Does World War Three Approach

My own particular ancestry is linked to England and Scotland, so far as I know. My dad came from Scotland and settled in England.
Still, the point I made is valid. England never actually existed as a country. There was a capital called Londinium, of course, and that was later named London.
Pre-Roman Britain was essentially a mass of hamlets and tribal settlements, governed by Druids in many areas so there was no Christianity till it was imposed later on. Neither was there any Anglo Saxon race in the sense many folks believed existed. A variety of languages were spoken. Tribes such as the Iceni, Catuvellauni and Brigantes were of diverse, ethic origen, some being Germanic.
http://www.stephen.j.murray.btinternet.co.uk/tribes.htm
"Ptolemy (Claudius Ptolemaeus: mathematician, astronomer and geographer, flourished in Alexandria AD127-148), in his 'Geography', produced a set of coordinates which allow a primitive map of Britain to be drawn. He included a list of tribes, with a rough description of where their territories were."

darkboong said:

Don't be a moron. Firstly read the content of the man's post, then go read your beloved history books and learn something about the country you live in.

Olmert's claim that Hezbollah will fire rockets into Israel if the IDF quit blasting towns to rubble take the [censored]. The first rocket Hezbollah fired was in direct response to Israel attacking Beriut and killing 20 odd civvies. During the 48 hour "unilateral" ceasefire Hezbollah fired just two rockets, both targetting IDF artillery positions. Today, after the IDF broke their own "self-imposed" ceasefire by bombing a Hospital in Baalbek, Hezbollah launched 160 rockets.

There is a pattern there, and in my opinion it gives the lie to Olmert's assertion. Hezbollah will fire rockets into Israel as long as the IDF is attacking Lebanon. The solution is quite simple : withdraw, put a peace keeping force on the Israeli side of the border where it will be welcomed with open arms. Putting it on Hezbollah's side of the border will inevitably lead to the Lebanese fighting it (as they did throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s).

Carrera said:

Still, the point I made is valid.

Valid to you maybe, as far as I can see it is not valid to anyone else.

Carrera said:

England never actually existed as a country.

Wrong. My ancestors invaded *England* in 1066, not a random bunch of hamlets.

At what date do you place England as being a country?
I had an expert tutor in the Classics Dep who ran several courses on Roman Britain and a bit about pre-Roman Britain. So far as I'm aware the invading Romans who landed at Kent never encountered any country called England.
The very latest research does suggest the tribes of ethnic groups that made up the island of Britannia may have been speaking Latin before these invasions but, so far as I can tell, what we were dealing with is various alliances of tribes.
Take a look at the English language for a start. It's a mixture of dozens of different linguistic influences coming from Latin, German, Arabic, Greek, French and what have you. Yet we name the language English?

darkboong said:

Valid to you maybe, as far as I can see it is not valid to anyone else.

Wrong. My ancestors invaded *England* in 1066, not a random bunch of hamlets.

"The inhabitants of our islands previous to the Roman invasion are generally described as "Celts". But they must have been largely a mixed race; and the people with whom they mingled must have modified to some--and perhaps to a large--extent their physique, their customs, and their language."

darkboong said:

Valid to you maybe, as far as I can see it is not valid to anyone else.

Wrong. My ancestors invaded *England* in 1066, not a random bunch of hamlets.

Carrera said:

At what date do you place England as being a country?

The answer is in the post you replied to.

Carrera said:

I had an expert tutor in the Classics Dep who ran several courses on Roman Britain and a bit about pre-Roman Britain.

I haven't had an expert tutor in a Classics Dep who ran several courses on Roman Britain, but I am pretty bloody certain my ancestors didn't meet a bunch of Roman Legionaries at Hastings in 1066.

Carrera said:

Take a look at the English language for a start. It's a mixture of dozens of different linguistic influences coming from Latin, German, Arabic, Greek, French and what have you. Yet we name the language English?

Seems as good an Angle as any other.

Hmmm, the Romans abandoned Britain to its fate but some remained and settled there. The Roman army couldn't defend Britain any longer as they were too weak to defend even their own borders.
You can see what was left, of course. There's Hadrian's Wall - he was the dude who wanted to make Jerusalem into a pagan city and drove Jews out of the city when they rebelled. Apart from that, he built the wall, as you know. Even worse, he finally started to go mad in his final days.
Then you have some of the Baths that remain.
Furthermore, in Wales you can see mining sites of the Druids. I actually investigated them personally and they're only small enough for children to crawl inside.

darkboong said:

The answer is in the post you replied to.

