speculation dries up when the badguy turns out to be exactly what folks were hoping he wasn't for the sake of proving that others commit crimes just as bad as "those people."
I got a sadistic touch, I am amused by that as well. The multicultural left dived on this like a pack of starved hyena's and they now kinda look like the idiots we know they are for making so much noise. Got to love desperation.
HoreTore
03-25-2012, 00:52
Good for you, Nasser is an Egyptian by the way
Seriously?
I like it how all the witty speculation dries up when the badguy turns out to be exactly what folks were hoping he wasn't for the sake of proving that others commit crimes just as bad as "those people."
Well crap! So Germany is invading France again!?!?
"I like it how all the witty speculation dries up when the badguy turns out to be exactly what folks were hoping he wasn't for the sake of proving that others commit crimes just as bad as "those people." Do you mean, "like the Norvegian one"? Because no body accused the Christianity for his murders... And he was much more efficient than the Islamic lunatic we've got in France...
The multicultural left dived on this like a pack of starved hyena's and they now kinda look like the idiots we know they are for making so much noise
Reread the first couple of pages of the Anders Behring Breivik page. I remember something completely different.
Not so smug now, are you?
a completely inoffensive name
03-25-2012, 10:49
The anecdotal evidence tells us that only angst filled white kids commit school shootings. Must be all that Green Day and Skrillex them kids be subscribed to.
Reread the first couple of pages of the Anders Behring Breivik page. I remember something completely different.
Not so smug now, are you?
Find me the post where I assume anything there. Sorry, no soup for you
The anecdotal evidence tells us that only angst filled white kids commit school shootings. Must be all that Green Day and Skrillex them kids be subscribed to.
Virginia-tech? No soup for you either
a completely inoffensive name
03-25-2012, 11:01
Virginia-tech? No soup for you either
Didn't you hear? That was the video games fault. Jack Thompson said so.
Didn't you hear? That was the video games fault. Jack Thompson said so.
But that makes total sense, an Asian could have lost a game Starcraft.
a completely inoffensive name
03-25-2012, 11:20
But that makes total sense, an Asian Korean could have lost a game Starcraft.
Fixed that for you.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-25-2012, 13:55
Reread the first couple of pages of the Anders Behring Breivik page. I remember something completely different.
Not so smug now, are you?
Breivk's MO was "international terror" and it has been years since an indiginous terrorist committed acts in his own country, excepting Northern Ireland sadly.
So the "Al-Qeida" angle was perfectly logical for that point of view, I remember little "crowing" at the time, though there was an attitude of "well, another one."
The reaction to the French shooting was "Look, this is what happens when politicians get Xenophobic, Sarkozy is responsible for his recent rhetoric". Certainly, the Guardian here ran pieces to that effect and and I have no doubt the French left-leaning press were even more forthright. The fact is though, they were wrong and Sarko looks right.
Brievik is shown to be an anomoly, an aboration, and the reasuring narrative of fear is restored.
To be fair to both sides, the MO was more IRA to Red Terror than Jihadist, but it was always more likely to be a Muslim overall and the fact that the Left jumped the gun serves them right.
Really?
Does it really matter whether a right-wing terrorist from Norway or one from Algeria killed several people?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-25-2012, 16:44
Really?
Does it really matter whether a right-wing terrorist from Norway or one from Algeria killed several people?
The French Left said it did, because they wanted to blame Sarkozy for what they saw as his "lurch to the right" - now he benefits from their haste.
Really?
Does it really matter whether a right-wing terrorist from Norway or one from Algeria killed several people?
I think we need an Algerian right-wing terrorist to bring balance to the universe.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-25-2012, 18:16
I think we need an Algerian right-wing terrorist to bring balance to the universe.
Nah, we need a Communist South American one to "balance" things.
gaelic cowboy
03-25-2012, 19:42
Really?
Does it really matter whether a right-wing terrorist from Norway or one from Algeria killed several people?
Yea it does the didn't the Spanish government get thrown out of office for trying to lay the Madrid bombing on ETA instead of manning up and admitting that AQ had attacked Spain.
gaelic cowboy
03-25-2012, 19:52
To be fair to both sides, the MO was more IRA to Red Terror than Jihadist
Actually if you think about it lately this MO is THE tactic of AQ inspired people lately, it's like AQ franchising if you will lone wolves or small isolated groups with no large network that can be intercepted.
And lets remember that much of the IRA/Red Terror MO was learned in the training camps in the middle east back in the day, to me it makes sense this tactic would resurface due to increased surveilence of AQ.
The French Left said it did, because they wanted to blame Sarkozy for what they saw as his "lurch to the right" - now he benefits from their haste.
And they are now predictably morally and intellectually superior in absolute silence. Except for a persistant French teacher who knew, for a fact, that it simply wasn't true, and demanded a minute of silence from her shocked class for the REAL victim. She has been suspended. Got to love lefties for always getting it all wrong
“The French Left said it did, because they wanted to blame Sarkozy for what they saw as his "lurch to the right" - now he benefits from their haste.”
No one from the French left said this. The one who spoke about the racist campaign from Sarkozy to regain on Le Pen was the Christian Democrat François Bayrou, far to be leftist this one. Marine Le Pen is trying desperately to gain on her alleged “victimisation” of her movement but is failing, as Sarkozy.
Sarkozy because he is the guy who was Minister of Interior and the President who cut in the police forces and the Interior Intelligence, and Le Pen because 2 of the 3 French soldiers were Muslim…
Sakoleon is at the end of the road.
Le Pen was crushed during a debate with the Leftist Jen Luc Mélenchon when she refused to answer to him. She is now trying a comeback thanks to this murder but her game is over, even if she greatly helped by the media. Sarkozy needs her as guard dog to push the leftist out of the game. But like a good doggy, she will go to the niche when she will have done her job. Well, that was the plan, and it failed.
I, for instance, will not vote for the so-called Socialist François Hollande. This guy has no programme, no spine and no bones. A future Papandreou, and we don’t need an Hollandreou. Sakozy sold France to the Troika, and only somebody with temper and pride can face their demands.
The Red is back on our flag.
Que se vayan todos.
And by the way, the French are more concern by unemployment, pension and low salaries than by a stupid murderer. Even with the media that try to convice them that they are.
Greyblades
03-26-2012, 20:23
And by the way, the French are more concern by unemployment, pension and low salaries than by a stupid murderer. Even with the media that try to convice them that they are.
[pretentious latin] Vita perseverat [/pretentious latin]
You must be reading other stuff Brenus, of course politicians are more cautious. Look at the purpose of this threat for example, it was initially started because of the euphoria over it not being a muslim for a change, or as labour putted it 'rubbing diversity in the noses of the right'. But the left simply got it all wrong, islam is a cancer not an enrichment, and the leftist multicultural religion could suck skippyballs through straw, it sucks that badly
...islam is a cancer not an enrichment, and the leftist multicultural religion could suck skippyballs through straw, it sucks that badly...
Indeed. I just find it surprising that in this day and age this is not obvious everyone. The acts of both islamist governments and islamist terrorists over the course of the last fifteen years have been pretty convincing as to what their nature is and what their goals are.
Kralizec
03-27-2012, 14:39
Sure it is. A lot of its laws are based on sharia, especially when it comes to family law, women's rights, religious freedom, etc.
Just quoted this bit because of the point I'm about to make. That Algeria's family law has islamic influences is to be expected, and this is the case for most countries with (largely) muslim populations. Family law is an area that tends to incorporate lots of religious and cultural influences, outright or subtle. This is also the case in the christian west, allthough probably to a lesser degree.
It certainly isn't secular in any sense of the word, and I find Sharia law to be abhorrent, but I'd still hesitate calling the Algerian government islamist. First and foremost it's a military dictatorship, whose regime has fought a long and bloody civil war against actual islamists. That there are islam-influenced laws on the books in Algeria is just local flavour, and not central to the regime's character, IMO.
It certainly isn't secular in any sense of the word, and I find Sharia law to be abhorrent, but I'd still hesitate calling the Algerian government islamist...
Can it be both non-secular and non-theocratic? I do not doubt that things can get worse though (i.e. like they are in Saudi Arabia), but the way things are right now is already bad enough imho. How islamist does it have to be in order to qualify as such?
To be fair, institution of sharia in one or another form is not a fundamental aspect of an Islamic or Islamist state. Let's be serious here.
To be fair, institution of sharia in one or another form is not a fundamental aspect of an Islamic or Islamist state. Let's be serious here.
Can you name an islamic or islamist state that has not implemented sharia into its legal code?
You misunderstand me; what I meant to say that the implementation of shari‘a law is not the only aspect of an Islamic state.
I think you really have to define what you mean with Islamist of Islamic here. It gets really murky.
EDIT: To define my position somewhat: A state can be secular, yet have an Islamist government. When you look at recent events in Tunsia, which is in many cases quite secularised but is currently led by a Islamist-leaning cabinet with an Islamist prime minister but has a liberal-secular president. Would you call Tunisia an Islamic state?
Another example is Turkey: heavily secularised, but currently being led by an Islamist government. Still, I don't think there's anyone who thinks Erdogan is the president of an Islamic state.
Algeria, strangely enough, has no such things. Islamist parties are barred from running in elections, the Algerian government has fought an incredibly bloody war against supposed Islamists and there is no presence of Islamists in the government right now. And yet, you'd say Algeria has an Islamist government? I don't think that opinion has any basis in reality.
HoreTore
03-27-2012, 15:23
Just quoted this bit because of the point I'm about to make. That Algeria's family law has islamic influences is to be expected, and this is the case for most countries with (largely) muslim populations. Family law is an area that tends to incorporate lots of religious and cultural influences, outright or subtle. This is also the case in the christian west, allthough probably to a lesser degree.
It certainly isn't secular in any sense of the word, and I find Sharia law to be abhorrent, but I'd still hesitate calling the Algerian government islamist. First and foremost it's a military dictatorship, whose regime has fought a long and bloody civil war against actual islamists. That there are islam-influenced laws on the books in Algeria is just local flavour, and not central to the regime's character, IMO.
Indeed. Saddam's laws(after the mid-80's change) wasn't very different from Algerias laws, yet calling Saddam an islamist is just nonsense.
Kralizec
03-27-2012, 15:26
Can it be both non-secular and non-theocratic? I do not doubt that things can get worse though (i.e. like they are in Saudi Arabia), but the way things are right now is already bad enough imho. How islamist does it have to be in order to qualify as such?
I really don't know much about Algeria; except that it became independant from France and some years later became embroiled in a civil war between the government and various islamic groups, with extreme atrocities. From the little that I know, I'm saying that the regime, at its core, does not adhere to an islamic ideology. Neither is it seriously dedicated to secularism or "enlightenment". The islamic influences on their legal system are to be expected because it's population is islamic and not particulary modern. That's why I called it "local flavour".
And yes, a country can be non-secular without being a theocracy. The UK, the nordic countries and probably others all have state churches.
You misunderstand me; what I meant to say that the implementation of shari‘a law is not the only aspect of an Islamic state.
I think you really have to define what you mean with Islamist of Islamic here. It gets really murky.
I'm not sure I get what you're driving at. What is the practical difference between an islamic and islamist state?
And yes, a country can be non-secular without being a theocracy. The UK, the nordic countries and probably others all have state churches.
Wait a minute, you are putting the UK in the same basket as Algeria? Really? That's just ridiculous.
Kralizec
03-27-2012, 15:41
No, just pointing out that a state which is not entirely secular is not necessarily a theocracy. I've been to Britain twice in my life and I got the impression that it was a nicer place to live than Algeria (allthough tourist visits may be a poor indication), but Britain is the one which (still) has institutionalised clerical influence on their government.
No, just pointing out that a state which is not entirely secular is not necessarily a theocracy. I've been to Britain twice in my life and I got the impression that it was a nicer place to live than Algeria (allthough tourist visits may be a poor indication), but Britain is the one which (still) has institutionalised clerical influence on their government.
The clerical influence in the British government is about as prominent as the monarch's role in day-to-day politics (i.e. in name only). You can argue that on paper Britain is not secular, but for all practical purposes it is.
I'm not sure I get what you're driving at. What is the practical difference between an islamic and islamist state?
