Why Does Scotland Want To Be Independent?

[Strike For The South]

I mean, are they serious?

What happens when they go belly up and Der Fuher gets the shetlands?

[Greyblades]

Der Fuher?

[InsaneApache]

They don't. Despite the image given from Mel Gibson.

They are an equal partner.

As it should be.

[Empire*Of*Media]

I mean, are they serious?

What happens when they go belly up and Der Fuher gets the shetlands?

what ?! when ?! really ?! ah! Damn British, i mean Great Britain only used Scotland for taxes and manpower for war & colonization.i hope Scottish people be free from the 350 years of colonization!!
Hope freedom & independence for Scotland & Kurdistan, thw two torned & colonized nation by the bloody hands of Great Britain!! but not the only ones!!

[Sir Moody]

we have yet to see if they really do want independence - right now opinion polls say they don't so...

[Papewaio]

I thought it was the Scottish Crown that inherited the English one.

Independence is always sought even when it's not thought.

[Empire*Of*Media]

i think Great Britain is Deceiting the world, becuz they know the Scotts dont have anythin now to be independent and have Scotland for 350 years so the Scots abandoned resistance and lost hope, and the new generation doesnt care!!

yes !! you know, Great Britain is called OLD FOX now,
so why they dont do that in NORTH IRELAND ?!!!!! they wanted independence or scotland ???!!!

oh my god!! how much talented and expert at decieving is this Old FOX !!

[Greyblades]

Good lord man, your first sentence wasn't even decipherable.

As for the irish they already have independence; it's called the Republic of Ireland, they want out they merely have to walk over the border.

[Pannonian]

i think Great Britain is Deceiting the world, becuz they know the Scotts dont have anythin now to be independent and have Scotland for 350 years so the Scots abandoned resistance and lost hope, and the new generation doesnt care!!

yes !! you know, Great Britain is called OLD FOX now,
so why they dont do that in NORTH IRELAND ?!!!!! they wanted independence or scotland ???!!!

oh my god!! how much talented and expert at decieving is this Old FOX !!

And what if Northern Ireland don't get independence? What do you suggest should happen then?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Gah! What a mess this whole thing is. I am staunchly pro-Union, but I am not engaging with the national debate on this topic because I don't like what I am hearing from either side, and I reject all the language and axioms that their arguments rest upon. I also won't vote in the referendum.


I mean, are they serious?

What happens when they go belly up and Der Fuher gets the shetlands?

There's no reason for things to go belly up. Depending on the outcome of the North Sea oil controversy, Scotland could actually be financially better off independent of England. If the outcome doesn't go Scotland's way, it would be a bit worse off. Not sure what you mean about Shetland, it wouldn't have a better claim to most of the oil than mainland Scotland - oil aside, I don't think anybody would notice if Shetland left.


I thought it was the Scottish Crown that inherited the English one.

Well in 1603 a Scottish monarch became King of England, but there never was a union of the crowns. For our purposes, the relevant date is 1707, when acts were passed by both the English and Scottish Parliaments, ultimately abolishing the latter.


what ?! when ?! really ?! ah! Damn British, i mean Great Britain only used Scotland for taxes and manpower for war & colonization.i hope Scottish people be free from the 350 years of colonization!!
Hope freedom & independence for Scotland & Kurdistan, thw two torned & colonized nation by the bloody hands of Great Britain!! but not the only ones!!

Scotland has never been colonised by Great Britain (by which I guess you mean, England).

Do you know that a Union was first proposed by the Scots? They actually tried to force England to create a British state about 50 years before it actually happened (Cromwell's short-lived creation aside) - look at the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant the Scots signed with the English Parliament, and the 1648 Engagement they signed with Charles II.

The whole idea of a British identity originated in Scotland, and was consolidated by the plantation in Ulster. For hundreds of years people in Scotland and England saw themselves as British. That is why Scottish independence is wrong - carving up Britain would be like carving up Kurdistan!

Oh, and the Referendum is going to be on the 18th of September next year.

[Beskar]

It is because the Tories got in power and no one in Scotland likes the Tories (or UKIP).

[Empire*Of*Media]

There's no reason for things to go belly up. Depending on the outcome of the North Sea oil controversy, Scotland could actually be financially better off independent of England. If the outcome doesn't go Scotland's way, it would be a bit worse off. Not sure what you mean about Shetland, it wouldn't have a better claim to most of the oil than mainland Scotland - oil aside, I don't think anybody would notice if Shetland left.

isnt that Colonization?! Scotland was free from the pre history to 1600 AD....!!! and suddenly the English Imperialist occupy it forever!! and made them to be completely dependent to the English Crown !! so they think twice when they want freedom & Independence !!


Scotland has never been colonised by Great Britain (by which I guess you mean, England).

Do you know that a Union was first proposed by the Scots? They actually tried to force England to create a British state about 50 years before it actually happened (Cromwell's short-lived creation aside) - look at the 1643 Solemn League and Covenant the Scots signed with the English Parliament, and the 1648 Engagement they signed with Charles II.

The whole idea of a British identity originated in Scotland, and was consolidated by the plantation in Ulster. For hundreds of years people in Scotland and England saw themselves as British. That is why Scottish independence is wrong - carving up Britain would be like carving up Kurdistan!

Oh, and the Referendum is going to be on the 18th of September next year.

i know that Scottish Colonization is very smoother and English have given at least some rights for the Scots.not like the rest of the world.its ok you dont hate them, but your thoughts isnt: no feeling to your race or homeland !!! sorry for William Wallace that gaved his life that may next generations continue his way, but, english imperialists have their mind & life & Resources fully in their hands !! what these FreeMason Imperialists have been made of!! i regard them!

and how you compare Britain to Kurdistan ?! i dont think Welsh or Irish or Scottish Language and Race have any connection and major similarity to English !?!?!


Good lord man, your first sentence wasn't even decipherable.

As for the irish they already have independence; it's called the Republic of Ireland, they want out they merely have to walk over the border.

i told about this referendum, the English crown is deceiving the world, i think you must read history, the poor Irish people Gaved too many lifes and suffered much time in English Jail and did too many strikes, that only to get freedom from 350 years of colonization & Oppression of English Tyranny, and after the republic of Ireland, northern Ireland was excluded from Freedom, and from that time then, they recoursed to rise arms and be aggressive, for the most basic of their Nationalistic rights, and that was mostly suppressed due to lack of supports and US aids to English Crown.

and why i said English Crown is Deceiving the world? because the most freedom & Independence seeker is Northern Ireland and then Wales(weakly), not Controlled Scotland !!
if they are really interested in giving freedom & Independence, they must do that in Northern Ireland and Wales too and in Priority!!!! but they dont !! and this show, the refereandum, its only a Deception !!

[InsaneApache]

i mean Great Britain only used Scotland for taxes and manpower for war & colonization.i hope Scottish people be free from the 350 years of colonization!!

I'd would like to reply to this but it has to rate as the most ignorant post I've ever seen in the backroom and that's
saying summat.

[Pannonian]

isnt that Colonization?! Scotland was free from the pre history to 1600 AD....!!! and suddenly the English Imperialist occupy it forever!! and made them to be completely dependent to the English Crown !! so they think twice when they want freedom & Independence !!



i know that Scottish Colonization is very smoother and English have given at least some rights for the Scots.not like the rest of the world.its ok you dont hate them, but your thoughts isnt: no feeling to your race or homeland !!! sorry for William Wallace that gaved his life that may next generations continue his way, but, english imperialists have their mind & life & Resources fully in their hands !! what these FreeMason Imperialists have been made of!! i regard them!

and how you compare Britain to Kurdistan ?! i dont think Welsh or Irish or Scottish Language and Race have any connection and major similarity to English !?!?!



i told about this referendum, the English crown is deceiving the world, i think you must read history, the poor Irish people Gaved too many lifes and suffered much time in English Jail and did too many strikes, that only to get freedom from 350 years of colonization & Oppression of English Tyranny, and after the republic of Ireland, northern Ireland was excluded from Freedom, and from that time then, they recoursed to rise arms and be aggressive, for the most basic of their Nationalistic rights, and that was mostly suppressed due to lack of supports and US aids to English Crown.

and why i said English Crown is Deceiving the world? because the most freedom & Independence seeker is Northern Ireland and then Wales(weakly), not Controlled Scotland !!
if they are really interested in giving freedom & Independence, they must do that in Northern Ireland and Wales too and in Priority!!!! but they dont !! and this show, the refereandum, its only a Deception !!

Paranoid, and racist. I've not voted in any election since I got disillusioned with Labour's invasion of Iraq, but now I will vote against any party that recognises Kurdistan, on the grounds that anyone who has anything in common with you is obviously going in the wrong direction.

[rvg]

Paranoid, and racist. I've not voted in any election since I got disillusioned with Labour's invasion of Iraq, but now I will vote against any party that recognises Kurdistan, on the grounds that anyone who has anything in common with you is obviously going in the wrong direction.

That's exactly what a New World Order Masonic Zionist would say...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I mean, are they serious?

What happens when they go belly up and Der Fuher gets the shetlands?