I haven't had an expert tutor in a Classics Dep who ran several courses on Roman Britain, but I am pretty bloody certain my ancestors didn't meet a bunch of Roman Legionaries at Hastings in 1066.

Seems as good an Angle as any other.

"I haven't had an expert tutor in a Classics Dep who ran several courses on Roman Britain, but I am pretty bloody certain my ancestors didn't meet a bunch of Roman Legionaries at Hastings in 1066."

You wouldn't have got on with him at all. As I recall, he supported Margeret Thatcher. The only thing you might have had in common with him is he didn't like Americans for some reason as he claimed they didn't speak English properly. He used to say he'd fail anyone who used "Americanisms" while writing essays and that included American spellings as well.

darkboong said:

The answer is in the post you replied to.

I haven't had an expert tutor in a Classics Dep who ran several courses on Roman Britain, but I am pretty bloody certain my ancestors didn't meet a bunch of Roman Legionaries at Hastings in 1066.

Seems as good an Angle as any other.

Carrera said:

Hmmm, the Romans abandoned Britain to its fate but some remained and settled there. The Roman army couldn't defend Britain any longer as they were too weak to defend even their own borders.
You can see what was left, of course. There's Hadrian's Wall - he was the dude who wanted to make Jerusalem into a pagan city and drove Jews out of the city when they rebelled. Apart from that, he built the wall, as you know. Even worse, he finally started to go mad in his final days.
Then you have some of the Baths that remain.
Furthermore, in Wales you can see mining sites of the Druids. I actually investigated them personally and they're only small enough for children to crawl inside.

Does your Community Psychiatric Nurse still agree with you?

With respect to Crappy's repeated complaints about BBC bias, I agree...

"Israeli planes target Beirut's southern suburbs, a day after Hezbollah launched repeated cross-border rocket attacks"

Note how the BBC is framing the sentence in such a way that it appears as though Israel is responding to Hezbollah. The actual timeline is as follows...

45 hours into the Israeli air-strike "ceasefire" they attack Baalbek (80 miles from the Israeli border), killing civillians and militants alike. An airstrike targets and hits the hospital in Baalbek.

Following the attack on Baalbek, Hezbollah respond with over 220 rockets fired into Northern Israel (and one long range rocket that lands in the West Bank), killing 1 Israeli.

Israeli aircraft bomb Hermel (75 miles from the border), Tyre, Beirut, Jammaliyeh, Sidon, (and several others I have forgotten about already).

It is ridiculous to frame the conflict in terms of responses, invasions are not organised on the basis of [censored] for tat. Invasions are organised on the lines of objectives (which appear to be varied and changing every day in this case).

I guess I'm curious as to how you feel about other countries that have gone to war.
Case in mind - Sparta. Did you know Sparta was actually founded on a military basis and that the Spartans annexed Messenia, although the Messenians outnumbered them 10 to 1. So, in order to survive Spartans had to train in martial arts on a daily basis and that included the women who boxed and wrestled.
Like Israel, Sparta was a tiny country surrounded by far geographically bigger neighbours. Even so, Sparta gave Persia a bloody nose and drove them out of Europe. :p
In those times your peace protests would have gotten you booted out of the Spartan community and wouldn't have gone down very well at all (bearing in mind Sparta only went to war when attacked). 🙄
Anyway, what about those ancestors of your who arrived in 1066? Surely they didn't arrive at this island of hamlets and villages waving peace banners? 😕

darkboong said:

With respect to Crappy's repeated complaints about BBC bias, I agree...

"Israeli planes target Beirut's southern suburbs, a day after Hezbollah launched repeated cross-border rocket attacks"

Note how the BBC is framing the sentence in such a way that it appears as though Israel is responding to Hezbollah. The actual timeline is as follows...

45 hours into the Israeli air-strike "ceasefire" they attack Baalbek (80 miles from the Israeli border), killing civillians and militants alike. An airstrike targets and hits the hospital in Baalbek.