Yeah, I'm asking you.
Strike For The South
03-27-2012, 16:21
I don't understand how hard it is to tease the nuance out of thing.
In majorily muslim countries Islam tends to be popular (lolz) and, more importantly well organized. It's only logical that any aspiring political party would at bare minimum pay lip service to it.
Islam is much more centeral in those places than christianity is here but nearly every single politican wastes time trying to convince us he is Godly.
Granted I would expect nothing less from someone whose signature is from the greatest pox ever to wear the uniform of the United States army
Kralizec
03-27-2012, 16:28
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?139902-Could-you-manage-to-live-on-777-75-a-week
The influence of those "Lords Spiritual" should not be overstated, but it's there allright. According to the law the monarch and the prime minister of the UK have to be protestants, or at least not catholics. Now all of this is pretty immaterial in daily British life, and it's no theocracy, but that doesn't change the fact that the UK isn't a secular state.
The influence of those "Lords Spiritual" should not be overstated, but it's there allright. According to the law the monarch and the prime minister of the UK have to be protestants, or at least not catholics
Umm... Tony Blair is a Catholic and a very vocal one at that.
Granted I would expect nothing less from someone whose signature is from the greatest pox ever to wear the uniform of the United States army
I think of him as a God's punishment for the betrayers of the Union.
Yeah, I'm asking you.
Islamist state == blasphemy laws, apostasy laws, houdood, etc...
Islamic State == Islamist State.
Now, there are states with muslim majority that aren't islamist.... well there's one, Turkey, and things might change there soon.
Strike For The South
03-27-2012, 16:47
I think of him as a God's punishment for the betrayers of the Union.
My family was building this country while yours was still miried in its own slop, in whatever hellhole south and east of Vienna they decided to crawl out of.
I have neither the time nor the inclination.
I have neither the time nor the inclination.
Indeed. I'm gonna ignore trolls like you from now on.
Strike For The South
03-27-2012, 16:51
Indeed. I'm gonna ignore trolls like you from now on.
:'(
Kralizec
03-27-2012, 17:32
Umm... Tony Blair is a Catholic and a very vocal one at that.
Yeah, he became a vocal catholic after he left office.
A lot of people were suspicious before that, since his wife was catholic and his children were being raised as such, but while he was the PM he was formally an Anglican.
gaelic cowboy
03-27-2012, 18:12
Umm... Tony Blair is a Catholic and a very vocal one at that.
He converted to Catholicism after he left office not during, some people blathereed about constitutional crisis if he had converted while Prime Minister but it was only ever a fringe.
As far as I know technically he doesnt actually pick the Archbishop he is given a list of names and advised the best candidate then he appoints the person so the PM being actually Protestant is uneccessary.
Anyway the PM is only head of government and not Head of State so his/her religion is immaterial, but it is wrong that the Head of States religion is declared to be only allowed to be Anglicanism.
Incidently thats probably why the Catholic Church gets every one to recognise the Holy See and not the Vatican City State the Holy See is the government of the Church which is based in the Vatican. A small diplomatic point but probably important nonetheless.
So rvg, how exactly is the GIA a part of the establishment in Algeria?
Islamist state == blasphemy laws, apostasy laws, houdood, etc...
Islamic State == Islamist State.
Now, there are states with muslim majority that aren't islamist.... well there's one, Turkey, and things might change there soon.
Really? We have blasphemy laws too, in the Netherlands, but I don't think anyone's really aiming at calling the Netherlands a Christian theocracy.
So rvg, how exactly is the GIA a part of the establishment in Algeria?
Algeria passed an amnesty law back in 1999... 85% of GIA people took the opportunity and integrated into the mainstream society. The rest were arrested/eliminated by the government. GIA for all practical purposes does not exist anymore and the bulk of its members are now part of the establishment.
Anyway the PM is only head of government and not Head of State so his/her religion is immaterial, but it is wrong that the Head of States religion is declared to be only allowed to be Anglicanism.
imho it makes sense since the monarch is also the head of the Church of England. It would be silly for a non-Anglican to be the head of the Anglican Church.
You mean they're able to live in Algeria. My father experienced the same thing back in the 1980s, right.
They're not actually part of the government, you know, they don't have to be afraid to be killed for their political opinions. This makes the government Islamist how?
EDIT: And talking about the GIA, there's actually a lot we can talk about concerning government infiltration within terrorist groups in Algeria.
You mean they're able to live in Algeria. My father experienced the same thing back in the 1980s, right.
They're not actually part of the government, you know, they don't have to be afraid to be killed for their political opinions. This makes the government Islamist how?
The government is islamist because many of Algeria's laws are islamist, and the government upholds and enforces those laws.
Really? We have blasphemy laws too, in the Netherlands, but I don't think anyone's really aiming at calling the Netherlands a Christian theocracy.
Number of people convicted under that law: zero.
gaelic cowboy
03-27-2012, 18:34
imho it makes sense since the monarch is also the head of the Church of England. It would be silly for a non-Anglican to be the head of the Anglican Church.
Why does the Monarch need to be head of the church anymore???
They have laws based on shari'a, definitely. If that's the only designation we need to proclaim that a country is Islamist, whatever. Back in 2008 an appeals court overruled a decision made by a lower court that had sentenced six men to a fine of about a thousand dollars each for violating fast during Ramadan. The reason given was that the original sentence was in violation of the Constitution. That's the scary Islamist government and state for you, right there.
But within your very limited conception of what Islam is, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. I mean, within your conception you'd probably designate the Tunisian state as Islamist as well, even though top officials are supporting the rights of gays and lesbians (http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ex-diplomat-quizzes-tunisian-leader-gay-rights) as we speak. Islamist state, people. An Islamist state.
Rhyfelwyr
03-27-2012, 18:40
Hey in Britain there's actually some controversy right now because the government is thinking of temporarily relaxing its laws for enforcing the sabbath during the Olympics.
They have laws based on shari'a, definitely. If that's the only designation we need to proclaim that a country is Islamist, whatever. Back in 2008 an appeals court overruled a decision made by a lower court that had sentenced six men to a fine of about a thousand dollars each for violating fast during Ramadan. The reason given was that the original sentence was in violation of the Constitution. That's the scary Islamist government and state for you, right there.
And therein lies the problem: the sentence was in violation, not the actual conviction
But within your very limited conception of what Islam is...
Yeah, go ahead and make your baseless and clueless assumptions.
I mean, within your conception you'd probably designate the Tunisian state as Islamist as well, even though top officials are supporting the rights of gays and lesbians (http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/ex-diplomat-quizzes-tunisian-leader-gay-rights) as we speak. Islamist state, people. An Islamist state.
We were talking about Algeria, not its eastern neighbor. Tunisia has its own set of problems.
gaelic cowboy
03-27-2012, 18:50
Hey in Britain there's actually some controversy right now because the government is thinking of temporarily relaxing its laws for enforcing the sabbath during the Olympics.
:laugh4::laugh4:
And therein lies the problem: the sentence was in violation, not the actual conviction
My bad. I meant to say conviction. My mistake! Source (http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119112.htm):
On October 5, a judge found all six guilty and fined them 120,000 dinars each ($1,770). Six days later an appeals court judge overruled the decision, saying that the original sentence violated the constitution, which provides for freedom of belief.
Yeah, go ahead and make your baseless and clueless assumptions.
Fire with fire, eh. I mean, can read Arabic and even though I study Middle-Eastern studies at one of the most respected and oldest universities in the world when it comes to that subject I don't really think that it counts for anything. I mean, I should probably just bow down to your infinite wisdom, because of course, your in-depth personal experience and flawless analysis of the state of the Islamic world in the 20th century can't possibly be argued with. Right?
Fire with fire, eh. I mean, can read Arabic and even though I study Middle-Eastern studies at one of the most respected and oldest universities in the world when it comes to that subject I don't really think that it counts for anything. I mean, I should probably just bow down to your infinite wisdom, because of course, your in-depth personal experience and flawless analysis of the state of the Islamic world in the 20th century can't possibly be argued with. Right?
Talking about my very limited conception of what Islam is makes a lot of presumptions for which you have no basis. I'm not asking you to bow to anything, but if you expect to sway one's opinion, it has to be done with facts, with logic. The fact remains that in Algeria the are still many laws on the books that contravene the very definition of the secular state. Those laws are islamist to the core and unless they are expunged or at the very least the government stops enforcing them, Algeria will remain an islamist state. Not as bad as Arabia, but still very far from the secular Turkish republic.
As for your source.... beware of what you link to.
And I quote...
The constitution provides for freedom of belief and opinion, but in practice the government restricted religious freedom. The constitution declares Islam to be the state religion and prohibits institutions from engaging in behavior incompatible with Islamic morality. More than 99 percent of the population is Sunni Muslim. The constitution prohibits non-Muslims from running for the presidency. Non-Muslims may hold other public offices and work within the government; however, human rights observers reported that such workers were not promoted and that some hid their religious affiliation.
In February the government began enforcing Ordinance 06-03, which increased restrictions on non-Muslim worship. The law limits the practice of non-Muslim religions and restricts public assembly for the purpose of worship. The law requires organized religious groups to register with the government, controls the importation of religious texts, increases punishments for individuals who proselytize Muslims, and treats transgressions as criminal rather than civil offenses.
According to reports from church leaders and human rights organizations, the government ordered the closure of 27 churches for alleged noncompliance with the ordinance during the year. The government also pressured domestic pastors, religious converts, and one foreign Catholic priest, accusing some of breaking the law's provisions banning proselytism.
On January 30, a court in Maghnia issued a one-year suspended prison sentence to a foreign Catholic priest for praying with Cameroonian migrants in an unauthorized place of worship. Upon appeal he received a reduced suspended prison sentence of two months and a fine of 20,150 dinars ($297). He filed a new appeal, which was pending at the end of the year.
In February authorities informed Reverend Hugh Johnson, a retired Methodist minister who resided in the country for 45 years, that his residence permit would not be renewed and advised him to leave the country. He was not provided an official reason for the nonrenewal and departed in March. According to press reports, a government official said Johnson was ordered to leave for reasons relevant to the "security of the state."
The law requires religious groups to register their organizations with the government prior to conducting any religious activity. The Catholic Church was the only non-Islamic religious group officially registered to operate in the country. The Protestant, Anglican, and Seventh-day Adventist churches had pending registration requests with the government and reported no government interference in their holding services. Other churches operated without registration, some openly, while others secretly practiced their faith in homes. Some churches, including Methodist and Presbyterian, affiliated their organizations with the Protestant Church of Algeria.
Between February and April, members of a church in Ouadhia said they attempted to apply for registration 12 times. In each case local authorities refused to accept the documents.
Conversion is not illegal under civil law, and apostasy is not a criminal offense; however, the government interprets Shari'a as banning conversion from Islam to another religion. On March 30, authorities charged Habiba Kouider with "practicing a non-Muslim religion without a permit." The prosecutor asked that Kouider be sentenced to three years in prison. Kouider was traveling by bus when police questioned her and found her to be carrying Bibles and other religious materials. At year's end the case remained ongoing.
During the year authorities arrested Christian converts Yousef Ourahmane, Rachid Seghir, Hamid Ramdani, Djammal Dahmani, Jillali Saidi, Abdelhak Rabhi, and Chaaban Baikel for various combinations of proselytizing, blasphemy, and illegally practicing a non-Muslim faith. Courts sentenced each to prison terms and fines. A court acquitted Ourahmane, Seghir, and Ramdani of their charges on October 29. The other cases were pending at the end of the year.
Authorities arrested six residents of the town of Biskra for eating and playing cards during daylight hours of Ramadan. On October 5, a judge found all six guilty and fined them 120,000 dinars each ($1,770). Six days later an appeals court judge overruled the decision, saying that the original sentence violated the constitution, which provides for freedom of belief. In a separate incident, the Algiers appeals court on November 18 reduced the sentence of three years' imprisonment to two months of time served for three men convicted of smoking during Ramadan. Authorities arrested the men September 21 and detained them for the duration of their trial.
To me this sounds like an islamist state.
Why does the Monarch need to be head of the church anymore???
To keep the divorces going?