Because some Scots hate the English - for no good reason.


what ?! when ?! really ?! ah! Damn British, i mean Great Britain only used Scotland for taxes and manpower for war & colonization.i hope Scottish people be free from the 350 years of colonization!!
Hope freedom & independence for Scotland & Kurdistan, thw two torned & colonized nation by the bloody hands of Great Britain!! but not the only ones!!

James VI of Scotland took over England.

[Greyblades]

Gah! What a mess this whole thing is. I am staunchly pro-Union, but I am not engaging with the national debate on this topic because I don't like what I am hearing from either side, and I reject all the language and axioms that their arguments rest upon. I also won't vote in the referendum.

Well speaking for myself; I like scotland, I dont want to see it leave because I like being in a union with it and I feel we should be standing together against the world instead of fighting eachother.

[InsaneApache]

The Scots won't leave. Apart from being sensible, who are they going to blame when the English are no longer their overlords. :sneaky:

[Rhyfelwyr]

isnt that Colonization?! Scotland was free from the pre history to 1600 AD....!!! and suddenly the English Imperialist occupy it forever!! and made them to be completely dependent to the English Crown !! so they think twice when they want freedom & Independence !!

Um, in 1600AD (by which I guess you mean 1603), a Scottish king took over the English throne.

There was also no 'Scotland' in prehistory. The Kingdom of Scotland was created by settlers from modern day Northern Ireland who established Dalriada in western Scotland. From there, they conquered the rest.


i know that Scottish Colonization is very smoother and English have given at least some rights for the Scots.not like the rest of the world.its ok you dont hate them, but your thoughts isnt: no feeling to your race or homeland !!! sorry for William Wallace that gaved his life that may next generations continue his way, but, english imperialists have their mind & life & Resources fully in their hands !! what these FreeMason Imperialists have been made of!! i regard them!

and how you compare Britain to Kurdistan ?! i dont think Welsh or Irish or Scottish Language and Race have any connection and major similarity to English !?!?!

My ethnicity is "White British" and Britain is my homeland. Do you know that the Scots language is a dialect of English? Not even a different language! Throughout history, only people in the Highlands and Islands spoke Gaelic. In fact, the English language is thought to have originated in southern Scotland!


The Scots won't leave. Apart from being sensible, who are they going to blame when the English are no longer their overlords. :sneaky:

Zionists and Freemasons?

[Wishazu]

isnt that Colonization?! Scotland was free from the pre history to 1600 AD....!!! and suddenly the English Imperialist occupy it forever!! and made them to be completely dependent to the English Crown !! so they think twice when they want freedom & Independence !!



i know that Scottish Colonization is very smoother and English have given at least some rights for the Scots.not like the rest of the world.its ok you dont hate them, but your thoughts isnt: no feeling to your race or homeland !!! sorry for William Wallace that gaved his life that may next generations continue his way, but, english imperialists have their mind & life & Resources fully in their hands !! what these FreeMason Imperialists have been made of!! i regard them!

and how you compare Britain to Kurdistan ?! i dont think Welsh or Irish or Scottish Language and Race have any connection and major similarity to English !?!?!



i told about this referendum, the English crown is deceiving the world, i think you must read history, the poor Irish people Gaved too many lifes and suffered much time in English Jail and did too many strikes, that only to get freedom from 350 years of colonization & Oppression of English Tyranny, and after the republic of Ireland, northern Ireland was excluded from Freedom, and from that time then, they recoursed to rise arms and be aggressive, for the most basic of their Nationalistic rights, and that was mostly suppressed due to lack of supports and US aids to English Crown.

and why i said English Crown is Deceiving the world? because the most freedom & Independence seeker is Northern Ireland and then Wales(weakly), not Controlled Scotland !!
if they are really interested in giving freedom & Independence, they must do that in Northern Ireland and Wales too and in Priority!!!! but they dont !! and this show, the refereandum, its only a Deception !!

Where do you get this stuff?

Seriously, your a funny guy. :D

[InsaneApache]

Zionists and Freemasons?

More likely the Bilderbergers.

:creep:

Kinnel hell my tin foil hat just fell off! :laugh4:

[johnhughthom]

I used to think that resorting to insults was a sign of weak intellect and poor education, reading some of this Kurdish chap's posts makes me understand a little more why some people sink to that level.

[Sarmatian]

The Scots won't leave. Apart from being sensible, who are they going to blame when the English are no longer their overlords. :sneaky:

Don't be so certain.

And they can blame the English at least 50 years more - Croats are still blaming us and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future and we're still blaming the Turks.

Once you get into it, it''s great, and politicians tap into it momentarily. It totally absolves you of any responsibility.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

If Scotland becomes independent then they will be out of the EU and NATO I guess?

[Sarmatian]

Probably no. Even if it happens for legal reasons, they would probably be admitted instantly upon independence.

[Sigurd]

What happens when they go belly up and Der Fuher gets the shetlands?

Sigurd: Why would he get it?? It's my island.
Strike: Your island?
Sigurd; Yeah, it's mine.

[Empire*Of*Media]

ok ok ok ok people, i know why you hate me, and som of you plz dont say you dont, you believe i must be as you like, think (Or told to think) as you , believe (or told to believe) like you ........

at all, YOU think someone is Rational or wise or good, that is someone to be like yourselves and you can not accept someone not in your limited circle that just and just wants to talk about things that, things MAY NOT be like you think!! like Muslims, your response Is only offense and insult!! i thank you!! you showed your thoughts and personalities to me!! now i must think otherwise to SO CALLED 1st World!! i thought i can find rational and understandable people, i thought i should discuss in here, not what you believe must be told!! again i was in mistake !! you cant discuss, but to attack to anyone you dont like or maybe told to dont like his ideas, you dont want to search for more wisdom and knowledge in this world, you just want to be in your limited but comfortable little mind circle.

at least my conscience is comfort, i have not insulted or offensed any of you despite you did to me !!

i now must lose hope to all humanity !! ok i hope the NEW WORLD ORDER at least fix this !!

so i will not discuss with ignorants and haters and nervous and mind & thought controlled people anymore !!

but again in your inverse, i wish God Bless us all, AND i wish best for all humans and Peace and Freedom(whether Nationality or Mind), for us all !!

[Pannonian]

ok ok ok ok people, i know why you hate me, and som of you plz dont say you dont, you believe i must be as you like, think (Or told to think) as you , believe (or told to believe) like you ........

at all, YOU think someone is Rational or wise or good, that is someone to be like yourselves and you can not accept someone not in your limited circle that just and just wants to talk about things that, things MAY NOT be like you think!! like Muslims, your response Is only offense and insult!! i thank you!! you showed your thoughts and personalities to me!! now i must think otherwise to SO CALLED 1st World!! i thought i can find rational and understandable people, i thought i should discuss in here, not what you believe must be told!! again i was in mistake !! you cant discuss, but to attack to anyone you dont like or maybe told to dont like his ideas, you dont want to search for more wisdom and knowledge in this world, you just want to be in your limited but comfortable little mind circle.

at least my conscience is comfort, i have not insulted or offensed any of you despite you did to me !!

i now must lose hope to all humanity !! ok i hope the NEW WORLD ORDER at least fix this !!

so i will not discuss with ignorants and haters and nervous and mind & thought controlled people anymore !!

but again in your inverse, i wish God Bless us all, AND i wish best for all humans and Peace and Freedom(whether Nationality or Mind), for us all !!

I'm a fairly easygoing person in RL, and being brought up as I've been, I've been taught to tolerate a wide range of political and religious views. However, brought up as I've been, I've also been taught to despise ignoramuses who seek to impose their ill-informed opinions on others, with the reminder to keep quiet and pay attention to wiser heads when I have nothing worthwhile to contribute. I guess you've never been taught this.

BTW, have you read up on who occupied whom in 1600 yet?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Empire, I have never insulted you, and I was always open to hearing what you had to say.

[Sir Moody]

Its not that they hate you - its that you are completely misrepresenting the Historical facts to "score points"

the English did not "colonize" Scotland - the Scottish successfully kicked the English out several centuries before the act of Union - Scottish Independence from the Kingdom of England was gained during the second war of independence which ended in 1357 - the act of the union was in 1707.

[Empire*Of*Media]

Empire, I have never insulted you, and I was always open to hearing what you had to say.

i know dear friend !! i alwayse appreciate your Tolerance & Understandablity !! i forgot to write, that despite many only know to hate and offense and attack, i have many friends especially in UK in here,and even non-friends that dont insult or offense to anyone just because he does not like his ideas !! cheer to you friend !!


Its not that they hate you - its that you are completely misrepresenting the Historical facts to "score points"

the English did not "colonize" Scotland - the Scottish successfully kicked the English out several centuries before the act of Union - Scottish Independence from the Kingdom of England was gained during the second war of independence which ended in 1357 - the act of the union was in 1707.

bro, i did not read too much about scotland, as they never revolted or raised against colonization since after William Wallace, i thought Scotland is like Northern Ireland, so excuse me that i misunderstood, i dont say i am god like many think in here !!
i just said that the english crown is Deceiving , because the people that really demand to be free and independence is not SCOTLAND but the suppressed NORTH IRELAND !!
but they dont, they know Scottish people dont care to be independent and many see it not good, so they will Propaganda with "Hey we gaved the scots independence they didnt want-so we are a good government with democracy!!",but no one says those poor Irish people gaved lives & Martyrs to only to reach their independence & Freedom, why you dont give those rights to them ?!! you know, not just north ireland, the republic of ireland reached independence with giving many martyrs and many freedom fighters that were executed or jailed in english prison!! im surprised why those damned monarchs dont leave that little n.ireland !! maybe to show they dont bow to them?!!