Following the attack on Baalbek, Hezbollah respond with over 220 rockets fired into Northern Israel (and one long range rocket that lands in the West Bank), killing 1 Israeli.

Israeli aircraft bomb Hermel (75 miles from the border), Tyre, Beirut, Jammaliyeh, Sidon, (and several others I have forgotten about already).

It is ridiculous to frame the conflict in terms of responses, invasions are not organised on the basis of [censored] for tat. Invasions are organised on the lines of objectives (which appear to be varied and changing every day in this case).

Carrera said:

Anyway, what about those ancestors of your who arrived in 1066? Surely they didn't arrive at this island of hamlets and villages waving peace banners? 😕

They murdered, raped and pillaged. They treated the locals as chattel and vermin. As such the locals had no right to own the land they lived and depended on, they were killed without trial and consequence. Any action the locals took to defend themselves resulted in entire villages and towns being destroyed by way of retaliation.

The same kind of behaviour is documented in Braveheart (can't say I was that keen on it tbh), I didn't see anyone supporting the English cause in that film.

The Israelis are behaving in exactly the same way at this very moment.

You seem to think that it's OK to behave that way if your ancestors were on the receiving end of it. Well, the Palestinians have had a generation or so of that kind of treatment from the Israels, as have the Lebanese, so let's hear you stick up for their right to defend themselves by flattening entire towns in Israel.

The only *sane* position is that violence is fundamentally wrong. It makes sense in terms of production and progress.

If Israel is as bad as you say....
How do you think Stalin would have handled the Palestinians had they fired rockets into Moscow?
Answer: They'd have been placed on trains, shipped off to remote areas of Siberia and put into Gulag hard-labour camps.
One of my best friends is Estonian (a country where cycling has become more popular lately). He will tell you quite freely how many Estonians were purged from Estonia under Stalin and they weren't exactly firing rockets across the border into Leningrad.
As for the Romans. They used to enter rebellious countries, execute all the males and sell the women and children into slavery which is what they did in Jerusalem nearly 2000 years ago.
This theory of yours that Israel seems to be the most repressive, bloodthirsty, ruthless dictatorship the world has ever seen just doesn't tie in what I learned over the years.

darkboong said:

They murdered, raped and pillaged. They treated the locals as chattel and vermin. As such the locals had no right to own the land they lived and depended on, they were killed without trial and consequence. Any action the locals took to defend themselves resulted in entire villages and towns being destroyed by way of retaliation.

The same kind of behaviour is documented in Braveheart (can't say I was that keen on it tbh), I didn't see anyone supporting the English cause in that film.

The Israelis are behaving in exactly the same way at this very moment.

You seem to think that it's OK to behave that way if your ancestors were on the receiving end of it. Well, the Palestinians have had a generation or so of that kind of treatment from the Israels, as have the Lebanese, so let's hear you stick up for their right to defend themselves by flattening entire towns in Israel.

The only *sane* position is that violence is fundamentally wrong. It makes sense in terms of production and progress.

"The only *sane* position is that violence is fundamentally wrong. It makes sense in terms of production and progress."

I agree. But what would you do if someone stood outside your house hurling stones through the windows and yelling insults? What do you do if a car-driver deliberately runs you off the road, shouts abuse and laughs at you?
I think this is where we differ. I don't care who's on the receiving end, Jew, Moslem or Christian - there's a right to self defence.
Had Israel inititiated this violence with no cause behind it, I'd not be supporting them. But the fact is the suicide bombings and rocket attacks actually increased after Israel made concessions and pulled out of settlements.
Negotiation proved to be interpreted as weakness and that's what brought about the current crisis.
Hebolah was breaking its agreement with the U.N. by re-arming and the U.N. failed to prevent this happening. Hamas boasted the withdrawel from settlements had only come about as a consequence of violence and so they kidnapped soldiers across the border. These are acts of war, plain and simple.
The day either Hamas or Hezbollah has a dig at China, I think you'll really get to see what retaliation is, to be honest. I have no doubt how China would react if Hamas fired rockets at Bejing.

darkboong said:

They murdered, raped and pillaged. They treated the locals as chattel and vermin. As such the locals had no right to own the land they lived and depended on, they were killed without trial and consequence. Any action the locals took to defend themselves resulted in entire villages and towns being destroyed by way of retaliation.