No, rvg, I'm totally cool with your definition of Islamist. Let's just use that one from now on and bomb everyone in the Middle-East. It'd solve a lot of problems, right?
No, rvg, I'm totally cool with your definition of Islamist. Let's just use that one from now on and bomb everyone in the Middle-East. It'd solve a lot of problems, right?
You're the one suggesting it, not I.
Isn't it what you're implying though?
It's nothing against you personally, it's just that I'm sick and tired of all these self-appointed experts on Islamic jurisprudence and the position of Islamic law within civil society. We spend like 1/3rds of every class pertaining to this issue defining exactly what Islamism is and what kind of position it has, but you're just barging through that with your own interpretation that has no real basis in reality. That's exactly what my problem is. That's right, I don't think you know a lot about the Middle East.
Isn't it what you're implying though?
Where? How? I just want to call a spade a spade, i.e. call Algeria for what it is: an islamist state. How does one jump from that to bombing? Can you explain your leap of logic here?
You are fully aware of the implications of designating a state or an organisation as Islamist: against the West, potentially funding terrorists, imposing Islamic law on the population, basically as a threat to the West.
Also, your designation of calling Algeria an Islamist state is just not founded in reality. There's absolutely nothing there. Now if you'd said Saudi-Arabia, I could go along. But Algeria, an Islamist state? Let's get real here.
You are fully aware of the implications of designating a state or an organisation as Islamist: against the West, potentially funding terrorists, imposing Islamic law on the population, basically as a threat to the West.
Saudi Arabia does not seem to care....
Also, your designation of calling Algeria an Islamist state is just not founded in reality. There's absolutely nothing there. Now if you'd said Saudi-Arabia, I could go along. But Algeria, an Islamist state? Let's get real here.
So, persecuting Christians in Algeria is not islamist? Jailing people for non-compliance with ramadan is not Islamist? Did you even read your own source?
How about acquitting those same people because according the court judged no criminal activity had been produced (http://www.christianity.com/11596245/)? And other such examples (http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/newsbriefs/general/2007/10/08/newsbrief-01)
If you want to use every single example in which a Muslim country passes a law that finds its roots in shari‘a, you can go ahead. For me, that's not nearly enough to pass judgement on the entirety of the state. Not nearly. The Algerian government keeps close track of who's doing what in terms of religion. The state is controlling religion, not the other way around. I think that's a fundamental aspect of an Islamic state.
How about acquitting those same people because according the court judged no criminal activity had been produced (http://www.christianity.com/11596245/)? If you want to use every single example in which a Muslim country passes a law that finds its roots in shari‘a, you can go ahead. For me, that's not nearly enough to pass judgement on the entirety of the state. Not nearly.
So, what's the magic number then? How many infractions against religious liberty does a muslim state get to have before they are declared islamist?
Well, apparently, the justice apparatus is working, isn't it? People are being acquitted. Apparently, the state is not persecuting Christians or are they?
Well, apparently, the justice apparatus is working, isn't it? People are being acquitted. Apparently, the state is not persecuting Christians or are they?
In that specific case it has worked. Now, to bring the attention to the cartoon case:
Prosecutors sought five-year prison terms for Chriet and Khatir and three-year terms for the other journalists, but the court ruled that the broadcast did not intend to ridicule the Prophet. Chriet claimed that the tape had not been verified and the cartoons' broadcast was thus a technical error.
The only reason why these men didn't get jailed is because they proved that the broadcast was an accident. This is not in any way an indication that they are free to publish the cartoons.
You are trying to put a lot of lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
HoreTore
03-27-2012, 20:24
So, what's the magic number then? How many infractions against religious liberty does a muslim state get to have before they are declared islamist?
You're searching in quite the wrong place. The UK has a large public sector, yet it is not communist Russia. Nor are the foundation of the UK's public sector and the foundation of the USSR the same.
Islamism is a specific political theory, it is not simply a catch-all phrase for states in the muslim world who suppress religious freedom and has religious influence on its society(laws). It seems you believe the latter, and as such Algeria fits your use of Islamism. If so, you are using the term in a different way than the rest of us, hence the counter-arguments you juet met.
Islamism is a specific political theory, it is not simply a catch-all phrase for states in the muslim world who suppress religious freedom and has religious influence on its society(laws). It seems you believe the latter, and as such Algeria fits your use of Islamism. If so, you are using the term in a different way than the rest of us, hence the counter-arguments you juet met.
So, what would in your view be the definition of a muslim state that suppresses religious freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma?
HoreTore
03-27-2012, 20:34
So, what would in your view be the definition of a muslim state that suppresses religious freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma?
A muslim state which suppresses religous freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma.
Edit: usually, however, I just refer to them as "dictatorships" for simplicity.
A muslim state which suppresses religous freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma.
I can live with that. So, Hax, I retract my statement about Algeria being an islamist state. Algeria is merely a muslim state that suppresses religious freedom and bases its laws on religious dogma. I hope you're cool with that.
Well rvg, the one problem I have with your argument is that when you say it's about how things effectively work, then the US is a theocracy as well since noone has any hopes of being elected as president without showing that they are a devout christian sticking up for christian morals.
Besides that, there is a lot of suppression of freedom in the US based on some old christian morals and teachings, of course that isn't always encoded in the law but you said earlier it's about how thing effectively work out. Does it realistically make a difference whether a constitution or 60% of the people demand that a president be of a certain religion? In both cases you end up with a president who is expected to adhere to a religious code, essentially making your country a theocracy. :sweatdrop:
Well rvg, the one problem I have with your argument is that when you say it's about how things effectively work, then the US is a theocracy as well since noone has any hopes of being elected as president without showing that they are a devout christian sticking up for christian morals.
You mean, like Mormon Mitt Romney?
Besides that, there is a lot of suppression of freedom in the US based on some old christian morals and teachings, of course that isn't always encoded in the law but you said earlier it's about how thing effectively work out.
Got proof?
Does it realistically make a difference whether a constitution or 60% of the people demand that a president be of a certain religion? In both cases you end up with a president who is expected to adhere to a religious code, essentially making your country a theocracy. :sweatdrop:
Where do you come up with this nonsense?
HoreTore
03-30-2012, 20:14
Uhm.... Did you just argue that christianity and mormonism are two different religions....?
I think you just proved Husar's point.
As for proof of suppression of freedoms; compare live at the apollo with live in new york....
Uhm.... Did you just argue that christianity and mormonism are two different religions....?
Of course I did.
As for proof of suppression of freedoms; compare live at the apollo with live in new york....
Que?
You mean, like Mormon Mitt Romney?
What HoreTore said, Mormonism is just Christianity's crazy little brother. ~;)
Got proof?
Your legal drinking and having sex and driving age are mostly 21 or at least higher than in the rest of the world.
Abortions are largely illegal because of religious birthers if I'm not mistaken.
You were really late to the party concerning gay marriage because of religious resistance.
Obama saying churches have to provide contraceptives via insurance to their employees like every other employer is somehow a huge deal in your country etc.
Obama was criticized by a large portion of people for "being a muslim" as though that were a bad thing.
Nipplegate.
Where do you come up with this nonsense?
The 60% were hypothetical, that the reality of a situation makes a country a theocracy is something that you mentioned yourself although it's possible that I misunderstood how you meant that.
Oh and I don't think the USA is a theocracy, it was a generic statement anyway.
Tellos Athenaios
03-30-2012, 20:32
Where do you come up with this nonsense?
It depends, but hey you've got people like Santorum in the race so it's not that far fetched. The guy appeals to a base who would quite happily turn the USA into a theocracy in every sense of the word. Oh yes I hear you: right now he's probably just pandering away, as are the lot of them, and in reality he might not enact anything like it. But at the core the base isn't just pandering to itself, it is their belief America should have a much more theocratic approach to government.
(This thing, btw, isn't unique to US of A -- we've got some hard lines proddies who seek to implement an uncompromising theocracy in the Netherlands, as well.)
That in this hypothetical theocracy of America there might not be quite the same level of virtue police on the streets isn't very relevant then. What matters is that his base wants essentially an affirmation of one flavour of religion (Christianity in its broader sense) as supreme over others and specifically seek to remove the separation of Church and State which is supposed to prevent theocractic lawmaking.
About got proof: you might find the gay marriage issue to be highly instructive, as you might also find laws against polygamy highly instructive. Note that you can argue the points from a non-Christian-values perspective, but so far that is largely not how the debate has been argued by those in favour of restrictions on these arrangements. It's therefore fair to conclude that it is a particular religious world view which effectively restricts the liberties of others who do not fit it.
What HoreTore said, Mormonism is just Christianity's crazy little brother. ~;)
How familiar are you with the Mormon religious creed?
Your legal drinking and having sex and driving age are mostly 21 or at least higher than in the rest of the world.
Legal drinking age -- 21, same as Russia. Driving? 16. Sexual Consent? Varies by state, but generally 16-17
Abortions are largely illegal because of religious birthers if I'm not mistaken.
You are mistaken. Abortions are legal.
You were really late to the party concerning gay marriage because of religious resistance.
Religious aspect is just one reason for it, not the only reason.
Obama saying churches have to provide contraceptives via insurance to their employees like every other employer is somehow a huge deal in your country etc.
So, having a dissenting opinion is a sign of theocracy?
Obama was criticized by a large portion of people for "being a muslim" as though that were a bad thing.
Is it a good thing?
Nipplegate.
Nothing to do with religion.
The 60% were hypothetical, that the reality of a situation makes a country a theocracy is something that you mentioned yourself although it's possible that I misunderstood how you meant that.
Oh and I don't think the USA is a theocracy, it was a generic statement anyway.
I'm not sure what you mean here...
It depends, but hey you've got people like Santorum in the race so it's not that far fetched. The guy appeals to a base who would quite happily turn the USA into a theocracy in every sense of the word. Oh yes I hear you: right now he's probably just pandering away, as are the lot of them, and in reality he might not enact anything like it. But at the core the base isn't just pandering to itself, it is their belief America should have a much more theocratic approach to government.
There's a huge difference between what some people might want and what the state actually does. For instance, I want hackers to be hanged in public. That's not gonna happen though.
That in this hypothetical theocracy of America there might not be quite the same level of virtue police on the streets isn't very relevant then. What matters is that his base wants essentially an affirmation of one flavour of religion (Christianity in its broader sense) as supreme over others and specifically seek to remove the separation of Church and State which is supposed to prevent theocractic lawmaking.
Where's your evidence?
About got proof: you might find the gay marriage issue to be highly instructive, as you might also find laws against polygamy highly instructive. Note that you can argue the points from a non-Christian-values perspective, but so far that is largely not how the debate has been argued by those in favour of restrictions on these arrangements. It's therefore fair to conclude that it is a particular religious world view which effectively restricts the liberties of others who do not fit it.
So ban on polygamy == theocracy? Really? You gotta do better than this.
HoreTore
03-30-2012, 21:04
Of course I did.
Where's that popcorn smiley.....
Live at the Apollo is a stand-up show on BBC. Live in New York is the american version. Compare.
Where's that popcorn smiley.....
Live at the Apollo is a stand-up show on BBC. Live in New York is the american version. Compare.
Never watched either one of them. What's your point?
Is it a good thing?
What does being a Muslim have to do with being a capable president? It's not a bad or a good thing, it's about as relevant to his administrative capabilities as what kind of cereal he likes in the morning.
What does being a Muslim have to do with being a capable president? It's not a bad or a good thing, it's about as relevant to his administrative capabilities as what kind of cereal he likes in the morning.
True, but nobody's obligated to think like that. People can favor it or disfavor it, take it into consideration or ignore it.
Greyblades
03-30-2012, 22:20
Where's that popcorn smiley.....
Live at the Apollo is a stand-up show on BBC. Live in New York is the american version. Compare.
:pop2:
And I'm not obligated to ignore it when people pretend that it's a big deal, right? I mean, have we reached the situation where self-identification as a Muslim automatically brands you as being potentially harmful? That's really something of a dangerous road to go on.
And I'm not obligated to ignore it when people pretend that it's a big deal, right?
Of course not. Your opinion is just as valid.