[Pannonian]

i know dear friend !! i alwayse appreciate your Tolerance & Understandablity !! i forgot to write, that despite many only know to hate and offense and attack, i have many friends especially in UK in here,and even non-friends that dont insult or offense to anyone just because he does not like his ideas !! cheer to you friend !!



bro, i did not read too much about scotland, as they never revolted or raised against colonization since after William Wallace, i thought Scotland is like Northern Ireland, so excuse me that i misunderstood, i dont say i am god like many think in here !!
i just said that the english crown is Deceiving , because the people that really demand to be free and independence is not SCOTLAND but the suppressed NORTH IRELAND !!
but they dont, they know Scottish people dont care to be independent and many see it not good, so they will Propaganda with "Hey we gaved the scots independence they didnt want-so we are a good government with democracy!!",but no one says those poor Irish people gaved lives & Martyrs to only to reach their independence & Freedom, why you dont give those rights to them ?!! you know, not just north ireland, the republic of ireland reached independence with giving many martyrs and many freedom fighters that were executed or jailed in english prison!! im surprised why those damned monarchs dont leave that little n.ireland !! maybe to show they dont bow to them?!!

Not only are you ignorant about Scotland, you're even more ignorant about Northern Ireland, less forgiveable since it's recent history. England does not deny Northern Ireland its freedom. The British fought in Northern Ireland to maintain the position of letting Northern Ireland have whatever political status it wants. Whether Northern Ireland wants independence, or union with the UK or Ireland, is up to them, a position fought for by the British. If the NI assembly votes for any of these positions, the UK parliament will support its right to choose.

But rather than that, your good self would rather impose a freedom on Northern Ireland as defined by you, which is severance from England. Thus overriding the political wish of the Northern Irish people. I'd like to know where you're from, since democracy and self-determination appear to be alien concepts to you.

[Empire*Of*Media]

Not only are you ignorant about Scotland, you're even more ignorant about Northern Ireland, less forgiveable since it's recent history. England does not deny Northern Ireland its freedom. The British fought in Northern Ireland to maintain the position of letting Northern Ireland have whatever political status it wants. Whether Northern Ireland wants independence, or union with the UK or Ireland, is up to them, a position fought for by the British. If the NI assembly votes for any of these positions, the UK parliament will support its right to choose.

But rather than that, your good self would rather impose a freedom on Northern Ireland as defined by you, which is severance from England. Thus overriding the political wish of the Northern Irish people. I'd like to know where you're from, since democracy and self-determination appear to be alien concepts to you.

please, learn to discuss before you type !!! we have a say in here "The Response of ignorants, is silence" !!
im not have to answer your fully hatred and racist post !!

[Pannonian]

please, learn to discuss before you type !!! we have a say in here "The Response of ignorants, is silence" !!
im not have to answer your fully hatred and racist post !!

Can you point out where the above post is racist? Highlight any sentence, sentences, or part of a sentence, or any combination thereof.

[Empire*Of*Media]

my last post with you in here ,, i think you must read your past posts, and you can see how you insulted Kurds and Kurdistan just because of me you pointed to all AND i said things you dont like !!!
this hows how much your ignorant and hatred is high toward those things you think is unlikely !!

[Hax]

And he considers Muslims stupid for feeling offended all the time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

i know dear friend !! i alwayse appreciate your Tolerance & Understandablity !! i forgot to write, that despite many only know to hate and offense and attack, i have many friends especially in UK in here,and even non-friends that dont insult or offense to anyone just because he does not like his ideas !! cheer to you friend !!

Thank you. :bow:

But as for Northern Ireland, I must disagree with you. The conflict there has been between two communities that have both been there long before the United Kingdom came into existence. Generally speaking, Catholics want to be part of the Republic of Ireland, Protestants want to be part of the UK. Protestants have always been the majority, and this is why Northern Ireland did not join the Republic of Ireland when it gained independence.

You might be surprised to learn that the British government is not always sympathetic to the Protestants. For example, Winston Churchill, the WWII war criminal, was chased out of Belfast by a Protestant mob who were angry at his support for ceding Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic. He was actually sheltered by Catholics inside the football ground of Belfast Celtic, because the Protestant mob were ready to kill him!

As for executing Republican prisoners, that happened in the war that gave the Republic of Ireland its independence, but it never happened during the more recent conflict over Northern Ireland. The only prisoner to be executed by the British Government was in fact a Protestant and a unionist! And that happened just 16 years ago.

In saying all this I don't mean to imply that Catholics have not been persecuted - I am simply saying that the conflict is much more complicated than a case of 'freedom fighters' versus the imperialists.

[HoreTore]

16 years? Seriously, 1987?

I thought the last hanging was back in the 60's or something.... And how is that even possible, when EU law prohibits death sentences?

[Rhyfelwyr]

16 years? Seriously, 1987?

I thought the last hanging was back in the 60's or something.... And how is that even possible, when EU law prohibits death sentences?

1997, I thought I was out of touch, lol. It wasn't official obviously.

[HoreTore]

1997, I thought I was out of touch, lol. It wasn't official obviously.

Haha yeah... I'm still living in the good ol' days of 2003, back when I was innocent to the horrors of the world... Anyway, care to expand? How, who and why? My google-fu isn't of much use...

[Pannonian]

I heard of a particularly rabid anti-peace agreement unionist being knifed or something in an alley, with stories going around of the authorities giving his killers the go ahead on the understanding that there would be a blind eye turned to it. Dunno if that's what Rhyfelwyr is referring to.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I heard of a particularly rabid anti-peace agreement unionist being knifed or something in an alley, with stories going around of the authorities giving his killers the go ahead on the understanding that there would be a blind eye turned to it. Dunno if that's what Rhyfelwyr is referring to.

Well that's happened on countless occasions, I'm talking about actively taking part in the murders. The case I am talking about is that of Billy Wright. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Wright_(loyalist))

[HoreTore]

Well that's happened on countless occasions, I'm talking about actively taking part in the murders. The case I am talking about is that of Billy Wright. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Wright_(loyalist))

Every time I read about NI, I feel the west looses a bit more of its moral high ground in its dealings with "primitive violence" elsewhere in the world....

The difference with, say, Iraq, is about as low as it can get.

[InsaneApache]

The discourse in the backroom has sunk so very low from it's heyday about 8-9 years ago.

However this thread is priceless, on the same level as that Backtia thingy. Except that was funny.

This is just pointless and sad.

[johnhughthom]

It's unfair to tar all the contributors with that, a number of people have tried to make reasoned posts.

[a completely inoffensive name]

@Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?97168-Empire-Of-Kurdistan-Medya)

I'm sorry for the hostility you have gotten from some of the members here in the backroom, the problem is that we have gotten a few people coming in here for a period of a month or two, who tries to completely control a conversation with a viewpoint that is 99% of the time very ill thought out and ridden with hidden racism or conspiracy theories.

I don't want to pass judgement on anything you have said, I very much disagree with almost you have said but I want to make the effort to have you stick with the backroom and not get fatigued by the constant bombardment of opposing views filled with snark or mean words.

For the most part, any opinion is welcome here, people may disagree but they are willing to challenge it in an honest manner and have a conversation as long as you are open enough to change your views. However, there is some basic internet protocols that must be observed here that I promise will help you get your point across in this forum if you follow them.

1. Don't use any punctuation more than once per sentence. So no "!!!!" or "?!?!". These only serve to give the impression of impatience or excessive passion.

2. Don't call anyone else ignorant or any other name calling. Yes, people in this very thread have done just that to you and others! But they are in the wrong, and while everyone makes mistakes, it ruins the conversation to constantly have it happen within a single thread. If you make a better effort than others in following this rule, you will receive respect a lot faster.

3. It is ok to preface a post with "I don't know" and "From my understanding". It does not hurt your argument in anyway and it also serves to let people know where you are coming from so that they do not misinterpret what you are trying to say.

Example: When you say that Scotland has suffered years of colonization, you should expect some hostility from the residences here who identify as British or even Scottish. Such a statement is very inflammatory unless you make an effort to define the word colonization as you see it first. Otherwise, the conversation (which we have seen) regresses instead of progresses. They need to know why you think Scotland has suffered colonization because to many people, the relationship between Scotland and England has been a very harmonious and peaceful union and that the recent vote for independence is merely some silliness by radical nationalists who wish to take advantage of the current economic situation.


I hope you take this advice, especially point 1 to heart so that we may get some more structured viewpoints from someone who obviously has a unique perspective on world events to share.

[johnhughthom]

Well said, acin.

Empire Of Kurdistan-Medya, I know little about the Kurds, their history, or their situation today. Therefore I do not make sweeping, uninformed statements regarding Kurds or their political status. It's not too much to ask for you to show the same respect in terms of Scottish independence, or the situation in Northern Ireland, subjects on which your knowledge appears to be as extensive as mine on Kurdish history and politics.