The same kind of behaviour is documented in Braveheart (can't say I was that keen on it tbh), I didn't see anyone supporting the English cause in that film.

The Israelis are behaving in exactly the same way at this very moment.

You seem to think that it's OK to behave that way if your ancestors were on the receiving end of it. Well, the Palestinians have had a generation or so of that kind of treatment from the Israels, as have the Lebanese, so let's hear you stick up for their right to defend themselves by flattening entire towns in Israel.

The only *sane* position is that violence is fundamentally wrong. It makes sense in terms of production and progress.

"They treated the locals as chattel and vermin."

I feel that's how I'm treated as a cyclist.

darkboong said:

They murdered, raped and pillaged. They treated the locals as chattel and vermin. As such the locals had no right to own the land they lived and depended on, they were killed without trial and consequence. Any action the locals took to defend themselves resulted in entire villages and towns being destroyed by way of retaliation.

The same kind of behaviour is documented in Braveheart (can't say I was that keen on it tbh), I didn't see anyone supporting the English cause in that film.

The Israelis are behaving in exactly the same way at this very moment.

You seem to think that it's OK to behave that way if your ancestors were on the receiving end of it. Well, the Palestinians have had a generation or so of that kind of treatment from the Israels, as have the Lebanese, so let's hear you stick up for their right to defend themselves by flattening entire towns in Israel.

The only *sane* position is that violence is fundamentally wrong. It makes sense in terms of production and progress.

Carrera said:

If Israel is as bad as you say....
How do you think Stalin would have handled the Palestinians had they fired rockets into Moscow?
Answer: They'd have been placed on trains, shipped off to remote areas of Siberia and put into Gulag hard-labour camps.

1) It isn't Stalin running Israel, although you could be forgiven for thinking so.
2) Gaza *is* a Gulag. Highest population of anywhere in the world, residents are NOT permitted to travel freely, troops kill the inmates every day.
3) The IDF is killing more children every single day in the Occupied Territories than their average combined civillian and military losses to Hezbollah.

Carrera said:

This theory of yours that Israel seems to be the most repressive, bloodthirsty, ruthless dictatorship the world has ever seen just doesn't tie in what I learned over the years.

Ah, you have lost your point, so you resort to lying.

I have never made that claim. My position is simple : What Israel is doing to the Palestinians is absolutely wrong. I am not making any comparisons, it is YOU who is making the irrelevent comparisons.

Carrera said:

Had Israel inititiated this violence with no cause behind it, I'd not be supporting them. But the fact is the suicide bombings and rocket attacks actually increased after Israel made concessions and pulled out of settlements.

Correct, Israel removed two settlements that the government built illegally in the Gaza Strip. On the other hand they built another 20,000 homes in Illegal Settlements in the West Bank, demolished 42,165 Palestinian homes in the West Bank, annexed another 22% of the West Bank, and also walled off 80% of the water Aquifiers in the West Bank.

Immediately following the withdrawal from the illegal settlements in Gaza the IDF intensified military activity in the strip. They upped the shelling (note it never actually stopped), and they stepped up the small arms fire from
It's rather like a burglar returning the seat of your bike as a good will gesture and taking the family silver with him on the way out.

This article on the end of the following link covers the effects of IDF activity leading up to the Gaza withdrawal.

Paul de Rooji : Ambient Death in Palestine

Carrera said:

Negotiation proved to be interpreted as weakness and that's what brought about the current crisis.

No need to talk past tense. From the BBC website, with respect to the Hezbollah offer of a ceasefire : "Israeli ambassador to the United Nations Dan Gillerman said that suggestion was "a sign of weakness" and that Hezbollah might be "looking for a way out"."

Israel views any kind of negotiation as weakness so they kill children and fire Hellfire missiles into ambulances to prove how tough they are.

Carrera said:

Hamas boasted the withdrawel from settlements had only come about as a consequence of violence and so they kidnapped soldiers across the border.

That smells like one of your lies to be honest Carrera, if you can find a quote to prove it then shoot, or withdraw it...

Carrera said:

The day either Hamas or Hezbollah has a dig at China,

Why the hell would Hamas or Hezbollah have a crack at China ? That makes zero sense to me. I've noticed that with you, Mel P and Israel it's always ifs and buts, never what is actually going on now...