I mean, have we reached the situation where self-identification as a Muslim automatically brands you as being potentially harmful? That's really something of a dangerous road to go on.
For some. Some people see past that, some don't. Ultimately they vote according to what they think is best (for them and/or for their country).
Rhyfelwyr
03-30-2012, 23:25
What does being a Muslim have to do with being a capable president? It's not a bad or a good thing, it's about as relevant to his administrative capabilities as what kind of cereal he likes in the morning.
I want my political representatives to be people that reflect me and my world. My values, my culture, my history etc. A Muslim cannot be a part of that.
Would that also be the case when everything he's done during his career reflect your wishes?
Would that also be the case when everything he's done during his career reflect your wishes?
Ultimately, it's a question of merit. While being a muslim does not win you any favors in America, people will overlook it if you're really good at what you're aiming to be. At this point I'd vote for Lucifer himself if he were to propose a balanced budget.
And that's exactly why I actually really admire America. Well, parts of it at least.
Rhyfelwyr
03-31-2012, 02:22
If he has a different belief system I don't see how all the decisions that he makes could reflect what I want. Although this point is moot for Obama since obviousy he isn't a Muslim.
But on the Obama point, as far as American politicians go, I like him. He's a sensible guy, I would trust his as a political leader.
But I'm a romanticist, I want something more than that. I want to be able to really identify with my political leaders. And not just them, I want to really be able to identify with the people that live around me.
I want to live in a world where I see my friends and their parents and their Granny at church on a Sunday. I want to be able to go for a pint with them after work with then and grab a bacon buttie on the way home. I want to look at the buildings around me and feel like I am in Britain and not Waziristan. I want my little brother to get a part-time job at the shop down the road and not get rejected because they just hired 50 immigrants. I want to read a history book about my ancestors like William Wallace and Cuchulainn and know that it is their blood that flows in my veins. That I am what I am and the world around me is the way it is because of what they did. I want my children to look remotely like me and know that in 1,000 years we will still be the same people.
And all this is why I find the typical debates on immigration and cultural differences to be... uninspiring. Unlike the right, I don't want foreigners to assimilate. Unlike the left, I don't want want a society of many cultures. I don't care for the EDL and their appeals against Islamic extremism, since they have little basis in reality.
I know that the Muslim world has a great and complex history, and wish its people all the best. But here, in the UK... this is not the Muslim world. Islam is out of place here and always will be. Protestantism lies at the heart of everything that Britain stands for and has done for thousands of years.
Britain is fundamentally a WASP nation. Everything that Britain and Britishness means was shaped by a purely WASP people. That to me seems to be extremely significant.
And I'm not obligated to ignore it when people pretend that it's a big deal, right? I mean, have we reached the situation where self-identification as a Muslim automatically brands you as being potentially harmful? That's really something of a dangerous road to go on.
One rules out the other, if he's serious about his religion he cannot be democratic
No True Scotsman.
Why are you judging who is a Muslim and who isn't? Why don't you let them decide for themselves?
I want to live in a world where I see my friends and their parents and their Granny at church on a Sunday. I want to be able to go for a pint with them after work with then and grab a bacon buttie on the way home. I want to look at the buildings around me and feel like I am in Britain and not Waziristan. I want my little brother to get a part-time job at the shop down the road and not get rejected because they just hired 50 immigrants. I want to read a history book about my ancestors like William Wallace and Cuchulainn and know that it is their blood that flows in my veins. That I am what I am and the world around me is the way it is because of what they did. I want my children to look remotely like me and know that in 1,000 years we will still be the same people.
Identification, for me, is self-appropriation of the national identity of the place where you were born and raised. I feel more connected to Europe than most, but ethnically speaking, I'm really not? What's your solution for the people born from mixed marriages?
It's quite simple Hax, you can be our best friend here, but you can't be family. Anyone denying that is an idiot, Europe is for Europeans and you can stay, but nothing is going to change that we will always want the pea-soup granny made. We are people as well.
So I'm not European enough to be family?
So I'm not European enough to be family?
You are a metaphore here Hax, what I'm saying is that there can never be western-islamic understanding. Even if we wanted to it wouldn't be possible because of the nature of islam. We grew up diffrently so to speak.
Bull.
Don't think you can just dodge my question just by saying I'm being used as a metaphor.
Algerians raus? (chat inside joke)
Bull.
Don't think you can just dodge my question just by saying I'm being used as a metaphor.
I simply din't can't be bothered to be answering it, what's it to you if I answer it. You already know how I feel about that desert-ideoligy called islam
This is not about Islam, this is about me.
This is not about Islam, this is about me.
You are welcome, the islam is not. A sentiment that is as commom now as it was with the inquisition when they tried to burn everything in sightt. No religion here please, any
As if anyone has the right to tell me I'm welcome here. I was born and raised here, for crying out loud.
HoreTore
03-31-2012, 14:04
Aren't you buddhist, Hax?
Aren't you buddhist, Hax?
Wiccan.
As if anyone has the right to tell me I'm welcome here. I was born and raised here, for crying out loud.
In America that would be good enough. Ethnicity here means next to nothing.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-31-2012, 18:30
This is not about Islam, this is about me.
Surely it's more properly that you're not Dutch enough to be family?
If want to extend the question to Europeanism (whatever that is) then, no, you can't really qualify.
I've been thinking about this for a while, so let me try to explain my thoughts.
I am English, in fact I can failry lay claim to being a Wessex man. It's not that I'm English because I'm white, rather that I'm white because I'm English, race isn't a determiner of identity here, it's just a visual marker, and it doesn't extend just to skin colour. My hair and eye colour, along with my build and facial features mark me out as British, that peculiar mix of Celtic anf Germanic and not Dutch or Scandanavian, even though I am 1/4 Swedish and have a Swedish name.
You said it yourself, you appropriated a European identity, but I was born with one, not because of who my parents are, but much more because of who my great-grandparents are. My ancestors fought, lived, died, loved, broke the law, built farms, commissioned stained glass windows... mostly in England and a little in Wales Sweden.
I can tell you the story of my family, and if you cared to I could show you the places they lived and some of the marks they left going back several hundred years - over a thousand in one case. This is what determines my "Englishness", as part of the continual narrative of England, and a few other places.
You only have a very tenuous link to the narrative of the Netherlands and Europe. Your children, grandchildren etc., will have a stronger one, and if you marry a tall buxom Dutch maid your children then become part of Dutch history in the same way as children of two "ethnically" Dutch parents
rvg's comment about America is quite telling, most American have no "American" history in any way like history we have in Europe. I once heard an American author say Americans have no history, except in the South. I think that's probably true in a sense, if you arrived after the Civil War then the first big even is the First World War, and that's almost within living memory. On the other hand, if you look at the "old money" families, they are usually descended from the original English or Dutch colonists, and they are quite an insualr group viz identity - like the English aristocracy, who are actually Norman.
If that all sounds a bit much, the basic point is this: how we concieve of identity is much more about the past and the narrative we construct than the present and there isn't really a way or escaping that.
...most American have no "American" history in any way like history we have in Europe. I once heard an American author say Americans have no history, except in the South. I think that's probably true in a sense, if you arrived after the Civil War then the first big even is the First World War, and that's almost within living memory. On the other hand, if you look at the "old money" families, they are usually descended from the original English or Dutch colonists, and they are quite an insualr group viz identity - like the English aristocracy, who are actually Norman.
Yep, that's pretty much it: aside from a handful of silver spooned blue bloods people do not care about one's ethnicity. They are generally aware of where they descend from but in terms of everyday life it is irrelevant. In Michigan for example there are lots of people of Dutch descent. Especially on the Western side of the state it seems like every Tom, Dick and Harry is Van der This or Van der That. But they're not Dutch and nobody sees them as Dutch. They are Americans in the fullest sense of the word, they see themselves as Americans and people around them see them as Americans. Yes, they're of Dutch descent, but so what? Probably half of North Dakota is of Norwegian descent, but they're still totally American. Yeah, occasionally they chow down some lutefisk, but there's no harm in that (well, at least not to others).
Now, Southeast Michigan has a very strong middle-eastern influence. Mostly Chaldean christians but plenty of muslims as well (of both the sunni and shia flavor). First generation immigrants from among them generally do not assimilate well, but their kids are all American. So you see these combinations of headscarves+jeans+ipads+perfect english+the usual inane teenager babble about some nonsensical topics. Welcome to America.
Tellos Athenaios
03-31-2012, 19:11
So ban on polygamy == theocracy? Really?
Who wrote that, and where? Oh you meant that was your own "leap of faith", reading things that weren't there? No? Then please quote and mind you quote verbatim, I do insist.
Fragony: please don't threaten me with pea soup. I for one think the place has improved much since the Turks moved into the local neighbourhood with quality edible vegetables at reasonable prices, plus I rather like their baking. Also: tajine is a lot better than suddervlees.
Who wrote that, and where? Oh you meant that was your own "leap of faith", reading things that weren't there? No? Then please quote and mind you quote verbatim, I do insist.
If that's not your point, then what is your point?
Tellos Athenaios
03-31-2012, 19:26
Philip, then again there's also French republicans. I'd say that is a different kind of identity altogether. One of course strengthens the other but it does provide a means to facilitate absorption into wider French society, which is inherently difficult in the English village kind of identity that you describe. Then again, there's also this notion of "British Empire" which people like Furnunculus tend to ascribe to and I guess in some ways it is a highly similar identity lubricant.
Tellos Athenaios
03-31-2012, 19:39
If that's not your point, then what is your point?
I offer counter examples to your original dismissal of Hussar's stated point, namely that even without being a theocracy you can have debate about laws founded on the views of a particular religion which are defended with appeals to the same religion and which are about the restriction of liberties of people who do not ascribe to these religious views.
To me the example of the USA is merely a detail in his reasoning.
I thought that was stating the obvious then but I don't see how a rephrasing now is going to make it any more obvious.
I offer counter examples to your original dismissal of Hussar's stated point, namely that even without being a theocracy you can have debate about laws founded on the views of a particular religion which are defended with appeals to the same religion and which are about the restriction of liberties of people who do not ascribe to these religious views.
I thought that was stating the obvious then but I don't see how a rephrasing now is going to make it any more obvious.
Okay, I'm pretty sure that in atheist China both gay marriage and polygamy are a no-no. That's quite a paradox then.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-31-2012, 19:47
@Phil (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=22133)ip, then again there's also French republicans. I'd say that is a different kind of identity altogether. One of course strengthens the other but it does provide a means to facilitate absorption into wider French society, which is inherently difficult in the English village kind of identity that you describe. Then again, there's also this notion of "British Empire" which people like Furnunculus tend to ascribe to and I guess in some ways it is a highly similar identity lubricant.
Correct on all counts. This obviously depends on the kind of identity you're looking to assimilate to. If you're a Jamaican and you want to be seen as British, someone whose ancestors were litterally in the tremches with mine own and therefore has as much right to be here as me. then that's not going to be problematic. If, however, you want to be seen as "English", that is problematic. In one sense, if you were born in a country and are a citizen of that country that is the end of it. On the other hand, I can utter phrases such as, "when we were fighting Napoleon my family were yoeman farmers in Eastern Hampshire" where a Jamaican can only say, "when you were fighting Napoleon my family were slaves on a sugar plantation." Even though we do have shared history the position of my family and his in that history are totally different.
Rather like "Gay marriage" this is a modern confusion, because we have moved from a backward and forward looking conception of society to a very current one. Even as much as forty years ago it would have been obvious that to be English is to be Anglo-Saxon because the two a synomic, likewise being being German required being Germanic, being French required being Gallic...
Actually, in this context Algerians are particularly interesting because a lot of Algerians DID lay down their lives for La Republique, which is not the same as dying for the Empire.
Tellos Athenaios
03-31-2012, 22:10
Okay, I'm pretty sure that in atheist China both gay marriage and polygamy are a no-no. That's quite a paradox then.
None of this rules out that China's laws (in particular the one against gay marriage) aren't ultimately founded on religion. I fail to see the paradox. On your part, you fail to see Hussar is sketching a what if scenario and I am playing along. It seems like you read "USA" and "theocracy" and then the mind disengaged. Pity because I think it is a valid line of debate to explore.
