Sorry but this reminds me of a story (with the cursin thing)
Dad: **** me
Sister:**** you?
Dad: Kelsey dont u ever say that again.
Lol

Nap did the same thing that the other guys did, mentioned below. That was a dumb question by the way. What did he do to u, none of those guys did anything to me or him.

VortexIII wrote: Sorry but this reminds me of a story (with the cursin thing)
Dad: **** me
Sister:**** you?
Dad: Kelsey dont u ever say that again.
Lol

Lol

Ikr.
One time I said
"daddy, have I been a good enough boy to get an airplane at the airporwt? (misspell intended)
He responded "yes, just sixty more seconds and we'll go"
"nooooo that's so looong."
And all statements are exact

bomer1 wrote: Nap did the same thing that the other guys did, mentioned below. That was a dumb question by the way. What did he do to u, none of those guys did anything to me or him.

ur taking the question literally

what im implying is, why is poor ol napolean being thrown in with Hitler. Mind you, Hitler, minus the whole ethnic cleansing atrocities stuff is just another empire building leader. The reason we despise him so much is because he thought genocide was legit. same thing with osama and saddam killing innocent people. I dont recollect Napolean being at that level. He was an average joe from the 18th century who did what everyone did back in that day which is to make war and expand territories. The French did it, the British, the Russians, the Japanese, the Zulus, the Turks etc etc.

IF you are gonna throw Napolean into this mix of despots than you might as well throw most of the British royalty in as well. Noone is clean if you go far back enough in history.

The reason why we hate guys like Hitler so much is because they are a holdover from the old days of savagery with no repercussions. Keep in mind this was the norm up until about 130 years ago. Guys like Kim Jhong Il had their mentality stuck in those days even though the rest of the world had moved on.

I guess your right but i still do blame france for world war 1.I mean they took german land and Germany wanted revenge.I would want revenge.I guess he aint up there with hitler but you are right about the british.I would say they were worse than the french during the 1700s and 1800s.At one time the british were owned by the greeks.A very long time ago.

Allied wrote: I guess your right but i still do blame france for world war 1.I mean they took german land and Germany wanted revenge.I would want revenge.I guess he aint up there with hitler but you are right about the british.I would say they were worse than the french during the 1700s and 1800s.At one time the british were owned by the greeks.A very long time ago.

thanks for understanding the point I was trying to make. Yes, you are right. The British were at one time invaded by the Romans and the natives (britons) were treated rather ruthlessly by the Roman empire and their culture was repressed. Hence, English is foreign to England and is not the native Briton tongue.

Lands have been fought over for eternity. We are mammals after all and mammals occupy and then urinate on the land to mark it as theirs.

We live in the safest of times in history, if you think about it. The amount of people dying as a percentage of the total human population, due to war, has been on the decrease I believe.

Very true. That's why we have 8 billion people on the planet.

Kptn Singh wrote:

bomer1 wrote: Nap did the same thing that the other guys did, mentioned below. That was a dumb question by the way. What did he do to u, none of those guys did anything to me or him.

ur taking the question literally

what im implying is, why is poor ol napolean being thrown in with Hitler. Mind you, Hitler, minus the whole ethnic cleansing atrocities stuff is just another empire building leader. The reason we despise him so much is because he thought genocide was legit. same thing with osama and saddam killing innocent people. I dont recollect Napolean being at that level. He was an average joe from the 18th century who did what everyone did back in that day which is to make war and expand territories. The French did it, the British, the Russians, the Japanese, the Zulus, the Turks etc etc.

IF you are gonna throw Napolean into this mix of despots than you might as well throw most of the British royalty in as well. Noone is clean if you go far back enough in history.

The reason why we hate guys like Hitler so much is because they are a holdover from the old days of savagery with no repercussions. Keep in mind this was the norm up until about 130 years ago. Guys like Kim Jhong Il had their mentality stuck in those days even though the rest of the world had moved on.

you know what, if they're throwing in Napolean, they should throw in the US. Look at what we did to the Indians. Us bastards forced them off their land under penalty of extreme mistreatment and death.

