One Perspective On What We Just Don't Get With The Muslim World

[fightingquaker13]

Europe led the way. In the wrong direction of course. Allowing mass immigration and fostering multi-culturalism which deliberately prevented assimilation. Now, no one will stand up and say this was a bad idea for fear of being labled a racist. Britain, the Netherlands and France, the three countries that gave us modern colonialism and missionary work cowed by a word? Their ancestors would shoot them all. We can still stop this. Personnally, I liked the 1964 immigration law just fine. Go back to national quotas while there is still time. Ask me, DILLIGAF what the world thinks?
FQ13

[tombogan03884]

FQ, You will back me up here.
The thing that finally put the final screws to the Western Roman Empire (The "Fall of Rome", Rome was done but "The Empire" lived on as The Byzantine Empire )
Was the uncontrolled immigration of Hunnish and Germanic tribes.
Instead of raising the Barbarian's up, they were pulled down to that level.
Why would we expect a different result this time around ?

[fightingquaker13]

FQ, You will back me up here.
The thing that finally put the final screws to the Western Roman Empire (The "Fall of Rome", Rome was done but "The Empire" lived on as The Byzantine Empire )
Was the uncontrolled immigration of Hunnish and Germanic tribes.
Instead of raising the Barbarian's up, they were pulled down to that level.
Why would we expect a different result this time around ?

Ask the Romanized Brits what a good idea it was to bring in the Saxons. Hell, ask the average Native American how popular Squanto is. .
FQ13

[Pathfinder]

FQ, You will back me up here.
The thing that finally put the final screws to the Western Roman Empire (The "Fall of Rome", Rome was done but "The Empire" lived on as The Byzantine Empire )
Was the uncontrolled immigration of Hunnish and Germanic tribes.
Instead of raising the Barbarian's up, they were pulled down to that level.
Why would we expect a different result this time around ?

You're asking FQ for backup on history? WTF? ? ? ? 

Comparisons between the US and Rome are fraught with problems. Rome was a multi-cultural empire, made no bones about it. As long as you weren't seditious and sent your tithe to Rome on schedule, you could do what you wanted, say what you wanted, worship any cow, oryx, or stone effigy you wanted to - hell, if it was interesting enough, the Romans would probably join you in slaughtering some poor vertebrate in honoring said "deity".

The barbarians were invited into the army mostly, as auxiliaries, and later as Senators under Caligula. It was only 200 years after Julius Caesar when Rome had its first non-Roman as Emperor.

Hmm . . . about the same amount of time for us to have our first non-American as President.   

Ask the Romanized Brits what a good idea it was to bring in the Saxons. Hell, ask the average Native American how popular Squanto is. .
FQ13

Uh, FQ? No one "brought" the Saxons into Romanized Britain. They kinda wandered in - swords in hand - all on their own. Same as the Pilgrims - sans swords of course.

Of course, for us to allow these un-assimilated people who do not give a flying f..k about us or our culture, whose goal is specifically to take over and dominate us and force us (contrary to our laws and very foundation) into a semblance of slavery, is a major mistake. Call it a religion, call it a movement, call it a cult - whatever, it must be stomped out and eliminated from our midst.

The "average" American is so dumbed down at this point that they will believe whatever the MSM tells them, and that is that it is racist and un-American to be against the mooslims.

[fightingquaker13]

Not really arguing Path because I agree with most of your post, minus that first part of course (jerk! ). Still I do take issue with this.
Quoted from Path
"Uh, FQ? No one "brought" the Saxons into Romanized Britain. They kinda wandered in - swords in hand - all on their own. Same as the Pilgrims - sans swords of course."

Actually, the Saxons were brought in as hired swords agianst the Scotts and Picts as the Roman Empire crumbled. Vortigern, the British ruler, brougt in the Saxons Hengst and Hora in in the 5th century. Oddly, they liked the country, but didn't care for the government much.
Fq13

[Sponsor]

[twyacht]

P.S. England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, were the "sloppy seconds" of the Vikings...Well ,........rape and pillage had to have some standards....

 

The Roman Empire STOPPED the Northern advance into Britannia when bearded axe-wielding psycho Vikings kicked their ass in the North Sea...

I'll go back to by Swedish Herring and crackers to the Corner now,...

[Pathfinder]

P.S. England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, were the "sloppy seconds" of the Vikings...Well ,........rape and pillage had to have some standards....

 

The Roman Empire STOPPED the Northern advance into Britannia when bearded axe-wielding psycho Vikings kicked their ass in the North Sea...

I'll go back to by Swedish Herring and crackers to the Corner now,...

I was going to reposte FQ, but this is a real WTF moment here TW.

The Vikings hit English shores in the 700s -about 300 years after the last Roman stomped out the torch on his way out.

The people the Romans hit in the north were tribal Scoti and Picti, the much feared blue-painted Picts. The Scots of history - and today - are Dalriadic Scots who came over from Ireland in the 500s IIRC - again, after the Romans left town. The Picts never kicked the Romans out - the Romans simply figured that there was little of value in the north and built the Hadrian Wall, and later the more northern Antonine wall, to regulate - and tax - any commerce moving through.

And, BTW, it did take a few 100 years for the Romans to leave. One can hardly say they were kicked out since it was their own shrinking empire and military demands elsewhere that caused them to pull the troops out of Britannia.

[fightingquaker13]

I was going to reposte FQ, but this is a real WTF moment here TW.

The Vikings hit English shores in the 700s -about 300 years after the last Roman stomped out the torch on his way out.

The people the Romans hit in the north were tribal Scoti and Picti, the much feared blue-painted Picts. The Scots of history - and today - are Dalriadic Scots who came over from Ireland in the 500s IIRC - again, after the Romans left town. The Picts never kicked the Romans out - the Romans simply figured that there was little of value in the north and built the Hadrian Wall, and later the more northern Antonine wall, to regulate - and tax - any commerce moving through.

And, BTW, it did take a few 100 years for the Romans to leave. One can hardly say they were kicked out since it was their own shrinking empire and military demands elsewhere that caused them to pull the troops out of Britannia.

Nice post Path. Indeed it was the Vikings, still a PITA in 1066, who arguably let the Normans conquer England. The Saxon King Harold was on his way back from fighting them, with a weary army in tow, when he had to face the fresh Norman forces with their cavalry.
Fq13

[tombogan03884]

The Roman Empire in Britannia just sort of fizzled and died out from lack of interest, the serious problems to the East and North of Rome left nothing for Britian . That version of King Arthur that depicts him as a discharged Roman Officer seems closest to the truth.

[twyacht]

The Vikings were too busy conquering territory, they just kind of exploited it and did the pillage thing.Empires were left to others with the time and patience,... The Picts, were originally outcasts in their own country and finally rose up in revolt against a tyrannical King....and the Romans were too far beyond their empire to maintain control. Sheep and lousy weather contributed....

Gee, the irony is getting deep by today's standards.