Anyway as I've stated before you can argue both "sides" of such a debate without religion getting into the mix at all. Philip has given an example of this before with gay marriage: consider marriage to be the social contract whereby two individuals form a familial unit which is afforded various protections by the law -- needed when resources are scarce or survival prospects of adults not looking too rosy. Likewise polygamy: for the protection and equality of women.
Surely it's more properly that you're not Dutch enough to be family?
If want to extend the question to Europeanism (whatever that is) then, no, you can't really qualify.
I'm sorry, but that's stupid. My mother's Dutch, her parents were Dutch, her grandfather was in fact rector of the University in Utrecht, and just because my mother married an Algerian, I'm suddenly not considered European enough? Just because my father was born somewhere else?
My beliefs, upbringing and education make me Dutch, not the fact that my father was born outside of this country.
None of this rules out that China's laws (in particular the one against gay marriage) aren't ultimately founded on religion.
That's hearsay. Pure speculation.
I fail to see the paradox. On your part, you fail to see Hussar is sketching a what if scenario and I am playing along. It seems like you read "USA" and "theocracy" and then the mind disengaged. Pity because I think it is a valid line of debate to explore.
And I do not.
Anyway as I've stated before you can argue both "sides" of such a debate without religion getting into the mix at all. Philip has given an example of this before with gay marriage: consider marriage to be the social contract whereby two individuals form a familial unit which is afforded various protections by the law -- needed when resources are scarce or survival prospects of adults not looking too rosy.
And on the other side of the argument: people disallow gay marriage because they just plain don't like it. They don't like homosexuality in general and gay marriage as an extension of that. No holy books needed.
Likewise polygamy: for the protection and equality of women.
Would you mind explaining how polygamy "protects" and "equalizes" women? I'm curious because I have never heard anybody argue for polygamy from that perspective.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-31-2012, 23:18
I'm sorry, but that's stupid. My mother's Dutch, her parents were Dutch, her grandfather was in fact rector of the University in Utrecht, and just because my mother married an Algerian, I'm suddenly not considered European enough? Just because my father was born somewhere else?
My beliefs, upbringing and education make me Dutch, not the fact that my father was born outside of this country.
Ah, well, my mistake then.
You are Dutch.
You are also Algerian.
I'm both English and Swedish, but I'm obviously much more English than Swedish - that doesn't change the fact that if my parents had gifted me duel nationality I'd have had to explain myself out of national service until recently and even after more than 50 years my father holds only a Swedish passport.
In the same way, you're obviously more Dutch than Algerian.
Actually, I think that legally speaking, I'm half French. My grandfather (from father's side) held the French nationality and technically speaking, my father was born in France. He held an Algerian passport, surely, but technically speaking, he's French.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-31-2012, 23:42
Actually, I think that legally speaking, I'm half French. My grandfather (from father's side) held the French nationality and technically speaking, my father was born in France. He held an Algerian passport, surely, but technically speaking, he's French.
You would need to ask a Frenchman that one.
you are right, you are french because you are born in France (the law of the soil) and you are entitled to keep your algerian nationality. It has to be noted that the french constituion denied to the french to held a double nationality. My son is borned in Canada but at the age of 18 he would have to take either the canadian citizenship or the french one. The same for my daugther she is borned in the UK but she will have to choose between UK and France. My wife and me are both french
HoreTore
04-08-2012, 21:36
An Englishman is a person living in England. A scot is a person living in Scotland. A norwegian is a person living in Norway. A dutchman is a person living in the Netherlands.
Easy-peasy.
ajaxfetish
04-09-2012, 01:23
How familiar are you with the Mormon religious creed?
Probably not very familiar, considering that we don't have one (not being a creed-based religion). The closest substitute we've got would be the articles of faith:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion, the New Jerusalem, will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--we believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Hopefully that makes it entirely clear how we are not at all in any way shape or form a Christian religion ...
Ajax
HoreTore
04-09-2012, 01:42
He shoots, he scores!!
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-09-2012, 11:19
An Englishman is a person living in England. A scot is a person living in Scotland. A norwegian is a person living in Norway. A dutchman is a person living in the Netherlands.
Easy-peasy.
How many Norwegians believe that?
Oh, and what's an Anglo-Saxon?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-09-2012, 11:44
Probably not very familiar, considering that we don't have one (not being a creed-based religion). The closest substitute we've got would be the articles of faith:
We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion, the New Jerusalem, will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul--we believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
Hopefully that makes it entirely clear how we are not at all in any way shape or form a Christian religion ...
Ajax
That would be a Creed, as a Creed is a statement about beliefs, and Articles 8, 9, and 10 would disqualify you from being included in most Christian groupings, particularly Articles 8 and 9 as they point to revelation after Christ's Ascension but before his Return, that's a Big no-no in Nicean Christianity.
An Englishman is a person living in England. A scot is a person living in Scotland. A norwegian is a person living in Norway. A dutchman is a person living in the Netherlands.
Easy-peasy.
I'm still a Dutchman if I move to England. If I get a kid from an English girl the kid is half-Dutch.
rory_20_uk
04-09-2012, 12:36
An Englishman is a person living in England. A scot is a person living in Scotland. A norwegian is a person living in Norway. A dutchman is a person living in the Netherlands.
Easy-peasy.
Apart from those individuals who don't think of themselves as part of that country, and in some cases don't even speak the language. Similarly, if I were to get a job in the UAE I am no less English. Nationality in many ways is a state of mind rather than geography.
~:smoking:
Apart from those individuals who don't think of themselves as part of that country, and in some cases don't even speak the language. Similarly, if I were to get a job in the UAE I am no less English. Nationality in many ways is a state of mind rather than geography.
~:smoking:
It's also ethnic. Only a handfull of immigrants see themselves as Dutch, they are from the Netherlands, which is hardly surprising as we look different. Nothing wrong with that
That would be a Creed, as a Creed is a statement about beliefs, and Articles 8, 9, and 10 would disqualify you from being included in most Christian groupings, particularly Articles 8 and 9 as they point to revelation after Christ's Ascension but before his Return, that's a Big no-no in Nicean Christianity.
Article 8 by itself is enough to separate Mormonism from Christianity. Mormons are about as Christian as the Druze are Muslim, namely not much.
rory_20_uk
04-09-2012, 14:18
I think ethnicity is far less of a factor - people over the ages have cheerfully killed people of the same colour and creed based upon their nationality. I have meet loads of people who view themselves as British who aren't Caucasian.
Interestingly, one of my friends views herself as British and me as English - her way of saying that she is Shi Lankan by ethnic descent and I am Caucasian. I retort we are both English as both of us were born in England and have not lived anywhere else.
~:smoking:
I think ethnicity is far less of a factor - people over the ages have cheerfully killed people of the same colour and creed based upon their nationality. I have meet loads of people who view themselves as British who aren't Caucasian.
Interestingly, one of my friends views herself as British and me as English - her way of saying that she is Shi Lankan by ethnic descent and I am Caucasian. I retort we are both English as both of us were born in England and have not lived anywhere else.
~:smoking:
Far less isn't the same as nothing at all. Some immigrants see themselves as Dutch but most will say they are from the Netherlands. I don't really care, but Horetore is kinda off in his criteria if you ask me. It just isn't that straightforward.
Rhyfelwyr
04-09-2012, 14:59
I like how some people just take it for granted that it is a positive thing to be accepted by and considered a part of mainstream Christianity.
Funnily enough some of my own beliefs have been equated with Mormonism. I don't really identify with 'Christianity' much anymore. That very term is of course only mentioned in passing in the Bible as a derogatory term for the early believers at Antioch.
My faith is less about the goings on of a small group of people in Judea 2,000 years ago, and more about a set of beliefs about the order that God created along with the world. Not that I in any way at all disavow anything that Jesus and the disciples did, or the significance with which they regarded themselves (which was as the fulfilment of the law, and not as something new). I just disagree with the framework that mainstream Christians use to place those events in. I think that their misunderstandings lead to idolatry on their part. Whether it is Protestant biblicists rejecting natural revelation, or Catholic/Orthodox ritualism.
Most Christians today would tell you that their faith was created with the actions of Jesus Christ two thousands years ago. I would say that I share the same faith as Adam, Abel, Israel, Moses, David etc.
It's more a difference of perspective than anything.
Interestingly, one of my friends views herself as British and me as English - her way of saying that she is Shi Lankan by ethnic descent and I am Caucasian. I retort we are both English as both of us were born in England and have not lived anywhere else.
I'm not sure how true it is, so maybe you can clear this up for me. But I heard that in England, to call yourself 'British' is appealing to a more sort of multicultural identity, a civic nationalism. Whereas to identify as 'English' has more connotations of ethnic nationalism and is associated more with the right. Not that there is anything inherently right-wing about calling yourself English, that just happens to be something it is associated with today.
If this is true it would be pretty strange for me since the opposite is true in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland to be seen as 'Scottish' is the civic nationalism and immigrants tend to go for it and support the SNP. Whereas Britishness seems to be linked to to the right and the far-right and is the more ethnic and intolerant nationalism.
HoreTore
04-09-2012, 15:14
That would be a Creed, as a Creed is a statement about beliefs, and Articles 8, 9, and 10 would disqualify you from being included in most Christian groupings, particularly Articles 8 and 9 as they point to revelation after Christ's Ascension but before his Return, that's a Big no-no in Nicean Christianity.
....And the Catholics regard everyone else as heretics, yet I don't think that should disqualify the protestants from calling themselves christians.
The Mormons follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that really is enough to an objective observer to label them "Christians".
As for you Rory, if you move to Norway you are indeed a Norwegian, as "Norwegian" means a person living within the geographical area called Norway. If you also like flowers, you are a flower enthusiast as well, of course. Your feelings about it is quite irrelevant really; if you move here, you are now a part of what defines "Norwegian".
(I cunningly avoid your UAE example to avoid exposing bad grammar)
rory_20_uk
04-09-2012, 15:31
I'm not sure how true it is, so maybe you can clear this up for me. But I heard that in England, to call yourself 'British' is appealing to a more sort of multicultural identity, a civic nationalism. Whereas to identify as 'English' has more connotations of ethnic nationalism and is associated more with the right. Not that there is anything inherently right-wing about calling yourself English, that just happens to be something it is associated with today.
If this is true it would be pretty strange for me since the opposite is true in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland to be seen as 'Scottish' is the civic nationalism and immigrants tend to go for it and support the SNP. Whereas Britishness seems to be linked to to the right and the far-right and is the more ethnic and intolerant nationalism.
"British" has probably ended up meaning some sort of mess that has been so debased to mean nothing, the Millennium Dome of terms. There is probably some truth that English has been usurped to mean racists hiding behind nationalism.
If the use of the term "English" is only used by racist extremists then that is what it ends up meaning. Connotations are important, and if the only ones describing themselves as English or have the English flag have skin heads and view their role as beating up anyone they dislike then that is what is means.
HoreTore, I think we have different meanings as to what is Nationality.
~:smoking:
HoreTore
04-09-2012, 15:36
Indeed we do. And as always when someone disagrees with me: I'm right and you're wrong.
So, now that you know how wrong you are, why do you insist on remaining wrong??? Are you evil or stupid????
rory_20_uk
04-09-2012, 15:53
5109
~:smoking:
....And the Catholics regard everyone else as heretics...
That's just not true.
The Mormons follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that really is enough to an objective observer to label them "Christians".
Mormons follow the teachings of Joseph Smith, and that really is enough to an objective observer to label them "Non-Christians".
HoreTore
04-09-2012, 16:07
That's just not true.
Mormons follow the teachings of Joseph Smith, and that really is enough to an objective observer to label them "Non-Christians".
I love watching secterian feuding.
ajaxfetish
04-09-2012, 21:00
The Mormons follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that really is enough to an objective observer to label them "Christians".
You'd think so, but some Christians love defining others out of the fold. After all, no True Christian would believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Ajax
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-09-2012, 22:00
I think ethnicity is far less of a factor - people over the ages have cheerfully killed people of the same colour and creed based upon their nationality. I have meet loads of people who view themselves as British who aren't Caucasian.
