Salman Rushdie knighted, muslims threaten violence
Fuzzy wrote:
Dussel wrote:
The antique Romans were much more clever: The turned enemies into allies and later into Romans. First the neighbouring cities in Italy, later whole of Italy, later even Gaul, North Africa and Spain - it even worked with some Germanic tribes at the River of Rhine.
In fact, thats where we get the term Germany. The Italians called one of the tribes 'Germani". They call themselves 'die Deutsch'.
You do not find the term "Deutsch(e)" prior the 10th century. If a date has to be given for the creation of Germany, I would go for the year 919. In this year, under breach of the law of the Francs, the Saxon Duke Henry was elected as King of the East-Francian Empire, which some time later was referred a the German Realm.
Germans are far from being Germanic: In the west you have remains of the people mixture of the Roman Empire and Celtic Influence, also Celts in the South, in the eastern parts there is an Slavian influence, also in Ruhr Area, which had in the 19th century significant emigration from the today's Poland.
Dussel wrote:
You do not find the term "Deutsch(e)" prior the 10th century. If a date has to be given for the creation of Germany, I would go for the year 919. In this year, under breach of the law of the Francs, the Saxon Duke Henry was elected as King of the East-Francian Empire, which some time later was referred a the German Realm.
The word Deutsch of course did not exist back then, as it displays the High German sound shift which took place after the fall of the Roman Empire (wikipedia reports in particular that the þ/ð→d sound shift did not take place until quite late, near the 10th century, and indeed the Middle Latin version of deutsch reflects the interdental as far as I can tell). The proto Germanic word would have been *þeuda, a word which dates back to Proto-Indo-European as a term for people. The word Deutsch is of considerable antiquity among High German, a Latinized version having been in use since before 800AD, although that generally in the context of the language rather than the people. I am unfamiliar of the use of a variant of *þeuda as a common term to describe themselves among various Germanic speakers, but it would not surprise me at all if it was in common use among them as it derives from a more generic word.
Etymonline reports, however, that Germany may actually have been adopted into Latin from a Celtic language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodiscus
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Dutch
_________________
* here for the nachos.
ruveyn wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
They did manage to maintain a vast empire for quite some time y'know... that's a decent achievement in its own right.
And then the barbarians wrecked them. The barbarians were not buying any of this Roman Friendship bs.
Co-opting the opposition is a well known strategy and it has limited success and applications. Some enemies simply have to be destroyed.
ruveyn
Sadly for them, the Romans preceded Machiavelli somewhat. Befriend your weaker enemies and destroy the stronger is virtually page one of "The Prince." But that still doesn't affect the fact that the Romans built and maintained a huge empire for a long time, which is an accomplishment in itself worthy of respect.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
twoshots wrote:
Dussel wrote:
You do not find the term "Deutsch(e)" prior the 10th century. If a date has to be given for the creation of Germany, I would go for the year 919. In this year, under breach of the law of the Francs, the Saxon Duke Henry was elected as King of the East-Francian Empire, which some time later was referred a the German Realm.
The word Deutsch of course did not exist back then, as it displays the High German sound shift which took place after the fall of the Roman Empire (wikipedia reports in particular that the þ/ð→d sound shift did not take place until quite late, near the 10th century, and indeed the Middle Latin version of deutsch reflects the interdental as far as I can tell). The proto Germanic word would have been *þeuda, a word which dates back to Proto-Indo-European as a term for people. The word Deutsch is of considerable antiquity among High German, a Latinized version having been in use since before 800AD, although that generally in the context of the language rather than the people. I am unfamiliar of the use of a variant of *þeuda as a common term to describe themselves among various Germanic speakers, but it would not surprise me at all if it was in common use among them as it derives from a more generic word.
Etymonline reports, however, that Germany may actually have been adopted into Latin from a Celtic language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodiscus
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Dutch
I am not sure about this and Google doesn't give much but isn't Tedesco the Italian for German?
twoshots wrote:
I did come across Tedesco while I was looking this up. Tedesco is an Italian word for German, and it comes from the middle latin theodiscus which was the Latinized version of whatever the High German deutsch sounded like back then.