Like acin said, it's always nice to hear a fresh perspective, so please don't feel anyone in here hates or insults you. Don't forget it works both ways, as a Northern Irish Unionist, it would be very easy for me to consider some of your remarks as accusing me of being an oppressor. If I can forgive you for that, perhaps you should be a little more forgiving of some of us? ~;)

[Strike For The South]

Looks like some of you can't handle a free Kurdistan.

Fascists, the lot of you

[Empire*Of*Media]

dear Rhyfelwyr, the religious conflict is one of the problems, the other is that they are sticked to their republic, but they are in English rule! and i just forgot the name of that freedom fighter that was in jail for more than 25 years and got popular....ah damn it! i really dont remember! but his existence in history shows the Colonization and oppression and dirtiness of English Crown.

Dear a completely inoffensive name, i greatly thank you for your attention and politeness. i surprised your 1st point! i didnt think my punctuations cause some bother! im just habited with that! i hope stop it. and about your 2nd point, im surprised again how you tell that to me!! in non of the posts that i've started, i havnt insulted anybody or calling ignorant by myself.look, when i want a discussion, and when i get offenses and insults in reverse, despite i tolerated it too much to not to attack too , but hey! shouldnt i defend myself ?! when someone insults you you want to calm him down, you do this again and again, but when you see he is attacking again and again with insults and offensive words, wouldnt you defend yourself at last ?!! i had no choice! i have a tolerance limits too, im not Gandhi or Jesus!! i have never said im perfect that you say confess that you dont know, but when someone brings new ideas or perspectives, he/she will always be attacked, and alone. and im very alone here, i just dissaponted with people in so called 1st world! i thought there is a better place! i didnt know there too, is a place that they tell you undirectly how to live & Believe!
at all i thank you at least you could be calm against me and despite you dont agree with me, while i respect that of yours, you stopped being like them to offense!

Dear johnhughthom, i thank yu too friend! i just got really happy saw some in here not narrow-minded and offensive! i always respect ideas that dont hate or assault. and friend, i can always forgive if he/she desist of offensing,insulting,or to impose his liked and favored thoughts and what he THINKS(Suppose!) it is the perfect right! and i ask forgivness to whom i've insulted that if it was by myself started, or it was just defending.

DEAR Strike For The South, i thank you too because of your non-racism and open minded thoughts, indeed you pointed good thing, FASCISTS!!
i think THEY know who is your pointing!! i will not name !!

[Brenus]

“i havnt insulted anybody or calling ignorant by myself” I suggest you to read the post where you are telling me that I am a liar.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The discourse in the backroom has sunk so very low from it's heyday about 8-9 years ago.

However this thread is priceless, on the same level as that Backtia thingy. Except that was funny.

This is just pointless and sad.

The bactia thing was a hoot, I concur.

I too miss Red Harvest and Gawain and Tribesman bashing heads...quite fun. Red drifted off after Katrina, Gawain never really got back into it after his brother was murdered (r/l) and Tribes got the boot somehow (self?)....sad

[Beskar]

Tribes got the boot somehow (self?)....sad

Tribesman said "Ban member x or I will leave", member x wasn't banned, so he left.

[Strike For The South]

The backroom is nothing but a place were self important, mouth breathing, socially retarded trolls come to opine about their superiority.

Faux libereal, faux high brow circle jerk

[The Lurker Below]

Trolling hard in the paint

You just missed the guy wide open for three.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The backroom is nothing but a place were self important, mouth breathing, socially retarded trolls come to opine about their superiority.

Faux libereal, faux high brow circle jerk

Oh rubbish - I'm not any kind of Liberal.

To Whit - Empire's charactarisation of Scotland is faulty. It reads the Kurdish experience in the Middle East onto Scotland. The comparison might be applied to Wales or pre-Republican Ireland but not to Scotland after the Act of Union.

The essential point is that Scotland chose to merge with England -it was negotiated and agreed to Scotland's benefit.

[Pannonian]

Oh rubbish - I'm not any kind of Liberal.

To Whit - Empire's charactarisation of Scotland is faulty. It reads the Kurdish experience in the Middle East onto Scotland. The comparison might be applied to Wales or pre-Republican Ireland but not to Scotland after the Act of Union.

The essential point is that Scotland chose to merge with England -it was negotiated and agreed to Scotland's benefit.

The best bit in Empire's version of history was how England occupied Scotland in 1600 AD. Another example of English imperialism, just like how England occupied Normandy in 1066.

[HoreTore]

The best bit in Empire's version of history was how England occupied Scotland in 1600 AD. Another example of English imperialism, just like how England occupied Normandy in 1066.

Yeah, shame on you all.

That was my ancestors prime hunting grounds for fair maidens to ravage, you know!

[Papewaio]

Now with democracy and cheap airfares the maidens fly to you for the hunting in your local.

[Pannonian]

Yeah, shame on you all.

That was my ancestors prime hunting grounds for fair maidens to ravage, you know!

Ah yes, the Norse. Ravaging fair maidens in northern France, and ravishing skinny monks in northern England.

[Samurai Waki]

Stuff Cameron into a cannon and fertilize a lovely field with 'im, and even the Scottish will forget that Scotland exists.

[LittleGrizzly]

Gawain never really got back into it after his brother was murdered (r/l)
....................................................

WTF?!

Always enjoyed debating with Gawain, was as hard headed as me just a hell of a lot smarter... always wondered what happened to him and absolutely gutted to find out that was the reason for it. Wasn't too bad at Total War either (I am guessing one or two of us actually played the games)

Rhyfelwyr enjoyed reading the wiki but it doesn't actually make clear that he was killed by the state, just some evidence that possibly supports the theory... is it a commonly held perception that he was killed by the state?

Edit: Not doubting you or claiming more knowledge, all I know of the guy came from the wiki article you linked, just curious.

.................................................................
i just dissaponted with people in so called 1st world! i thought there is a better place! i didnt know there too, is a place that they tell you undirectly how to live & Believe!
.................................................................

Us 1st worlders are just as bad for telling people how to live and what to believe we have just become clever enough to make it seem like it isn't so...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gawain never really got back into it after his brother was murdered (r/l)
....................................................

WTF?!

He was online briefly after months of absence and explained why (though not it great detail). It was very saddening.

[Sarmatian]

The discourse in the backroom has sunk so very low from it's heyday about 8-9 years ago.

However this thread is priceless, on the same level as that Backtia thingy. Except that was funny.

This is just pointless and sad.

We really need to reform our youth setup. We haven't had any decent youngsters in years.

[HoreTore]

We really need to reform our youth setup. We haven't had any decent youngsters in years.

Try snagging some from Zamalek. They usually have a few....

[Rhyfelwyr]

Rhyfelwyr enjoyed reading the wiki but it doesn't actually make clear that he was killed by the state, just some evidence that possibly supports the theory... is it a commonly held perception that he was killed by the state?

It's pretty much commonly accepted by people of all persuasions.

[johnhughthom]

Really? Must be another Northern Ireland and another Billy Wright. Only commonly accepted thing with most people I know, Catholic and Protestant, is the guy was complete scumbag and no loss to the world.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's probably commonly accepted in Rhy's part of Scotland.

[Empire*Of*Media]

Rhyfelwyr enjoyed reading the wiki but it doesn't actually make clear that he was killed by the state, just some evidence that possibly supports the theory... is it a commonly held perception that he was killed by the state?

Edit: Not doubting you or claiming more knowledge, all I know of the guy came from the wiki article you linked, just curious.

.................................................................
i just dissaponted with people in so called 1st world! i thought there is a better place! i didnt know there too, is a place that they tell you undirectly how to live & Believe!
.................................................................

Us 1st worlders are just as bad for telling people how to live and what to believe we have just become clever enough to make it seem like it isn't so...

yes indeed !! but some few like you are clever to know, but most dont know, and if they be said, they just cant understand and run away from thinking of it !!



and at all, i dont know why some want to clean or legalize the English Crown's hidden Crimes & Colonizations !!

[Pannonian]

yes indeed !! but some few like you are clever to know, but most dont know, and if they be said, they just cant understand and run away from thinking of it !!



and at all, i dont know why some want to clean or legalize the English Crown's hidden Crimes & Colonizations !!

It must be very well hidden for the history books to say that the English invited the Scottish king to rule over them circa 1600 AD when in fact (as you have enlightened us) it was the English who occupied Scotland around that time. Damn the English Crown and their hiding of crimes and colonisations! Kurdistan 4eva!!!!!!!

[gaelic cowboy]

Really? Must be another Northern Ireland and another Billy Wright. Only commonly accepted thing with most people I know, Catholic and Protestant, is the guy was complete scumbag and no loss to the world.

He made enemies on both sides so its not a surprise that he was topped in prison at all at all, six months after his death an the LVF called a ceasefire.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's probably commonly accepted in Rhy's part of Scotland.

I based what I said on what Northern Irish people have said to me. All Protestants to be fair, but from different parts of the spectrum. Granted, I don't know any that would identify as liberal or Alliance-types, but I think johnhughthom's circle must be pretty narrow to have that conclusion.

[johnhughthom]

Of course, that must be it Rhy, you must have a wider circle of acquiantances from Northern Ireland, despite my being born here, being brought up here and working here for most of my adult life. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying there wasn't government collusion, I'm just saying it's far from accepted amongst the circle of people I know (however big or small it may be).