Interestingly, one of my friends views herself as British and me as English - her way of saying that she is Shi Lankan by ethnic descent and I am Caucasian. I retort we are both English as both of us were born in England and have not lived anywhere else.
~:smoking:
That depends on perspective, "England" means litterly "land of the Angels", that's an ethnic identity attached to the land, Britain is the physical space, the actual island - it a historical fact that "Great Britain" has maintained a constant histoircal size, while "England"'s borders have fluctuated, at times intruding into parts of Wales and Scotland, or not including the Danelaw.
So what your friend is saying is that she was born in Britain and identifies with that vague concept of "Britishness", but she isn't connected to "Englishness" because she isn't ethnically English. This goes back to what I was saying to Hax a few pages ago about blood and being a part of the history of where you are, and how that defines where you are from.
As far as "cheerfully slaughtering" people have only ever don that to people from different places or with different ideas. There may be much of muchness between a Kosovan and a Serbian at the genetic level, and certainly visually, but that doesn't make them one people.
"British" has probably ended up meaning some sort of mess that has been so debased to mean nothing, the Millennium Dome of terms. There is probably some truth that English has been usurped to mean racists hiding behind nationalism.
If the use of the term "English" is only used by racist extremists then that is what it ends up meaning. Connotations are important, and if the only ones describing themselves as English or have the English flag have skin heads and view their role as beating up anyone they dislike then that is what is means.
@HoreTore (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=10538), I think we have different meanings as to what is Nationality.
~:smoking:
I don't think "English" is only used by racists, far from it. During the 80's and 90's the concept of "Englishness" was co-opted by the political Right, but since then I think it has been largely recalimed by the general populace. The big difference now from maybe 20 years ago is that I don't think those people who consider themselves historically "Anglo-Saxon" are ashamed of caliming ownership of "Englishness" because the people who come here tend to call themselves "British". So you can have "British - English" and "British - Pakistani".
It's also ethnic. Only a handfull of immigrants see themselves as Dutch, they are from the Netherlands, which is hardly surprising as we look different. Nothing wrong with that
I think, if grandad came from India, you should be proud of that. On the one hand you have the idea that "Everyone is Dutch", but on the other hand you have this need to subsume everyone into "Dutchness" or "Englishness" and eliminate the differences. It's a bit much, really.
I'm not sure how true it is, so maybe you can clear this up for me. But I heard that in England, to call yourself 'British' is appealing to a more sort of multicultural identity, a civic nationalism. Whereas to identify as 'English' has more connotations of ethnic nationalism and is associated more with the right. Not that there is anything inherently right-wing about calling yourself English, that just happens to be something it is associated with today.
If this is true it would be pretty strange for me since the opposite is true in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Scotland to be seen as 'Scottish' is the civic nationalism and immigrants tend to go for it and support the SNP. Whereas Britishness seems to be linked to to the right and the far-right and is the more ethnic and intolerant nationalism.
English is generally an "ethnic" nationalism, yes, but not necessarily a racist one. I consider myself English, but that just means I see my family as having beeen here a long time, not that I think that gives me more rights inherrently, other than to the land my family has historically owned of course. :wiseguy:
If you think about it, it makes sense that Scotland would be the other way around. "Scotishness" is defined in large part of opposition to the English, so it follows that anyone willing to oppose of the English can adopt "Scotishness", on the other hand Scotland is part of the "pan Celic" myth, so a Scotish racist might consider himself kin to the Welsh and Irish but no one else, or he might be an Anglo-Scot who adopts "Britishness" in order to be closer to the English. That one can have you coming or going.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-09-2012, 22:18
If we're going to start debating whether Mormanism is Christian or not, it should probably be a seperate thread.
....And the Catholics regard everyone else as heretics, yet I don't think that should disqualify the protestants from calling themselves christians.
The Mormons follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that really is enough to an objective observer to label them "Christians".
The Pope has said that Protestans are "Christian Ecclesial Communities", but we don't have real Bishops. At worst, Protestants are "Christian Heretics", but we haven't been that for several centuries.
You'd think so, but some Christians love defining others out of the fold. After all, no True Christian would believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Ajax
Long before the Book of Morman was revealed (whatever you think of theb revelation) the New Testemant and tha Apochrypha determined that God had revealed His Puropse and His Prophets had come and would not retun until the End.
Mormans may Worship God, but they follow the prophet Joseph Smith who claims to have come after Christ. In mainstream Christian theology nobody comes after Christ, which is why Muslims and therefore Mormans are not recognised as part of the Universal Church by most Christians.
That's not a comment on Mormanism as a valid or reasonable religion, it's merely an extension of historical classification. Mormanism belongs to those religions like Islam that claim valid Revelations after Christ's death and the deaths of his diciples.
Rhyfelwyr
04-09-2012, 23:02
If you think about it, it makes sense that Scotland would be the other way around. "Scotishness" is defined in large part of opposition to the English, so it follows that anyone willing to oppose of the English can adopt "Scotishness", on the other hand Scotland is part of the "pan Celic" myth, so a Scotish racist might consider himself kin to the Welsh and Irish but no one else, or he might be an Anglo-Scot who adopts "Britishness" in order to be closer to the English. That one can have you coming or going.
Certainly Scottish nationalists (nowadays) emphasise the Celtic element of Scottish history, with the kilts and the tartan and the Jacobites etc. And they often use imagery of the Celtic fringe (Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany) to reinforce this idea of where their cultural identity lies. All of it as you say putting them in opposition to Anglo-Saxon England.
This is the most commonly accepted idea of 'Scottishness', although perhaps because it is so mainstream I've never noticed a racial element or any ideas of racial solidarity with the rest of the Celtic fringe. "One Scotland many culures" as the SNP say.
But I can't let you away with calling the British up here (generally from the working-class PUL - Protestant Unionist Loyalist communities eg Glasgow Bridgeton) "Anglo-Scots". It makes us sound like some sort of half-assimilated colonial subjected population. Or is that how you see us?
gaelic cowboy
04-09-2012, 23:26
But I can't let you away with calling the British up here (generally from the working-class PUL - Protestant Unionist Loyalist communities eg Glasgow Bridgeton) "Anglo-Scots". It makes us sound like some sort of half-assimilated colonial subjected population. Or is that how you see us?
It doesnt matter how assimilated you see yourself RHY it's always the Anglo that decides your place on the ladder. To be an Anglo Scot would mean likely mean you were upperclass though.
Now since your talking about PUL then cos there not members of the quality they have effectively made Britishness an ethnicity instead of an identity.
This is not the proper use of the term British hence the confusion for an actual Anglo.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-10-2012, 00:13
Certainly Scottish nationalists (nowadays) emphasise the Celtic element of Scottish history, with the kilts and the tartan and the Jacobites etc. And they often use imagery of the Celtic fringe (Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany) to reinforce this idea of where their cultural identity lies. All of it as you say putting them in opposition to Anglo-Saxon England.
This is the most commonly accepted idea of 'Scottishness', although perhaps because it is so mainstream I've never noticed a racial element or any ideas of racial solidarity with the rest of the Celtic fringe. "One Scotland many culures" as the SNP say.
But I can't let you away with calling the British up here (generally from the working-class PUL - Protestant Unionist Loyalist communities eg Glasgow Bridgeton) "Anglo-Scots". It makes us sound like some sort of half-assimilated colonial subjected population. Or is that how you see us?
Ewan McGregor is an Anglo-Scot.
To an Englishman, an Anglo-Scot is, well, yes, more English than Scottish, the defining feature of Scotishness being a dislike-to-loathing of the English.
Until about 50 years ago, "Britishness" was defined as the Brit abroad, the Brit who ran the Empire. A lot of these Brits were actually Scottish or Welsh, but because they had to deal with the Civil Service and Whitehall while running the colonies the common cultural mode was Englishness with little bits of Scots and Welsh thrown in. That's completely different from the vague modern concept of Britishness which is all-inclusive.
Rhyfelwyr
04-10-2012, 01:54
It doesnt matter how assimilated you see yourself RHY it's always the Anglo that decides your place on the ladder.
As I said I don't see it as a matter of assimilation, I don't see the English as the standard that Scots like myself need to measure ourselves against when it comes to proving our Britishness. Hence why I also disagree that its the Anglo that decides my place on the ladder.
The reality is that Scots and Ulster Scots have often rebelled against London-based administrations because they were so fiercely loyal to the Crown and British institutions. They've been doing so for hundreds of years, before the British state even existed. Examples of this would be the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant and its demand for Union, and the document of the same name created in 1912 along with the Volunteers.
Now since your talking about PUL then cos there not members of the quality they have effectively made Britishness an ethnicity instead of an identity.
This is not the proper use of the term British hence the confusion for an actual Anglo.
Well what 'Britishness' means isn't something set in stone, finding a definition for it is what we are doing here to some extent.
Although I agree with the PUL that it is about ethnicity. However I do not see the PUL communities as an abberation or a move away from traditional Britishness. To me the ideal of the PUL is a remnant of what Britishness once was.
Ewan McGregor is an Anglo-Scot.
To an Englishman, an Anglo-Scot is, well, yes, more English than Scottish, the defining feature of Scotishness being a dislike-to-loathing of the English.
I'm not sure what you mean by Anglo-Scot, Ewan McGregor's wiki says he was born and raised in Scotland. It seems like a really quaint term anyway, like I said its got a colonial feel that doesn't really work for the situation in Scotland. Anglo-Irish is a valid term for the foreign ruling class they had on the island, but Scotland never had a foreign elite imposed (not since the Normans anyway).
Until about 50 years ago, "Britishness" was defined as the Brit abroad, the Brit who ran the Empire. A lot of these Brits were actually Scottish or Welsh, but because they had to deal with the Civil Service and Whitehall while running the colonies the common cultural mode was Englishness with little bits of Scots and Welsh thrown in. That's completely different from the vague modern concept of Britishness which is all-inclusive.
Disagree, ask anybody in Scotland 100 years ago their nationality and they would tell you British (or Irish for the new arrivals). The whole narrative on the history of Scotland was completely different. The Wallace monument was funded by Unionists because they regarded William Wallace as a Unionist hero.
PUL - Protestantism, Unionism, and Loyalism was core values of all of Scottish society then.
Which is why I have such a problem with how Scottish nationalists see their history today. You know, I even stopped supporting the Scottish national football team after they booed while the Northern Irish team was having their national anthem played (God Save the Queen). Really made me think about who I identify with.
I also don't really get what you mean about "Englishness" with regards to the culture in the colonies.
gaelic cowboy
04-10-2012, 02:23
The reality is that Scots and Ulster Scots have often rebelled against London-based administrations because they were so fiercely loyal to the Crown and British institutions. They've been doing so for hundreds of years, before the British state even existed. Examples of this would be the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant and its demand for Union, and the document of the same name created in 1912 along with the Volunteers.
I dispute that reality about loyalty much of the identity of British people in Ireland an Scotland has/was/is mainly coming from an apocalyptic line of thought, basically there is plenty dates in wikipedia showing disloyalty to the monarch an all.
Rhyfelwyr
04-10-2012, 02:50
I dispute that reality about loyalty much of the identity of British people in Ireland an Scotland has/was/is mainly coming from an apocalyptic line of thought, basically there is plenty dates in wikipedia showing disloyalty to the monarch an all.
The rocky relationship between loyalist organisations in Scotland/NI and the British state has always been seen as a bit of a paradox by the outside world.
I guess in their mind their first loyalty has always been to more abstract concepts of British nationhood and values; rather than to the Crown or any particular institution itself.
Of course what really motivated the likes of the Orange Order, the Vanguard movement, and the more extreme elements may not have been so noble, what with the reality of a bloody sectarian war and the associated hatred.
But they might see things that way.
Strike For The South
04-10-2012, 18:25
You'd think so, but some Christians love defining others out of the fold. After all, no True Christian would believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Ajax
*insert Citizen Kane clapping gif*
On a side note mormon chicks are hot...and crazy.
You gotta love a reigion that hates caffiene, tobacco, and alcohol. I've broken all those rules before noon
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-14-2012, 22:16
I'm not sure what you mean by Anglo-Scot, Ewan McGregor's wiki says he was born and raised in Scotland. It seems like a really quaint term anyway, like I said its got a colonial feel that doesn't really work for the situation in Scotland. Anglo-Irish is a valid term for the foreign ruling class they had on the island, but Scotland never had a foreign elite imposed (not since the Normans anyway.