For sure, thats the modern term. I was a little vague perhaps. It was the romans that used that term, and it applied to a specific tribe of germanics. From what I was told, that was generalized later.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=German
_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.
Macbeth wrote:
Sadly for them, the Romans preceded Machiavelli somewhat. Befriend your weaker enemies and destroy the stronger is virtually page one of "The Prince." But that still doesn't affect the fact that the Romans built and maintained a huge empire for a long time, which is an accomplishment in itself worthy of respect.
Quite so! I am filled with admiration and respect for the accomplishments of the Romans in their late Republican stage and early Imperial stage. When I behold their aquaducts, their running water toilets, there tunnel and their roads I am amazed. They, man for man, were as smart as any who live today. Their roads were straight and lasted longer than ours and they got the chariots and wagons to run on time. My admiration of the Romans brings out my Inner Fascist.
ruveyn
Fuzzy wrote:
twoshots wrote:
I did come across Tedesco while I was looking this up. Tedesco is an Italian word for German, and it comes from the middle latin theodiscus which was the Latinized version of whatever the High German deutsch sounded like back then.
For sure, thats the modern term. I was a little vague perhaps. It was the romans that used that term, and it applied to a specific tribe of germanics. From what I was told, that was generalized later.
Especially there was no need for a generalisation. Prior King Henry I there was no such a thing like "Germany". There must be a shift between the Treaty of Verdun and the election of Henry I: The Treaty of Verdun was a normal Franconian deal, which separated the realm between the sons of Louis the Pious, but did not break up the uniformity of the Realm of the Francs. The establishment of the Henry I in the east and of Hugh Capet in the west was the End of the common realm and here the beginning of a separated French and German state and identity is to seek.
ruveyn wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Sadly for them, the Romans preceded Machiavelli somewhat. Befriend your weaker enemies and destroy the stronger is virtually page one of "The Prince." But that still doesn't affect the fact that the Romans built and maintained a huge empire for a long time, which is an accomplishment in itself worthy of respect.
Quite so! I am filled with admiration and respect for the accomplishments of the Romans in their late Republican stage and early Imperial stage. When I behold their aquaducts, their running water toilets, there tunnel and their roads I am amazed. They, man for man, were as smart as any who live today. Their roads were straight and lasted longer than ours and they got the chariots and wagons to run on time. My admiration of the Romans brings out my Inner Fascist.
ruveyn
Toilets..sewerage.. on its own possibly the greatest creation of Rome. A society can b a) judged and b) limited simply by the way it disposes of its effluence. In fact effluence and affluence are intrinsically linked. The thing about empire-building is that it allows a single great idea to be spread across the world. Its no good having flush toilets and straight roads if they all stop 5 miles outside your capital, or where your borders end. If anything its the one good reason why Islamofascism is bad.. have you seen the state of the roads in the middle east? Have you seen the state of the plumbing? The lord high muckymuck grand poobah gets gold taps, and the rest of the people get a bucket, which is only theirs by the grace of allah, and can be taken back at any time. Sod that for a game of soldiers.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
Orwell wrote:
Laconvivencia wrote:
I am not muslim, but In my opinion, it was Rushdie's own fault that he is facing death threats, as he was brought up a muslim, he knew that this kind of thing would happen if he insulted islam if he does get assasinated, it would be his own blame not the muslims (Careless talk costs lives!!). as a Jew, I would not even dare to Insult Islam or certain parts of Christianity as there is a risk of becoming a victim of anti-semitism.
What madness do you speak? Should we all be silenced for fear of these cowards and their bombs? Should the entire world surrender the freedoms we fought for centuries to obtain and preserve merely because of the threats of criminals and savages? No, of course not. If they threaten us, we should kill them.