I'm guessing you've spoken to a lot of people who describe Billy Wright as some sort of Loyalist hero? I was brought up in a Loyalist housing estate in what is a mainly middle class Protestant town (city now, apparently). For most of my youth there was little happened in the town, a few murders (including people I knew both murdering and being murdered) and some bombings, but generally the troubles almost seemed to be something that took place somewhere else. That changed for a while because of Billy Wright, there was a lot of violence, intimidation and tension around during the UVF/LVF feud, and it was the only time I was ever wary walking home at night and didn't feel completely safe in my community. A community that was never really troubled before Billy Wright decided he knew what was best for it.

But sure Rhy, you know best after speaking to a few people.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well if you want to play that game, from what you've said I can see I have more first-hand experience with loyalism and loyalists than you do even if you lived there longer. And the area I lived in didn't support Billy's side of the feud so they weren't biased because of that - but they still recognise what happened.

Billy Wright was before my time and my relatives have had their neighbours and workmates killed on either side of that feud and the related feuds (as far as the C Company chain of events was a spinoff), I've actually been at one of their graves because we visited it while paying respects to another relative there and it really brings home the reality. Everyone has their own theories on who did what and who did it first, so if they can't agree with first-hand experience (by that I mean living there at the time) then who am I to judge?

For all that I have only ever heard people say that Wright's death was a government job.

But I guess you know best, when, even by your own admission, you have pretty much no experience with any of that. :rolleyes:

[johnhughthom]

For a pretty intelligent chap, I don't quite understand how you got my admitting little first hand experience with loyalism and loyalists, but I'm not going to continue this, quite frankly, pathetic little debate any further.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

yes indeed !! but some few like you are clever to know, but most dont know, and if they be said, they just cant understand and run away from thinking of it !!



and at all, i dont know why some want to clean or legalize the English Crown's hidden Crimes & Colonizations !!


I suggest you have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I

Awesome Scottish King takes over England - English rejoice (except Roman Catholics who try to kill him.)

[Greyblades]

I suggest you have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I

Awesome Scottish King takes over England - English rejoice (except Roman Catholics who try to kill him.)

To be fair the roman catholics had been trying to kill every King of England since a certain Henry.

[InsaneApache]

For a pretty intelligent chap, I don't quite understand how you got my admitting little first hand experience with loyalism and loyalists, but I'm not going to continue this, quite frankly, pathetic little debate any further.

:bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oh come now, by the time we get to the Georgian "talk to the trees" dynasty, the "you're a prod we must kill you" bit was pretty well in the dust bin. The House of Windsor doesn't spend time dodging Jesuit wetwork teams.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh come now, by the time we get to the Georgian "talk to the trees" dynasty, the "you're a prod we must kill you" bit was pretty well in the dust bin. The House of Windsor doesn't spend time dodging Jesuit wetwork teams.

That's just what you want us to think!

Someone hold the Papist down while I set fire to his feet.

[gaelic cowboy]

To be fair the roman catholics had been trying to kill every King of England since a certain Henry.

Well they kinda deserve to have there heads chopped off what with famines, pillage, war and general beastliness.

[Greyblades]

Well they kinda deserve to have there heads chopped off what with famines, pillage, war and general beastliness.

If you say so, though the famine I see as more the responsability of landowners and the nobility than the monarch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well they kinda deserve to have there heads chopped off what with famines, pillage, war and general beastliness.

It's not that you can't blame the King - but you have to blame the Irish Lords planting all those potatoes too.

[Shaka_Khan]

It must be very well hidden for the history books to say that the English invited the Scottish king to rule over them circa 1600 AD when in fact (as you have enlightened us) it was the English who occupied Scotland around that time. Damn the English Crown and their hiding of crimes and colonisations! Kurdistan 4eva!!!!!!!
I could apply this for a man - woman relationship. Have the girlfriend take over my house and my bank account. Then she will stay.

[Pannonian]

I could apply this for a man - woman relationship. Have the girlfriend take over my house and my bank account. Then she will stay.

To use your analogy, a Scottish lass was in charge of the house as recently as 2010, and she'd been in charge of the bank account since 1997. And she still whines about exploitation and wants to break up.

[Visor]

To use your analogy, a Scottish lass was in charge of the house as recently as 2010, and she'd been in charge of the bank account since 1997. And she still whines about exploitation and wants to break up.
Is this not normal or something?

[gaelic cowboy]

If you say so, though the famine I see as more the responsability of landowners and the nobility than the monarch.


It's not that you can't blame the King - but you have to blame the Irish Lords planting all those potatoes too.


Eh I think you two have missed the fact I was talking generically here about assorted nastiness all around the empire.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh I think you two have missed the fact I was talking generically here about assorted nastiness all around the empire.

Ah, in that case I blame the Cabinet.

[gaelic cowboy]

Ah, in that case I blame the Cabinet.


You can blame George the 3rd for :daisy: up the Act of Union as it wasn't properly implemented because of him. As a result several million people were left out of a political setlement just when there numbers were ready to increase.

When people have no voice, less rights and no access to whatever your havin yerself they generally stay poor.

contrast the 1740s with the 1840s both of them famine periods in Ireland one was bad luck the other was basically a national disgrace. The differ was in 1740 the politicians and various head honchos acted to stem the suffering and save there own hides in the process. After the Act of Union it's easier to ignore suffering in Killkelly from your country estate in Kent

[Papewaio]

Yes, because for 2000+ years the world really progressed well under hereditary dictatorship er Royalty and a cabal of the misinformed er Religion leadership.

One would think that minimising the stranglehold anyone individual or group has on the rest of society would be a good thing.

Respecting ones elders is over rated.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, because for 2000+ years the world really progressed well under hereditary dictatorship er Royalty and a cabal of the misinformed er Religion leadership.

One would think that minimising the stranglehold anyone individual or group has on the rest of society would be a good thing.

Respecting ones elders is over rated.

Shut up Dad.

[Brenus]

“Yes, because for 2000+ years the world really progressed well under hereditary dictatorship er Royalty and a cabal of the misinformed er Religion leadership.”
"One would think that minimising the stranglehold anyone individual or group has on the rest of society would be a good thing."
Well, agree as most of the time it was against the will and desire of these "elites", the ones who knew better what was good.
The Magna Carta was imposed to John Lack lands for having been defeated by the French, and Louis XVI was against the Revolution. And History of Religions shows you how much the road to Knowledge, Freedom and Enlightenment was welcome by all religions…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“Yes, because for 2000+ years the world really progressed well under hereditary dictatorship er Royalty and a cabal of the misinformed er Religion leadership.”
"One would think that minimising the stranglehold anyone individual or group has on the rest of society would be a good thing."
Well, agree as most of the time it was against the will and desire of these "elites", the ones who knew better what was good.
The Magna Carta was imposed to John Lack lands for having been defeated by the French, and Louis XVI was against the Revolution. And History of Religions shows you how much the road to Knowledge, Freedom and Enlightenment was welcome by all religions…

Conveniently ignores the fact that you can only type that because religious houses preserved writing and knowledge.

[Brenus]

"Conveniently ignores the fact that you can only type that because religious houses preserved writing and knowledge" That is because you conveniently ignores the fact that the religious houses destroyed others writing and knowledge from others sources and origins.

[HoreTore]

Conveniently ignores the fact that you can only type that because religious houses preserved writing and knowledge.

Are you suggesting that if not for religion(christianity), we would not have a written language today....?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Conveniently ignores the fact that you can only type that because religious houses preserved writing and knowledge" That is because you conveniently ignores the fact that the religious houses destroyed others writing and knowledge from others sources and origins.

Not true - Aristotle, Plato, Lycan, Cicero, Caesar, Catallus, all preserved in Monastic Libraries.

Christian book burning was a Renaissance, post printing, activity.

Now, despite being the likely culprit in Alexandria and definitely being responsible for some burnings in India Islam also preserved Pagan, Christian, and Jewish texts.


Are you suggesting that if not for religion(christianity), we would not have a written language today....?

Not at all - but the story of Linear B, Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Babylonian script demonstrates that the ability to write can be lost. That's exactly what happened around 1200 BC in the Meditaranian - imagine if, after Rome fell, the religious houses had not spirited away the libraries of the Great and the Good to remote places like Ireland and Pictland?

The Romans had to rediscover aquaducts, something the Cretans had been building a millenia before, but by the 13th Century (800 years after the collapse of the Western Empire) the Medieval City of Exeter had a new built plumbing system on Roman lines, piping water into the City in lead pipes and using Roman techniques to filter the water before it was fed up to fountains and wash houses distributed across the city.

http://www.exetermemories.co.uk/em/undergroundp.php

That's practical application of Clerical learning, right there.

[Sir Moody]

PVC is dead on the money - the Dark ages could have been utterly devastating to Western civilization if the Church hadn't squirreled away all the teachings of the past - and the same is true in the Middle East, Islamic scholars preserved and improved upon the works of Plato et al.

The Booking burning encouraged by the Christian churches was a reaction to Printing which basically broke their monopoly on the control and circulation of books allowing ideas (even those considered heretical) to circulate to a much greater audience.