Foriegn by culture if not blood, do you know the last Sctos King to speak Gaelic was James I, and even before that date many Magnates held lands in England as well as Scotland, making them vassels of both kings. The fact is, English culture
infiltrated into Wales, Scotland and Ireland not just via conquest or policy, but because of England's economic superiority, fuelly by the fertile lands in the South and Coal in the North. The very fact that your first language is probably English, rather than Scots, let alone Gaelic, is evidence of this.
Disagree, ask anybody in Scotland 100 years ago their nationality and they would tell you British (or Irish for the new arrivals). The whole narrative on the history of Scotland was completely different. The Wallace monument was funded by Unionists because they regarded William Wallace as a Unionist hero.
PUL - Protestantism, Unionism, and Loyalism was core values of all of Scottish society then.
Which is why I have such a problem with how Scottish nationalists see their history today. You know, I even stopped supporting the Scottish national football team after they booed while the Northern Irish team was having their national anthem played (God Save the Queen). Really made me think about who I identify with.
I also don't really get what you mean about "Englishness" with regards to the culture in the colonies.
100 years ago we still had an Empire, that's the point. The people who administered the Empire spoke English with a mixed accent, the greater part of the mix being what is classified as "South midlands", now RP, their clothes, their food, shoes, etc. London fashion. Their manners, cultivated after the fashion of the Home Counties.
The idea of Britishness was born and nurtured in Surrey, Hampshire and Kent by people who worked in London.
Rhyfelwyr
04-15-2012, 01:31
Foriegn by culture if not blood, do you know the last Sctos King to speak Gaelic was James I, and even before that date many Magnates held lands in England as well as Scotland, making them vassels of both kings. The fact is, English culture
infiltrated into Wales, Scotland and Ireland not just via conquest or policy, but because of England's economic superiority, fuelly by the fertile lands in the South and Coal in the North. The very fact that your first language is probably English, rather than Scots, let alone Gaelic, is evidence of this.
But here's the thing. You presume that Gaelic is the historic national language of Scotland, and that English was imposed by the forerunners of the modern region of England. But that's wrong.
Gaelic was introduced to Scotland by the Kings of Dalriada, a Gaelic Irish ruling class that ruled over the natives, none of which spoke a Q-Celtic language (speaking instead either P-Celtic or Germanic languages). Hence why Scotland was called "Hibernia Minor" up until the 13th Century.
The English language on the other hand is no more a product of the ancient English than the ancient Scots (not that there were such peoples back then, I mean their geographic contemporaries). And people in Scotland have always taken pride in their role in the English language. You know a few centuries ago they used to argue that due to French influence on the language in England, a Scotsman could better understand Shakespeare than an Englishman. The Scots dialect (which actually emerged in Northumbria) was regarded as the purest Anglo-Saxon form of English.
100 years ago we still had an Empire, that's the point. The people who administered the Empire spoke English with a mixed accent, the greater part of the mix being what is classified as "South midlands", now RP, their clothes, their food, shoes, etc. London fashion. Their manners, cultivated after the fashion of the Home Counties.
The idea of Britishness was born and nurtured in Surrey, Hampshire and Kent by people who worked in London.
The idea of Britishness was born when the Protestant Clan Campbell petitioned the King to change the terminology of official documents to refer to the settlers in Ulster as 'British'. Although even that was really just symbolic of what was already the reality.
I think you confuse a lot of things with what British means. The culture surrounding the nobility in the days of the Empire is not a national culture. Likewise in the first bit I quoted you refer to English culture permeating Scotland from the days when the English language became dominant. But the so-called "Anglicisation" carried out from the 12th century was really just representative of a takeover by a Norman elite. It is an example of a shared experience with England, not something imposed by England.
What really matters is who we are. The ordinary person. I am, in the words of what anyone across the Highland line would tell you up until a century ago, a "Saxon". I am part of a British nation. British history, British culture, British state.
And I see the dismantling of those things to be very destructive.
gaelic cowboy
04-15-2012, 01:58
And I see the dismantling of those things to be very destructive.
I assume were really talking about home rule here then.
hmm so your island has a history of changing identity and has a fluid national sentiment, would this not logically suggest that your opinion on it's destruction is wrong.
If the narrative is one of continual enrichment both by imposition, natural selection and choice then demanding it stay static is decidedly unlike the entire history of the whole Island.
I also love the way you explained how Gaelic is not originally from Scotland but didn't explain that does not mean English is from Scotland either or that it wasn't imposed. Except Gaelic wasnt imposed though as the Picts took it up themselves and made Scottishness, the same way the Irish took on a Celtic language and made the idea of being Gaelic before that again.
If Irish people in one part of Scotland can change the character of the whole Scottish area then PVC's point is by default conceded as as small elite of English and Normans did the same too.
Also I think you will find the real reason for Gaelic taking precedence is because the Gaels were basically more advanced than the Picts not least in bringing a new religion and other stuff too.
Logically this means that turning British is just another in a long line of cultural and social changes in that part of the world.
Basically there has always been an entity seen as North of Englands North and the return of self rule there does not mean the end of the world. (last time I checked the Irish planters and Anglo Irish elite still had there funny accents and mad oul religions)
I suspect the doompornographers on about the end of Britain are over selling it a bit, however there is a sizable demographic in favour of said changes and it cannot be explained by reasons like irish bias or immigration. (for a start there wouldnt be enough votes from them)
Scotland will and is now changeing the character of what it is to be British in Scotland and possibly that might create a new identity just like in Canada or Austrailia.(then again maybe not)
Rhyfelwyr
04-15-2012, 02:57
I think you read some things into my post that I did not say
I assume were really talking about home rule here then.
Well remember for all the talk about NornIron I am living in Scotland and so I had Scottish independence in mind. I really don't want to live in an independent Scotland. But there's a good chance I will be in a few years. Although I do think that would also have bad consequences for NornIron.
hmm so your island has a history of changing identity and has a fluid national sentiment, would this not logically suggest that your opinion on it's destruction is wrong.
I do not believe there has been a changing identity here for thousands of years.
What had acted to destroy this identity of late is mass immigration, and that is wrong.
I think this immorality is reflected in politics in general. As an Irishman, how do you feel about the likes of Bertie Ahern? Heck, Michael Collins and even de Valera at least cared for their own people, and deeply. Who would you rather have as a leader? Them or Bertie?
If the narrative is one of continual enrichment both by imposition, natural selection and choice then demanding it stay static is decidedly unlike the entire history of the whole Island.
That is not my narrative, my narrative is a much more discredited one. I believe I have a real and direct cultural and religious connection with my ancestors on these islands and that that has survived because its the same blood that flows in me. We are a people, it's who we are.
I also love the way you explained how Gaelic is not originally from Scotland but didn't explain that does not mean English is from Scotland either or that it wasn't imposed.
The English language was forged in Scotland (and simultaneously elsewhere), Gaelic was not.
If Irish nobility in a small part of Scotland can change the character of the whole Scottish area then PVC's point is by default conceded as as small elite of English and Normans did the same too.
I don't think that any ruling elite changed the fundamental character of the peoples here. As I said Scotland was effectively an Irish colony. It was assimilated to some degree but Gaelic never crossed the Highland line. And like I said the term 'Anglicisation' is not appropriate really for the establishment of Norman customs at the kings court.
Also I think you will find the real reason for Gaelic taking precedence is because the Gaels were quite basically more advanced than the Picts not least in bringing a new religion and other stuff too.
A new religion?
gaelic cowboy
04-15-2012, 03:37
Well remember for all the talk about NornIron I am living in Scotland and so I had Scottish independence in mind. I really don't want to live in an independent Scotland. But there's a good chance I will be in a few years. Although I do think that would also have bad consequences for NornIron.
I do not believe there has been a changing identity here for thousands of years.
What had acted to destroy this identity of late is mass immigration, and that is wrong.
Are you seriously trying to tell me the culture in Scotland has been the same for thousands of years, I'm an engineer and even I know thats wrong.
I think this immorality is reflected in politics in general. As an Irishman, how do you feel about the likes of Bertie Ahern? Heck, Michael Collins and even de Valera at least cared for their own people, and deeply. Who would you rather have as a leader? Them or Bertie?
I despised Bertie before it was popular and when he was at his most popular I was literally a prophet in the desert. Dev and Mick I understand there motives and beliefs and I agree with 80% but I could not live in a country run by either Collins or Dev as they are to my eyes are part of the start of my country. I have grown beyond there simpler narratives(neccessary at the time) I neither require Gaelic purity nor gloriously noble revolution (revolution is dammed dirty business best it be done quickly)
My feeling that freedom is better than slavery no matter how fine or loosely tied the chains may be I prefer we make our own mistakes.
That is not my narrative, my narrative is a much more discredited one. I believe I have a real and direct cultural and religious connection with my ancestors on these islands and that that has survived because its the same blood that flows in me. We are a people, it's who we are.
Your right you view is not only discredited it is frankly dangerous, any talk of blood and the like always makes me look under the table for the fairies cos it's the logical conclusion of genetic nationalism. I really hate when people bring up Celts and Gaels or Brits an English blah blah to me I could care less about that stuff, if you take here then we have always had a sense of not belonging to Britains narrative an that for me is enough.(twas continually reinforced just in case we didnt get we were the other)
The English language was forged in Scotland (and simultaneously elsewhere), Gaelic was not.
I think you will find Scot Gaelic was developed over there we may have gifted it to you but that was the height of it. Plus was not the first Gaelic King not merely a Pict who used a new culture cos he had been brought up in it. (logically that would suggest natives still ran the place)
I don't think that any ruling elite changed the fundamental character of the peoples here. As I said Scotland was effectively an Irish colony. It was assimilated to some degree but Gaelic never crossed the Highland line. And like I said the term 'Anglicisation' is not appropriate really for the establishment of Norman customs at the kings court.
No ruling elite ever does change the character of a nation and calling Scotland an Irish colony is exagerating Irelands hold on Scotland in the extreme. Thats the differ with here as we were only tolerated basically Ireland was supposedly an integral part of Britain but really was in fact a crypto-colony. To call it a colony like Africa is incorrect but to call it an integral part of Britain is even more wrong, no attempt was ever properly made to culturally integrate the Irish either socially, religiously or economically.
Instead a fine coating of jam was spread on a slice of bread to aid digestion
On the subject of Norn Iron I will return anon as it's late and I am sure my arguements will be wooly with all the sleep in my eyes right now.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-15-2012, 10:46
But here's the thing. You presume that Gaelic is the historic national language of Scotland, and that English was imposed by the forerunners of the modern region of England. But that's wrong.
Gaelic was introduced to Scotland by the Kings of Dalriada, a Gaelic Irish ruling class that ruled over the natives, none of which spoke a Q-Celtic language (speaking instead either P-Celtic or Germanic languages). Hence why Scotland was called "Hibernia Minor" up until the 13th Century.
Something of an oversimplification. It's rather like saying that Offa introduced Saxon into Southern Britain, the point is that by the time Willian the Bastard arrived even the Dumonii had spoken only English for several centuries.
The English language on the other hand is no more a product of the ancient English than the ancient Scots (not that there were such peoples back then, I mean their geographic contemporaries). And people in Scotland have always taken pride in their role in the English language. You know a few centuries ago they used to argue that due to French influence on the language in England, a Scotsman could better understand Shakespeare than an Englishman. The Scots dialect (which actually emerged in Northumbria) was regarded as the purest Anglo-Saxon form of English.
Broad Scots preserves many English words that have fallen out of favour here, but it is still a mongrel dialect in the end, "bairn" as in baby is a Midlands word, not a Celtic or even Northumbrian one. As to Shakespeare, the Scots dialect is not exactly close to the South Midlands or London dialect he wrote in and in terms of antiquity it is the men of Belfast who can claim that crown.
The idea of Britishness was born when the Protestant Clan Campbell petitioned the King to change the terminology of official documents to refer to the settlers in Ulster as 'British'. Although even that was really just symbolic of what was already the reality.