That's true. Don't listen to what they teach you in History class.

imm.io/Eh2G

Again, sorry that it won't go into a pic.

isaactheman wrote:

Kptn Singh wrote:

bomer1 wrote: Nap did the same thing that the other guys did, mentioned below. That was a dumb question by the way. What did he do to u, none of those guys did anything to me or him.

ur taking the question literally

what im implying is, why is poor ol napolean being thrown in with Hitler. Mind you, Hitler, minus the whole ethnic cleansing atrocities stuff is just another empire building leader. The reason we despise him so much is because he thought genocide was legit. same thing with osama and saddam killing innocent people. I dont recollect Napolean being at that level. He was an average joe from the 18th century who did what everyone did back in that day which is to make war and expand territories. The French did it, the British, the Russians, the Japanese, the Zulus, the Turks etc etc.

IF you are gonna throw Napolean into this mix of despots than you might as well throw most of the British royalty in as well. Noone is clean if you go far back enough in history.

The reason why we hate guys like Hitler so much is because they are a holdover from the old days of savagery with no repercussions. Keep in mind this was the norm up until about 130 years ago. Guys like Kim Jhong Il had their mentality stuck in those days even though the rest of the world had moved on.

you know what, if they're throwing in Napolean, they should throw in the US. Look at what we did to the Indians. Us bastards forced them off their land under penalty of extreme mistreatment and death.

wow,

the native americans and the native britons have so much in common

Allied wrote: I guess your right but i still do blame france for world war 1.I mean they took german land and Germany wanted revenge.I would want revenge.I guess he aint up there with hitler but you are right about the british.I would say they were worse than the french during the 1700s and 1800s.At one time the british were owned by the greeks.A very long time ago.

Allied, I don't know where or what history you've been reading, but the British as you call them have never at any time in history been under Greek rule and as for the British being worse than the French in the 18th 19th centuries, consider the French Revolution, French expansionism in Africa, South East Asia, Canada, the summary execution by beheading of the majority of French nobility during the revolution.

And while I'm here someone mentioned brutal treatment of the Britons at Roman hands, read some Tacitus and others, the Romans were almost invited into the country, the real problems started with the tribes north of the Thames. After the legions withdrew in about 420AD the Saxons came, then the Danes, now they were brutal.

As for language, English is primarily Latin as is French, Spanish, Portuguese and of course Italian. Nobody knows the language of the original Britons, because you,see they had been displaced by invading Celts, long before the Roman invasion.
Oh and just to throw a spanner in the works, no one is sure of where the Celts came from, but many historians, archaeologists anthropologists, believe it was the upper parts of India, what is now Pakistan!

Flyingmuck wrote:

Allied wrote: I guess your right but i still do blame france for world war 1.I mean they took german land and Germany wanted revenge.I would want revenge.I guess he aint up there with hitler but you are right about the british.I would say they were worse than the french during the 1700s and 1800s.At one time the british were owned by the greeks.A very long time ago.

Allied, I don't know where or what history you've been reading, but the British as you call them have never at any time in history been under Greek rule and as for the British being worse than the French in the 18th 19th centuries, consider the French Revolution, French expansionism in Africa, South East Asia, Canada, the summary execution by beheading of the majority of French nobility during the revolution.

And while I'm here someone mentioned brutal treatment of the Britons at Roman hands, read some Tacitus and others, the Romans were almost invited into the country, the real problems started with the tribes north of the Thames. After the legions withdrew in about 420AD the Saxons came, then the Danes, now they were brutal.

As for language, English is primarily Latin as is French, Spanish, Portuguese and of course Italian. Nobody knows the language of the original Britons, because you,see they had been displaced by invading Celts, long before the Roman invasion.
Oh and just to throw a spanner in the works, no one is sure of where the Celts came from, but many historians, archaeologists anthropologists, believe it was the upper parts of India, what is now Pakistan!

Go Denmark! When I say I'm descended from Danish royalty, it's because a one point (my Danish history is unlearned at best) there were lots of kings or something but the king we're descended from, all I know is that his name started with H

I learned so much

Flyingmuck wrote:

Allied wrote: I guess your right but i still do blame france for world war 1.I mean they took german land and Germany wanted revenge.I would want revenge.I guess he aint up there with hitler but you are right about the british.I would say they were worse than the french during the 1700s and 1800s.At one time the british were owned by the greeks.A very long time ago.

Allied, I don't know where or what history you've been reading, but the British as you call them have never at any time in history been under Greek rule and as for the British being worse than the French in the 18th 19th centuries, consider the French Revolution, French expansionism in Africa, South East Asia, Canada, the summary execution by beheading of the majority of French nobility during the revolution.