[Brenus]

The problem I see is you have a complete wrong idea of what were the Middle Ages.
This idea of the Churches protecting culture (especially Christian ones) was built by the Christians. The recent discovery of Wicking Hoards in UK and Archaeology show how the so-called blood-thirsty Vikings were in fact building towns and markets.
The barbarians were the Christians who razed to the ground all Pagan Cultures, annexing their beliefs and symbols in order to subdue the locals: Killing their Priests and destroying their monuments, as they will do again in South and Central America, then in Africa. Same things than the Taliban did later. The Baltic States were not Christian and had books, culture as well, and researchers. And same can be said for the Chinese, Indians and others Asiatic populations.

[Sir Moody]

The problem I see is you have a complete wrong idea of what were the Middle Ages.
This idea of the Churches protecting culture (especially Christian ones) was built by the Christians. The recent discovery of Wicking Hoards in UK and Archaeology show how the so-called blood-thirsty Vikings were in fact building towns and markets.
The barbarians were the Christians who razed to the ground all Pagan Cultures, annexing their beliefs and symbols in order to subdue the locals: Killing their Priests and destroying their monuments, as they will do again in South and Central America, then in Africa. Same things than the Taliban did later. The Baltic States were not Christian and had books, culture as well, and researchers. And same can be said for the Chinese, Indians and others Asiatic populations.

who was claiming the Christians of the Dark Ages were "civilized" or the Vikings "barbarians" (a silly word really since it literally was termed to mean anyone who wasn't Greek (and later re-purposed by the Romans to anyone who wasn't Roman)) - you seem to be putting words in mine and PVC's mouths there...

you are entirely correct - after the initial wave of Norse Raiders there was a large influx of Norse SETTLERS most notable in Northern France and Northern "England" (England didn't really exist at this point) - contrary to popular belief most of them were not blood thirsty warriors and were just family men looking to settle in what was more climate lands.

The Christians of the Dark ages were certainly not saints either - especially throughout Britain where Christianity was spread by the point of a spear...

none of this however changes the fact that the teachings of Plato et al were preserved by the Christian church (and the Islamic scholars in the Middle East) - if they hadn't then a vast amount of Scientific knowledge which forms the basis of a lot of our Sciences may have had to have been "rediscovered" which potentially could have set back our progress by quite a bit...

[Slyspy]

The problem I see is you have a complete wrong idea of what were the Middle Ages.
This idea of the Churches protecting culture (especially Christian ones) was built by the Christians. The recent discovery of Wicking Hoards in UK and Archaeology show how the so-called blood-thirsty Vikings were in fact building towns and markets.
The barbarians were the Christians who razed to the ground all Pagan Cultures, annexing their beliefs and symbols in order to subdue the locals: Killing their Priests and destroying their monuments, as they will do again in South and Central America, then in Africa. Same things than the Taliban did later. The Baltic States were not Christian and had books, culture as well, and researchers. And same can be said for the Chinese, Indians and others Asiatic populations.

Do you not consider modern science to be a product of history?

[Brenus]

“Do you not consider modern science to be a product of history?” And your point is?

“who was claiming the Christians of the Dark Ages were "civilized" or the Vikings "barbarians" (a silly word really since it literally was termed to mean anyone who wasn't Greek (and later re-purposed by the Romans to anyone who wasn't Roman)) - you seem to be putting words in mine and PVC's mouths there..” And pretending that the Churches were the ultimate shelter of books and knowledge is precisely doing this.
As in modern language you probably note that the use of “barbarian” had an extension of meaning than purely “non-Greeks”.

[Sir Moody]

And pretending that the Churches were the ultimate shelter of books and knowledge is precisely doing this.

no it isn't - outside of a few notable institutions the Church was the primary source of books (both new and old) and teaching the skill of reading and writing for centuries within the West - this is historical fact you cant disagree with it.

Would the Pagan cultures have preserved this knowledge? maybe, its hard to argue either way because Christianity crushed them mercilessly...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Christians of the Dark ages were certainly not saints either - especially throughout Britain where Christianity was spread by the point of a spear...

That's a bit of a misnomer - Britain was Christianised largely peacefully, with the exception of the Synod of Whitman where Roman Christianity was enforced on the Gaelic missionaries.


And pretending that the Churches were the ultimate shelter of books and knowledge is precisely doing this.

They were not the ultimate shelter, they were virtually the only shelter - until the secularisation of the universities Higher Learning was the preserve of the Church, and outside the more isolated places like Ireland (and Wessex England), and a few brief epochs like the rule of Charlemagne, secular lords were not interested in learning letters. Private book ownership was not common even among the gentry until the High Middle Ages.

The Roman Church was the only part of Roman society that was able to endure, by offering the barbarian lords sanction and a way to organise their large new holdings effectively.

You mentioned the Vikings - in France and Ialy they Romanised, and in Britain they Anglisised - which included their leaders adopting Christianity, building Churches and Monasteries and having clerical tutors for their children. They really wanted to be Roman, everyone did, and the Church was able to do that for them.

Hell - look how Roman we are. We're having a Roman debate, writing Roman script, using a language which is part-Latin...

All because of the Church - the script is even based on the one used by Charlemagne's monks!

[Sir Moody]

That's a bit of a misnomer - Britain was Christianised largely peacefully, with the exception of the Synod of Whitman where Roman Christianity was enforced on the Gaelic missionaries.

yes and no - the immigration and spread of the Saxons (mostly through conquest) spread Roman Christianity as a byproduct - there was no "crusade" to specifically stamp out Celtic Christianity and the few remaining pagan kingdoms but it happened any way as Saxon Kingdoms supplanted the natives.

[HoreTore]

Not true - Aristotle, Plato, Lycan, Cicero, Caesar, Catallus, all preserved in Monastic Libraries.

Christian book burning was a Renaissance, post printing, activity.

Now, despite being the likely culprit in Alexandria and definitely being responsible for some burnings in India Islam also preserved Pagan, Christian, and Jewish texts.



Not at all - but the story of Linear B, Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Babylonian script demonstrates that the ability to write can be lost. That's exactly what happened around 1200 BC in the Meditaranian - imagine if, after Rome fell, the religious houses had not spirited away the libraries of the Great and the Good to remote places like Ireland and Pictland?

The Romans had to rediscover aquaducts, something the Cretans had been building a millenia before, but by the 13th Century (800 years after the collapse of the Western Empire) the Medieval City of Exeter had a new built plumbing system on Roman lines, piping water into the City in lead pipes and using Roman techniques to filter the water before it was fed up to fountains and wash houses distributed across the city.

http://www.exetermemories.co.uk/em/undergroundp.php

That's practical application of Clerical learning, right there.

Horribly euro-centric.

And proving that something happened one way is no way of proving that it was the only way, as you well know.


The recent discovery of Wicking Hoards in UK and Archaeology show how the so-called blood-thirsty Vikings were in fact building towns and markets.

Danes don't count as proper vikings.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Horribly euro-centric.

And proving that something happened one way is no way of proving that it was the only way, as you well know.

I'm talking about Europe - and how it actually happened. The Dark Ages in Europe prove Brenus wrong - Christianity was responsible for the preservation, advancement, and dissemination, of knowledge prior to the Renaissance - it was not an impediment to it.

That's not to say it was a universal good but - to take one example - the study of anatomy was held up by scholastic adherence to Galen (who never dissected a human) when the Church had allowed the dissection of human corpses for several centuries. A clear case of the clerical authorities allowing a taboo practice in order to advance medical knowledge, and then academics quite literally refusing to look at what the Church was offering them.

Bashing Christianity as a weird anti-intellectual mysticism is an Enlightenment thing - which explains why the French do it - but it's still not justified.

[Papewaio]

The Dark Ages was post the fall of the Roman Western Empire.

A fall precipitated by Odoacer.

Odoacer being a Hindi, A Jew, A Pagan or a Christian?

A Christian. The Dark Ages was a time of infighting between different Christian sects tearing Europe apart and only stopped once one sect had enough of a dominant majority to gain control.

Of course all the other sects are written off as heretics. But they were still Christians.

[Papewaio]

Shut up Dad.

Go make me a cup of tea and get my slippers.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The Dark Ages was post the fall of the Roman Western Empire.

A fall precipitated by Odoacer.

Odoacer being a Hindi, A Jew, A Pagan or a Christian?

A Christian. The Dark Ages was a time of infighting between different Christian sects tearing Europe apart and only stopped once one sect had enough of a dominant majority to gain control.

Of course all the other sects are written off as heretics. But they were still Christians.


The Germanic tribes stayed primarily Germanic. Like most pagan peoples they were willing to accept another new and powerful god and get his help. But they really weren't christian in any meaningful sense of the word, that came much later.

Here's from the saxon heliand:


There were many whose minds urged them
to begin the reckoning of the runes,
the word of God, those well-known accomplishments
that Christ the mighty achieved among men
in words and in works.
...
But among all these were only four,
out of the many, granted the might of God,
help from heaven and the Holy Ghost,
strength from Christ. They were selected,
they alone, to inscribe the evengelium,
to write in a book the rules of God,
the holy heavenly word. Of all the heroic
sons of men alone they were to attempt it,
since the power of God had picked the four:
Mathew and Mark, so were these men named,
Luke and John, loved by God,
worthy of the work. The all-wielding ruler
placed the Holy Spirit in their heroic hearts,
with many wise words, and as well
an attitude of holiness and a keen heart,
to raise their voices, repeating the Gospel.
There is nothing in words comparable in the world.
Nothing could glorify our great Lord more;
nor can anything lop each loathed thing,
or wicked work; nor withstand better
the aggression and enmity of the enemy.
...
At that time the Lord God granted to the Romans
the widest of kingdoms. They conquered all nations
for he granted strength to their soldiers.
Those warriors from Rome
had seized an empire. Their overlords
were in every place, and they possessed power
over the nations, each noble folk.