I think you confuse a lot of things with what British means. The culture surrounding the nobility in the days of the Empire is not a national culture. Likewise in the first bit I quoted you refer to English culture permeating Scotland from the days when the English language became dominant. But the so-called "Anglicisation" carried out from the 12th century was really just representative of a takeover by a Norman elite. It is an example of a shared experience with England, not something imposed by England.
The culture surrounding the nobility? Oh no, I mean the culture surrounding the Civil Servants.
In any case, you are quite wrong about Protestants creating "Britishness", the idea was most definately invented by the English when Bede said, "This Island is called Britainia", he then went on to invent Englishness out of the fractious quarelsome tribes then in the Southern part of the Island.
Politically, however, the current order was first realised by Athelstan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Æthelstan and since that time the objective of all English kings has been the rule of the whole Island, from England
What really matters is who we are. The ordinary person. I am, in the words of what anyone across the Highland line would tell you up until a century ago, a "Saxon". I am part of a British nation. British history, British culture, British state.
And I see the dismantling of those things to be very destructive.
I suspect if you asked a modern Highlander you would get a nasty surprise, if the Welsh and Anglo-Welsh are anything to go by. Disowned by the Highlands and not accepted by the English, that puts people in Southern Scotland in an awkward cultural position.
I do not believe there has been a changing identity here for thousands of years.
Eh? Picts, then Gaels, then Scots?
That's a pretty big change.
The English language was forged in Scotland (and simultaneously elsewhere), Gaelic was not.
Scots Gaelic is different from Irish Gaelic, but modern RP has more in common with Shakespeare and Milton than Middle Scots.
[/quote]I don't think that any ruling elite changed the fundamental character of the peoples here. As I said Scotland was effectively an Irish colony. It was assimilated to some degree but Gaelic never crossed the Highland line. And like I said the term 'Anglicisation' is not appropriate really for the establishment of Norman customs at the kings court.[/quote]
Gaelic never crossed the Highland line? Oh come ON, Pict was completely wiped out and until the High Middle Ages the Scots outside ancient Bernica spoke Galic, as did the King. If a ruling elite could not influence a people then the English would not speak English, but instead dialects of Brythonic Celtic like the Welsh and Bretons.
A new religion?
Christianity, brought by Irish Monks.
Rhyfelwyr
04-15-2012, 14:54
It just struck me that this exchange between a Scotsman, Irishman and Englishman going on here is pretty comical.
As you would expect, the Scotsman is the fiery crazy guy and the Englishman the voice of moderation of reason.
Although gc seems to be taking more after the Englishman so he must be one of those Anglicized 'West Brits'.
I will write a more proper reply later, got work soon until 11...
You're all non-believing scum anyway, at least you'll be equal under the coming of Sharia law, right?
You're all non-believing scum anyway, at least you'll be equal under the coming of Sharia law, right?
We really have to cook up a new name for pre-emptive surface to feet homing toes. It can't be helped, you are just walking and suddenly you are standing on somebody's toes. How did they get there? Why is the person attached to the toes running of crying? Did he always want to run of crying?
gaelic cowboy
04-15-2012, 18:47
It just struck me that this exchange between a Scotsman, Irishman and Englishman going on here is pretty comical.
As you would expect, the Scotsman is the fiery crazy guy and the Englishman the voice of moderation of reason.
Although gc seems to be taking more after the Englishman so he must be one of those Anglicized 'West Brits'.
I will write a more proper reply later, got work soon until 11...
I would have said it's more to do with being a landowing member of the bourgeois from the West of Ireland. :beam:
We really have to cook up a new name for pre-emptive surface to feet homing toes. It can't be helped, you are just walking and suddenly you are standing on somebody's toes. How did they get there? Why is the person attached to the toes running of crying? Did he always want to run of crying?
Okay, you've gone from incomprehensible to full-blown East-Asian style koan wisdom. What were you even trying to say?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-15-2012, 20:23
It just struck me that this exchange between a Scotsman, Irishman and Englishman going on here is pretty comical.
As you would expect, the Scotsman is the fiery crazy guy and the Englishman the voice of moderation of reason.
Although gc seems to be taking more after the Englishman so he must be one of those Anglicized 'West Brits'.
I will write a more proper reply later, got work soon until 11...
If you prefer, I can be the irrate Welshmen who decries you for taking my cousens' land, and decries your Anglicised MP's for voting for educational reforms that nearly destroyed my people's language and has completely deprived me of access to my heritage.
While we're talking about Westminster, I have to say I don't agree with Gaelic about Ireland being a "crypto-colony", which is a great term, I think the pathetic truth is that Ireland was just too far away from the Home Counties for the MP's to understand/care and Ire returned too few MP's to make their voice heard in the Commons and apparently all Ire's Lords and Magnates were preocupied with their English holdings.
Which is worse than deliberate of "benign" neglect as far as I'm concerned.
It's a miracle how much of the UK has held together for so long, given how badly the core deals with the provinces, be they West or North or even South-West.
Greyblades
04-15-2012, 21:00
If you prefer, I can be the irrate Welshmen who decries you for taking my cousens' land, and decries your Anglicised MP's for voting for educational reforms that nearly destroyed my people's language and has completely deprived me of access to my heritage.
Wait,whats this about nearly destroing your language? Wikipedia doesnt mention it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Welsh_language)
gaelic cowboy
04-15-2012, 21:28
While we're talking about Westminster, I have to say I don't agree with Gaelic about Ireland being a "crypto-colony", which is a great term, I think the pathetic truth is that Ireland was just too far away from the Home Counties for the MP's to understand/care and Ire returned too few MP's to make their voice heard in the Commons and apparently all Ire's Lords and Magnates were preocupied with their English holdings.
Which is worse than deliberate of "benign" neglect as far as I'm concerned.
It's a miracle how much of the UK has held together for so long, given how badly the core deals with the provinces, be they West or North or even South-West.
I was thinking in terms that while the Union was sold in terms of healing division, it was only sold as such to the Anglo Irish aristocracy. The Irish not having any security of tenure or land did not have voting rights, as a result there concerns could be ignored in parliment.
It's provable fact the number of MPs from Ireland was far smaller than it should have been due to economic insecurity of the Irish.
It was not till much later when London reformed land ownership that things got better but it was far too late by then.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-15-2012, 22:47
Wait,whats this about nearly destroing your language? Wikipedia doesnt mention it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Welsh_language)
Typical Sais, can't even read something written in English.
"Welsh Language Act" it gets a whole section in the article and a seperate page.
I was thinking in terms that while the Union was sold in terms of healing division, it was only sold as such to the Anglo Irish aristocracy. The Irish not having any security of tenure or land did not have voting rights, as a result there concerns could be ignored in parliment.
It's provable fact the number of MPs from Ireland was far smaller than it should have been due to economic insecurity of the Irish.
It was not till much later when London reformed land ownership that things got better but it was far too late by then.
No argument here.
The same problems were evident everywhere else, but Ireland was just that bit further away, geographically and culturally, and then you had the famine and that was the end of it.
Still, at least we (mostly) get on these days.
Greyblades
04-15-2012, 23:17
Typical Sais, can't even read something written in English.
"Welsh Language Act" it gets a whole section in the article and a seperate page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Language_Act_1967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Language_Act_1993
Both acts give rights to the welsh languages, not take them away, the closest thing I could find that corroborates your story is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1535-1542
And that only forces the use of english in courts and public administration, it doesnt so much as frown on someone being able to speak welsh. Considering the size of your claims it is unlikely it has just been missed by wikipedia. Please, find something that cooberates your claims. Also stop being insulting, Cymry, I have done nothing to you.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-15-2012, 23:33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Language_Act_1967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Language_Act_1993
Both acts give rights to the welsh languages, not take them away, the closest thing I could find that corroborates your story is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1535-1542
And that only forces the use of english in courts and public administration, it doesnt so much as frown on someone being able to speak welsh. Considering the size of your claims it is unlikely it has just been missed by wikipedia, find something that cooberates your claims or stop making them. Also stop being insulting, Cymry, I have done nothing to you.
The Welsh Not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Not
Beyond that, you must be daft if you think banning Welsh as a language in the Courts is not significant, and dafter to miss the significance of passing a law to establish a Welsh Language Board.
You really need to educate yourself about the history and culture of these Islands, because right now you are emblemic of every reason that we, the English, are internationally loathed.
Greyblades
04-16-2012, 00:17
"Welsh Not".
Not the "welsh language law", "Welsh not".
In the later decades of the 19th century, education was compulsory but the Welsh "not" was used only in a minority of schools
Are you serious?
A couple of teachers beat some kids over speaking welsh on thier own volition, you are complaining that welsh culture was nearly destroyed and are condeming the English from that? It says nothing about the english governments actions towards or against Wales and its not even enough to condemn the entire education system. And you are calling me "emblematic of every reason that we, the English, are internationally loathed" over not knowing about that?
I dont get what your problem is.
I could have called you a liar from the off, I didn't believe you and I could have dismissed you, but no, I had to treat you like an adult, ask your sources, ask you to explain your point. I wanted to know what you were talking about and I was even open to being convinced you were right.
And you give me this? A weak source that proves nothing and an insult?
I'm fed up, I've offered you every little courtesy and you keep on unfairly treating me like I'm a bigoted little prat.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-16-2012, 01:10
I'm fed up, I've offered you every little courtesy and you keep on unfairly treating me like I'm a bigoted little prat.
You get into these spats because you lack perspective, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treachery_of_the_Blue_Books
It's all there for you to read. I suggest that in conjunction with the Laws in Wales Acts you consider the introduction of an English Prayer Book during the Reformation which included services and scripture in English, which required Angliphone clergy who preached in English. previously the Liturgy and scripture were Latin and the sermon in Welsh. The same prayer book was violently resisted in Cornwall, and the period after it's introduction marks the precipitation of rapid decline in Cornish.
As to the Law, let me spell it out for you. Once those laws were passed it became illegal for Welshmen to argue Civil Cases in Welsh, and the whole structure of Civil Law became English, completely changing process and precident. That disenfranchised the people of Wales, unless they learned English, conducted business in English, wrote Wills, contracts and Charters in English. If you wanted to sell your house, the papers would need to be in English, not Welsh.
Greyblades
04-16-2012, 02:31
You get into these spats because you lack perspective, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treachery_of_the_Blue_Books
:sigh:
I'm getting a sinking feeling. Lets ignore the parts about me if only because I fear they may be true and look at the bit I am supposed to be arguing about.
You said "If you prefer, I can be the irrate Welshmen who decries your Anglicised MP's for voting for educational reforms that nearly destroyed my people's language and has completely deprived me of access to my heritage."
Well, I haven't been convinced that the reforms came close to exterminating the welsh language seeing as there's over 400,000 speakers running around, which is pretty good compared to the lists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_endangered_languages), and there's nothing I can find that says it dipped in numbers sigificant to say we almost destroyed it, just concerns due to a rate of decline and a scare in the early 20th century.
Greyblades
04-16-2012, 03:13
And I am wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Welsh_language
20th century
By the 20th century, the numbers of Welsh speakers were shrinking at a rate which suggested that the language would be extinct within a few generations.
According to the 1911 census, out of a population of just under 2.5 million, 43.5% of the total population of Wales spoke Welsh as a primary language.[4] This was a decrease from the 1891 census with 54.4% speaking Welsh out of a population of 1.5 million.[5][6]
I just up and either missed it or blocked it out because it proved me wrong, I feel really stupid now.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
04-16-2012, 10:30
And I am wrong, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Welsh_language
I just up and either missed it or blocked it out because it proved me wrong, I feel really stupid now.
It's a matter of perspective. It's hard to grasp that a group of people who look just like you and dress just like you are actually very different.
Consider this though, Welsh is the native language of Wales, but today there are around 600,000 speakers out of a total population of about 3 million, or 20% of the population, thereabouts - in a century the proportion of Welsh speakers in Wales more than halved even as the population doubled. That's quite someting, and quite difficult to credit in a modern Western Country but it makes more sense if you go back to those Laws in Wales Acts and realise that Wales's wasn't a legal country, just an region of "England" where people spoke Welsh until 1974.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.