And while I'm here someone mentioned brutal treatment of the Britons at Roman hands, read some Tacitus and others, the Romans were almost invited into the country, the real problems started with the tribes north of the Thames. After the legions withdrew in about 420AD the Saxons came, then the Danes, now they were brutal.

As for language, English is primarily Latin as is French, Spanish, Portuguese and of course Italian. Nobody knows the language of the original Britons, because you,see they had been displaced by invading Celts, long before the Roman invasion.
Oh and just to throw a spanner in the works, no one is sure of where the Celts came from, but many historians, archaeologists anthropologists, believe it was the upper parts of India, what is now Pakistan!

wait a minute now

the northern part of India is where my family is from

SO wait,

im celtic

GO CELTICSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS



I allways believed my family came from a long line of point guardssssssss

Mr Muck, I dont believe the bit about Romans being invited in for invasion

what usually happens is this

an invading force, will befriend a weaker group in the opposition force. This gives them the pretense of aiding the weaker side. The wining side writes the history, but since no writings of native British Historians have survived we only know the Roman side.

it just gives some moral justification

"A village elder in traditional Celtic festival clothing.

they are gathered for the annual slam dunk rite of passage celebration

very authentic."


'Anthropologic dissection of the five river area/Northern India' bee ess et al 1961, Skunk Pbl

Kptn Singh wrote: Mr Muck, I dont believe the bit about Romans being invited in for invasion

what usually happens is this

an invading force, will befriend a weaker group in the opposition force. This gives them the pretense of aiding the weaker side. The wining side writes the history, but since no writings of native British Historians have survived we only know the Roman side.

it just gives some moral justification

This could end up being a long discourse

Yes, yes it could, a very long one.

Wow all these stories very touching thanks for the poem Luna. That day I was heading to jamberii the kid play area I was only 1 year old. I hate those guys who did that. So mean. So glad Osama dead.

The striker16 wrote: Wow all these stories very touching thanks for the poem Luna. That day I was heading to jamberii the kid play area I was only 1 year old. I hate those guys who did that. So mean. So glad Osama dead.

Can we please quit talking about this.

Ok sorry if this upset u I didn't read all posts so I didn't know u had a problem sorry.

The striker16 wrote: Ok sorry if this upset u I didn't read all posts so I didn't know u had a problem sorry.

Thanks for understanding.

Ur welcome ps just switched to monarchs

Um, that's what the thread is for. I'm sorry for what has happened and if the views expressed here upset you I would not continue to view it.

VortexIII wrote: Um, that's what the thread is for. I'm sorry for what has happened and if the views expressed here upset you I would not continue to view it.

The stories here are valuable to read
You just don't understand

Lets drop this topic because if we dont we are going to end up hating each other. I apologize for anything i said kptn.

Kptn Singh wrote:

Allied wrote: I guess your right but i still do blame france for world war 1.I mean they took german land and Germany wanted revenge.I would want revenge.I guess he aint up there with hitler but you are right about the british.I would say they were worse than the french during the 1700s and 1800s.At one time the british were owned by the greeks.A very long time ago.

thanks for understanding the point I was trying to make. Yes, you are right. The British were at one time invaded by the Romans and the natives (britons) were treated rather ruthlessly by the Roman empire and their culture was repressed. Hence, English is foreign to England and is not the native Briton tongue.

Lands have been fought over for eternity. We are mammals after all and mammals occupy and then urinate on the land to mark it as theirs.

We live in the safest of times in history, if you think about it. The amount of people dying as a percentage of the total human population, due to war, has been on the decrease I believe.

What Singh says is very true. You cant just hate Napoleon for going out and trying to conquer the world. If you read in the christen bible in the old testament you will find that there are a lot of wars in there. The Israelites had to drive cananites and several other groups out to get the promise land. When the the 10 guys came back and reported how the land was and how strong the people there were. The guys said there were giants there and that there cites were fortified and made to be easily defended in the case a war happened which was often back then. After they report on all this and basically just say there to strong to take down Moses says oh well lets go kill them and take there land. So are we going to call Moses brutal for that. Some were else in there it talks about Moses stoning a man for working on Sabbath day.

bomer1 wrote: Lets drop this topic because if we dont we are going to end up hating each other. I apologize for anything i said kptn.

oh no,

I took no offence to anything you said B.

I just like history, discussing it etc. thats all.

\1/
1
/\