Is the victim to blame for any crime? You seem like the type who would say a rape victim deserved it because of being dressed "provocatively." You have a right to free expression, and should never let fear of extremist bigots detract from that right. Defend your liberty! My ancestors fought and died to secure freedoms for me, and I will not so easily relinquish them.
are you comparing Rushdie to a rape victim?, no!!Rushdie's actions were more like this
Laconvivencia wrote:
You are getting to of the subject! this is about Rushdie
Rushdie lampoons Islam and the Imams put a contract out on his life. Yet you seem to approve or at least condone this. How come? No one has a right to make threats of death or violence just because their religion is insulted.
ruveyn
Laconvivencia wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Laconvivencia wrote:
I am not muslim, but In my opinion, it was Rushdie's own fault that he is facing death threats, as he was brought up a muslim, he knew that this kind of thing would happen if he insulted islam if he does get assasinated, it would be his own blame not the muslims (Careless talk costs lives!!). as a Jew, I would not even dare to Insult Islam or certain parts of Christianity as there is a risk of becoming a victim of anti-semitism.
What madness do you speak? Should we all be silenced for fear of these cowards and their bombs? Should the entire world surrender the freedoms we fought for centuries to obtain and preserve merely because of the threats of criminals and savages? No, of course not. If they threaten us, we should kill them.
Is the victim to blame for any crime? You seem like the type who would say a rape victim deserved it because of being dressed "provocatively." You have a right to free expression, and should never let fear of extremist bigots detract from that right. Defend your liberty! My ancestors fought and died to secure freedoms for me, and I will not so easily relinquish them.
are you comparing Rushdie to a rape victim?, no! !Rushdie's actions were more like this
What Rushdie was nothing than to exercise those rights which are guaranteed in civilised society - I do refer here to the French Version of 1789:
Quote:
The representatives of the French People, formed into a National Assembly, considering ignorance, forgetfulness or contempt of the rights of man to be the only causes of public misfortunes and the corruption of Governments, have resolved to set forth, in a solemn Declaration, the natural, unalienable and sacred rights of man,
[...]
Article 10.
No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.
Article 11.
The free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.
[...]
Article 10.
No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order.
Article 11.
The free communication of ideas and of opinions is one of the most precious rights of man. Any citizen may therefore speak, write and publish freely, except what is tantamount to the abuse of this liberty in the cases determined by Law.
---
BTW: How asks from this religious fanatics about our most sacred feelings and convictions: The conviction that any society which is worth to live in is based on the principle of tolerance and the right of each human being to live the live he or she likes to live. Without any interference from instance which do not give a better reason than some dubious old books.
Laconvivencia wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Laconvivencia wrote:
I am not muslim, but In my opinion, it was Rushdie's own fault that he is facing death threats, as he was brought up a muslim, he knew that this kind of thing would happen if he insulted islam if he does get assasinated, it would be his own blame not the muslims (Careless talk costs lives!!). as a Jew, I would not even dare to Insult Islam or certain parts of Christianity as there is a risk of becoming a victim of anti-semitism.
What madness do you speak? Should we all be silenced for fear of these cowards and their bombs? Should the entire world surrender the freedoms we fought for centuries to obtain and preserve merely because of the threats of criminals and savages? No, of course not. If they threaten us, we should kill them.
Is the victim to blame for any crime? You seem like the type who would say a rape victim deserved it because of being dressed "provocatively." You have a right to free expression, and should never let fear of extremist bigots detract from that right. Defend your liberty! My ancestors fought and died to secure freedoms for me, and I will not so easily relinquish them.
are you comparing Rushdie to a rape victim?, no! !Rushdie's actions were more like this

And here is the difference. You posted a satirical cartoon, lampooning the man who is a prince of the realm, and in line for the throne of Great Britain, after his father and elder brother, and could one day be the head of a major religion as well. Nobody has tried to kill you for this. You have that freedom. But satire to Islam appears to be the very epitome of evil, and results in vicious backlash. Should we then act similarly, and declare you blasphemous scum for satirising our leaders?
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