[Brenus]

“when the Church had allowed the dissection of human corpses for several centuries.”
Galen: 158 AD, hardly Middle-Ages and dissected apes and pigs. Pigs have a similar skeleton to human. You should read books of History, not Christian sites rewriting history.
Some Christians preserved some books, but most of the job was done by Secular Rulers using the Clergy to do so (Charlemagne). “In the profoundly Christian centuries of the European Middle Ages the prevailing mood is not conducive to scientific enquiry. God knows best, and so He should - since He created everything. Where practical knowledge is required, there are ancient authorities whose conclusions are accepted without question” From http://www.historyworld.net/

Pope Boniface VIII (1235- 1303) prohibited the cutting of human bodies. I give you it was not specially against dissection, but it had the same result.

“Christianity was responsible for the preservation, advancement, and dissemination, of knowledge prior to the Renaissance” Wrong again. The preservation, advancement and dissemination of knowledge were Muslim and Jewish.

“which explains why the French do it” How many French do you know?

“Bashing Christianity as a weird anti-intellectual mysticism is an Enlightenment thing” Bashing? To tell that Christianity was not that great and responsible for more obstruction than step forward is bashing? All great sciences discoveries were done against the will of all Christianities.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To tell that Christianity was not that great and responsible for more obstruction than step forward is bashing? All great sciences discoveries were done against the will of all Christianities.

So with your first sentence you make it sound like you acknowledge the good and the bad (whetever proportions they happen to be in) - only to resort to absolute condemnation in the second sentence.

You even went to the trouble to point out that "all Christianities" are guilty of this - so according to you there was not one strain within the Catholic Church, one of the tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, one of the countless Oriental or African churches that has ever been anything but destructive to any and all scientific advancement.

This seems to me to be a pretty extraordinary claim to make, and I guess I should presume you have a very advanced knowledge of every denomination that has ever existed, and how the churches related with every scientific discovery that has ever occured.

But since you are the man that quotes Landover Baptist Church as a source of Christian doctrine, somehow I doubt you have such knowledge.

[Montmorency]

Calvinism => natural philosophy, surely.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Calvinism => natural philosophy, surely.

Are you saying Calvinism caused the development of natural philosophy?

Doesn't natural philosophy long predate Calvinism?

[Montmorency]

Are you saying Calvinism caused the development of natural philosophy?

Rather, its invigoration for the modern era.

[Brenus]

“So with your first sentence you make it sound like you acknowledge the good and the bad” I do not make distinction between bad and good. That is your interpretation of words. These are facts. Tell me, what great scientific discovery was done with the full support of the Church? And don’t speak of individual cleric, I mean the Church as a system.

“destructive” Your word, mine is obstructive at minimum.

And yes, there are various Christianities, in the Middle-Ages, being Catholic and Orthodox. And within, of course, streams of interpretation, dogmas and practises…

“the churches related with every scientific discovery that has ever occured.” No need for this, you just have to know how much time the Churches were against scientific discoveries.

But since you are the man that quotes “At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel” somehow I doubt you have such knowledge.

[Rhyfelwyr]

“So with your first sentence you make it sound like you acknowledge the good and the bad” I do not make distinction between bad and good. That is your interpretation of words. These are facts. Tell me, what great scientific discovery was done with the full support of the Church? And don’t speak of individual cleric, I mean the Church as a system.

I think it is implied in your argument that opposing scientific advancement is a bad thing. Certainly, I've never heard you praise the church for it!

As for your question - I don't know, the moon landings? Here's a better idea, since you are the one making positive claims and feeling confident enough to apply these to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery, how about you provide the wealth of evidence you must have to support such absolute claims?


“destructive” Your word, mine is obstructive at minimum.

I shall hold you to this in future.


“the churches related with every scientific discovery that has ever occured.” No need for this, you just have to know how much time the Churches were against scientific discoveries.

You stated the churches opposition in absolute, rather than general terms. You went to the trouble to point out that all denominations were guilty of this with all scientific progress. Don't backtrack.


But since you are the man that quotes “At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel” somehow I doubt you have such knowledge.

Um... while you believe that my conclusion might be the result of a lack of knowledge, it is not necessarily so.

I pointed out a clear and outright error on your part - something you have been unable to do in return, despite your attempt at a 'comeback'.


Rather, its invigoration for the modern era.

Yes, Calvinism in particular, and the Reformation more generally, did complement a resurgence in natural philosophy. But the relationship may have been one of mutual reinforcement, rathern than one-way causation - Calvin had studied philosophy and law and was well acquainted with humanism before his conversion.

[Brenus]

“As for your question - I don't know, the moon landings?” Err, when did the Church actively support it?

“Here's a better idea, since you are the one making positive claims and feeling confident enough to apply these to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery, how about you provide the wealth of evidence you must have to support such absolute claims?”
Better idea indeed. Where do I start? Copernic Revolution, evolution, modern surgery, all these were actively fought against by the Church. Not only scientific discoveries, mind you, but all human progress as individual freedom, of course, and Gay marriage, equality between gender and races, democracy, as in St Augustine describe the world of the Warriors, the Labourers and the Priests. Forget freedom of thinking and opinions (even minor), you might finish on the stakes.

By the way, it is a minor exaggeration from your part to say that I apply “to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery” as I clearly stated the Churches as system. But truth and facts don’t bother you too much, as I understand.

“Don't backtrack” I am surely not as dates prove than Europe entered the age of Discovery when Religion(s) lost their grips on Europeans Monarchs and Countries. But surely, it is a pure coincidence.

“I pointed out a clear and outright error on your part - something you have been unable to do in return, despite your attempt at a 'comeback'.” Nope, you did point out a site, not that what they were saying was wrong. And as you know I did my points at that time with others sites and reference (more “neutral”) you carefully avoided answering.

“I think it is implied in your argument that opposing scientific advancement is a bad thing.” Aaah, so, according to you (so to the Churches you defend), to oppose scientific advancement is a good thing. Well, you are logic with yourself, I have to admit…:laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

“As for your question - I don't know, the moon landings?” Err, when did the Church actively support it?

Lol at how you've switched from "they get in the way and suppress things!" to "where is the active support?".

But whatever, here's a pretty long list of Catholic cleric-scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists). This is not just a collection of individuals, since a) the numbers are large enough to show an institutional trend and b) many of them were employed as scientists by the Vatican or institutions that it funded.


““[B]Here's a better idea, since you are the one making positive claims and feeling confident enough to apply these to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery, how about you provide the wealth of evidence you must have to support such absolute claims?”
Better idea indeed. Where do I start? Copernic Revolution, evolution, modern surgery, all these were actively fought against by the Church. Not only scientific discoveries, mind you, but all human progress as individual freedom, of course, and Gay marriage, equality between gender and races, democracy, as in St Augustine describe the world of the Warriors, the Labourers and the Priests. Forget freedom of thinking and opinions (even minor), you might finish on the stakes.

Please stop switching the goalposts - we were talking about science, not politics or social issues.

Of course there are examples where the Christian churches did stand in the way of legimate scientific discoveries - the Copernican Revolution is one such example. I have never contested this, what I did contest was your claim that it opposed any and all scientific advancement. The churches have engaged in scientific debate over issues like evolution and modern surgery, but I don't believe that it has ever actively suppressed them.

Or is disagreement now considered oppression?


“By the way, it is a minor exaggeration from your part to say that I apply “to every Christian denomination and every scientific discovery” as I clearly stated the Churches as system. But truth and facts don’t bother you too much, as I understand.

As you said, "all Christianities", which could only really be understood as referring to "any denomination" - as far as I can see that is still the meaning you give it, so I have no idea what your issue is here.


“[B][B]“Don't backtrack” I am surely not as dates prove than Europe entered the age of Discovery when Religion(s) lost their grips on Europeans Monarchs and Countries. But surely, it is a pure coincidence.

Historical trends are never down to pure coincidence - but your simplistic take on things here (that the decline of religion led to a flourishing of science) is pretty lame and would not stand up to scrutiny. There were countless social and political changes going on at this time. The Reformation, the printing press, the opening up of the New World, the decline of the gentry at the hands of the lower gentry and merchants, the growth of parliaments and national consciousness - all these are factors which would far better explain the phenoma that the Age of Discovery was.

In any case, you narrative of the declining influence of religion coinciding with the Age of Discovery is actually incorrect. The Age of Discovery was a period of hugely populist and radical religion that pervaded society and politics in a way in had never done before. Things actually got to the stage that monarchs were being beheaded by fundamentalists. Or in the case of Scotland, being made puppets to a cabal of fanatics - as happened with Charles II. Funnily enough, staunchly Presbyterian Scotland is renowned for having one of the most fruitful Enlightenment periods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Enlightenment). This has often been attributed ot the strenght of Scotland's education system - where the teaching of the Bible had created one of the highest literacy levels in the world.


““[B]I pointed out a clear and outright error on your part - something you have been unable to do in return, despite your attempt at a 'comeback'.” Nope, you did point out a site, not that what they were saying was wrong. And as you know I did my points at that time with others sites and reference (more “neutral”) you carefully avoided answering.

I pointed out your error in claiming that these people were presenting genuine Christian doctrine. I don't know why I have to labour this point when they are a well known spoof site. I also don't think I have avoided anything you have said.

The point is that you made a careless mistake, and one that demonstrates just how little you know about Christian doctrine.


““[B]I think it is implied in your argument that opposing scientific advancement is a bad thing.” Aaah, so, according to you (so to the Churches you defend), to oppose scientific advancement is a good thing. Well, you are logic with yourself, I have to admit…:laugh4:

No, and how on earth you could get that to be my argument, only you know.

tbh I think you are just like an atheist version of total relism - you have a ridiculously simplistic, black-and-white worldview, and whenever challenged on it, you either flutter madly from one topic to the next*, change your argument**, or accuse the other person of making arguments they never made.***

* for example when you switched from scientific issues to gay marriage and democracy
** indeed, it has morphed from 'oppresing every scientific discovery' to 'oppresing some scientific disoveries' to 'not actively supporting scientific discovery'
*** eg that I applaud churches for deliberately suppressing scientific progress

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“when the Church had allowed the dissection of human corpses for several centuries.”
Galen: 158 AD, hardly Middle-Ages and dissected apes and pigs. Pigs have a similar skeleton to human. You should read books of History, not Christian sites rewriting history.
Some Christians preserved some books, but most of the job was done by Secular Rulers using the Clergy to do so (Charlemagne). “In the profoundly Christian centuries of the European Middle Ages the prevailing mood is not conducive to scientific enquiry. God knows best, and so He should - since He created everything. Where practical knowledge is required, there are ancient authorities whose conclusions are accepted without question” From http://www.historyworld.net/

Pope Boniface VIII (1235- 1303) prohibited the cutting of human bodies. I give you it was not specially against dissection, but it had the same result.

Galen was prohibited from dissecting human bodies, though irrc he saw a human skeleton at the Library in Alexandria.

I have read plenty of books - and no "Christian" sites whatsoever - ironic that you quote a website. Galen was accepted as being the authority throughout the Middle Ages, and into the Renaissance. This despite the Church having allowed human dissection, doctors continued to insist that (against all evidence) humans should have two bones in their jaws. Galen got this from the apes he dissected, a problem he recognised.

As to the rest of your post - I would like you to go away and read up on the formulation of the rules of magnetism, discovered and codified by a priest. Though, I have to say I take exception to the charactarisation of Charlemagne as a "secular" ruler, maybe that's the line taken in modern France to occlude the fact that he spent most of his time and effort of Christianising his own nobles and "Romanising" them (which was the same thing).

Now - here's a question - are you aware, Brenus, that I'm an academic researching the dissemination of knowledge from the Classical to the Medieval, and the difference between heterodoxy and orthodoxy?

Same to you, Pape.

You think I don't know that the Germans were Arrians? Are you aware that the "filoque" controversy between East and West was the result of the Latin Church trying to enforce the Co-eternity of the Trinity on the Germanic tribes?

[Papewaio]

My line is that it isn't a black and white situation that Christianity rose the world out of the dark ages.

First off the Roman Empires collapse had many factors, one of which can be attributed to its change in faith systems.
The dark ages was limited to Europe and the near east. One has only to look at the rest of the world to see progress happening in the non-Christian areas to do very high level counter to Christianity being responsible for progress.

Second, survivors and victors get to write history. The surviving Christian sects get to define what was orthodox and what was not.

Third, I do not take the positon that religion is the cause of the issue. It is fundamentalism and the belief that there is one source of truth and all others need to be snuffed out. That formalized insitutions favour this to gather power to themselves should be no shock to anyone and is a human empire building attitude. Religion can be just as easily used as a platform to opening up ones mind.

So it is quite easy to find in one insitution those who run counter to each other. Those who are fundamentalist and limiting knowledge whilst others use the religion as shoulders to stand on. A review of various sections within the Catholic Church will show this such as the Jesuits. It should also be noted that other denominations often will show a bent one way or the other along the spectrum and will either create more fundentalists or scientists then average.

Also there are some that create more of both.

So i don't take the point of view that religion automatically stamps down on human endeavor. I do take the point of view that the dark ages was limited to the portions of the world that had Abrahmic religions and that there is some correlation between the two, say 0.8, just not 1.

[Pannonian]

Another way of looking at it would be to point to the breakdown of central authorities, which leads to smaller communities and less efficient economies, leading to smaller surpluses and fewer people with the leisure to study non-essential and non-martial subjects. The church, having carved out a niche for itself that was independent of worldly realities, was able to support a relatively sizeable class of such folk. In comparison with peaceful secular times such as now, the church would seem backwards and dogmatic. But in comparison with the constant struggle of local warlords, the church would be a haven of learning.

[Montmorency]

Yes, Calvinism in particular, and the Reformation more generally, did complement a resurgence in natural philosophy. But the relationship may have been one of mutual reinforcement, rathern than one-way causation - Calvin had studied philosophy and law and was well acquainted with humanism before his conversion.

OK, to be more specific: the English Scientific Revolution was pretty much Puritans with state backing.

[Brenus]

“Lol at how you've switched from "they get in the way and suppress things!" to "where is the active support?".” YOU switch from Middle-Ages’ Churches policies towards Sciences to Modern Church and sciences approach new policies. When PVC is saying that the Church was the last refuge for Sciences and Discoveries, and even was the engine of it, I, with fact and dates, said no. Then YOU come up with the Moon Landing (which by the way is not a scientific discovery but the result of a lot of them)... You tried, you failed, recognise it.

“Or is disagreement now considered oppression?” Well, when based on your disagreement you suppressed the freedom to do researches or to publish them, or to tell them, well, yes.

“I have no idea what your issue is here” Agree.

“would not stand up to scrutiny.” Funny, as you gave a list of facts proving my point, thanks. All the factors can be linked with the decline of Religion. The fact than you can contest a Religious point of view (Reformation) opened the gate of free-thinking, that lead to the questioning of the Social Order claimed as Holly (St Augustine) by the Church. Parliaments are against the God intended Natural Order, so is surgery, medicine and others sciences that try to explain the world.
And the Scottish Enlightenment and when a Church did accept the result of Enlightenment, finally realising it was a losing battle. Now, of course Churches did adapt, and when even for the most Conservative Popes or Clergyman facts are so obvious that there is no other option, the Clergy’s objections just vanished. Just take few centuries. Note: vanished.

“they are a well known spoof site.” By whom? Not by me, obviously. “one that demonstrates just how little you know about Christian doctrine”.
How? To ignore the fact that a site is a spoof proves that I have no idea of the Christian Doctrine… I can see you point of view.:yes:
Err, do you know there are other sources of knowledge called Universities, and in there, there things named Books, and some are written by specialists in Christianity and Middle-Ages (Dumezil, le Goff, Duby).

“how on earth you could get that to be my argument, only you know.” And all people who read your sentence. It is what you wrote. To be fair, I knew it was not what you intent to say, but I couldn’t resist.

“I think you are just like an atheist version of total relism” You think what suits you in order to be happy. You do like to debate with ones agreeing with you, you don’t like that facts go against what you think, and you are not ready to change what you think against facts and reality. It is not an un-common behaviour in believers, religious, political or others..

“This despite the Church having allowed human dissection”: Nope. The Church was against; I even gave you the name of a Pope making the thing clear. The penalty to do so was excommunication. “The popes who acted most against dissection were Innocent III, Gregory IX, Sixtus VI, and Bonifatius VIII. Some of them acted on the threat to "excommunicate anybody who dissected a human body or cooked out human bones." Additionally, "a kind of inquisition resulted in which anyone found guilty of molesting the dead was burned at the stake or otherwise severely punished" (Kevorkian 34).”
Of course, as the Popes were as well Rulers, they allowed some exceptions, but for theses exceptions you try to make it as the rules. "Although necropsy would not necessarily be implied in such cases, a certain amount of anatomic probing would have to be done" (Kevorkian 35).”
In http://www.maggietron.com

“that I'm an academic” I was not aware and congratulation.
I have DEA (PHD?) in History and I recognise that my field of research was the French/US Vietnam Wars, and the re-writing of History. But I studied History of Religions in the University Lyon II/Lumière in Bron/Lyon. I am certainly not a specialist in this field, however I developed a good knowledge of Middle-Ages (reason why I do not employed the word Dark-Ages) due to 2 great Professors who took great pain to explain the mentality and the symbolism used at theses times. Thanks to them I visited the Primatiale des Gaules St Jean (Created by St Irenee and St Pothin), first Cathedral (Lyon) built in France, and what left of the Abbey of Cluny.
So, I feel quite comfortable in challenging others people views about facts and opinions.
Yes, due to my own lack of beliefs, I tent to reduce the Churches as Political Powers fighting to keep it. And the Churches had interests in keeping the masses in ignorance and submission. It is in fact the proper meaning of Islam (submission) to God.

Long post, sorry.