Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

KellyHogan · Jun 13, 2002, 05:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by theolein:
Actually, why do you think Ghengiz Khan started his empire?

Ethiopia also has troops and ambitions in Somalia.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Firstly, the Turks used to live alongside the Mongols. The Turks were always migrating westwards towards Europe and south into India and the middle east since prehistory, that's why there is a vast Uralo-Altaic linguistic family that spans from Finland across to western China. Around the time of the explosion of Krakatoa (or possibly other volcano) the Turks began to migrate in large groups towards Byzantine in search of new lands to settle in. Naturally once they settled in and formed a solid base for their existence, their old neighbours, the Mongols, would have followed them too. Mongolia suffers from drought and starvation quite often, it's a terrible environment. Moving south into China is asking for nothing but trouble. Moving into India they have done along with the Turks many times. By the 13th and 14th centuries they had accumulated enough of an army to be able to migrate into Europe, driving their way in because Christendom would not have accepted waves of refugees. Unarmed people would have simply been killed or driven away.

As for Ethiopia (again), they have ambitions for Somalia. The US is still smarting over Somalia. The arms industry is still smarting over not having shown off their latest gadgets on CNN during the invasion of Somalia. Guess who they will use to do the dirty work?

theolein · Jun 13, 2002, 06:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by theolein:
Actually, why do you think Ghengiz Khan started his empire?

Ethiopia also has troops and ambitions in Somalia.<hr /></blockquote>Firstly, the Turks used to live alongside the Mongols. The Turks were always migrating westwards towards Europe and south into India and the middle east since prehistory, that's why there is a vast Uralo-Altaic linguistic family that spans from Finland across to western China. Around the time of the explosion of Krakatoa (or possibly other volcano) the Turks began to migrate in large groups towards Byzantine in search of new lands to settle in. Naturally once they settled in and formed a solid base for their existence, their old neighbours, the Mongols, would have followed them too. Mongolia suffers from drought and starvation quite often, it's a terrible environment. Moving south into China is asking for nothing but trouble. Moving into India they have done along with the Turks many times. By the 13th and 14th centuries they had accumulated enough of an army to be able to migrate into Europe, driving their way in because Christendom would not have accepted waves of refugees. Unarmed people would have simply been killed or driven away.

As for Ethiopia (again), they have ambitions for Somalia. The US is still smarting over Somalia. The arms industry is still smarting over not having shown off their latest gadgets on CNN during the invasion of Somalia. Guess who they will use to do the dirty work?[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Kelly, read the link I posted above on Ghengiz Khan. It still has nothing to do with the eruption of Krakatoa in 530 CE. The Mongols fought amongst themselves and against the Tartars before being united under Ghengiz Khan. It was not the first Turkoman (if you consider the Ural-Altaic language connection) invasion. The first one would have been the Huns under Attila. But that was around 450 CE, *before* the eruption of Krakatoa. Above all read the quotes of Ghengiz Khan's words. He was a formidable person, but he wanted and got an empire. It was *NOT* Migration.

KellyHogan · Jun 13, 2002, 06:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by theolein:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by theolein:
Actually, why do you think Ghengiz Khan started his empire?

Ethiopia also has troops and ambitions in Somalia.<hr /></blockquote>Firstly, the Turks used to live alongside the Mongols. The Turks were always migrating westwards towards Europe and south into India and the middle east since prehistory, that's why there is a vast Uralo-Altaic linguistic family that spans from Finland across to western China. Around the time of the explosion of Krakatoa (or possibly other volcano) the Turks began to migrate in large groups towards Byzantine in search of new lands to settle in. Naturally once they settled in and formed a solid base for their existence, their old neighbours, the Mongols, would have followed them too. Mongolia suffers from drought and starvation quite often, it's a terrible environment. Moving south into China is asking for nothing but trouble. Moving into India they have done along with the Turks many times. By the 13th and 14th centuries they had accumulated enough of an army to be able to migrate into Europe, driving their way in because Christendom would not have accepted waves of refugees. Unarmed people would have simply been killed or driven away.

As for Ethiopia (again), they have ambitions for Somalia. The US is still smarting over Somalia. The arms industry is still smarting over not having shown off their latest gadgets on CNN during the invasion of Somalia. Guess who they will use to do the dirty work?<hr /></blockquote>Kelly, read the link I posted above on Ghengiz Khan. It still has nothing to do with the eruption of Krakatoa in 530 CE. The Mongols fought amongst themselves and against the Tartars before being united under Ghengiz Khan. It was not the first Turkoman (if you consider the Ural-Altaic language connection) invasion. The first one would have been the Huns under Attila. But that was around 450 CE, *before* the eruption of Krakatoa. Above all read the quotes of Ghengiz Khan's words. He was a formidable person, but he wanted and got an empire. It was *NOT* Migration.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>It WAS migration. The Mongols, like many peoples, were not some sort of single united tribe. They migrated and then came into conflict, not only with others people but also members of their own culture. But nothing the Mongols did or even the Ethiopians have any bearing on the subject we are talking about. We are talking about the colonization of people and raping them of their own cultures, history and identity. The Mongols and Turks who migrated west did the complete opposite, they actually converted themselves to Islam rather than try to convert Muslims to their own culture and exploit them that way. And there were also many who converted to Orthodox Christianity.

The whole idea of bringing up the Turks, Mongols or Ethiopians is flawed - its an entirely different discussion. We were and are talking about westerners invading the world and imposing their culture and ideas over people who did not ask for them. No one has ever done this since the Romans and European Christian empires started it. And today the new religion is 'free market' capitalism, which basically means 'You take **** from us and shut up'.

theolein · Jun 13, 2002, 06:50 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
It WAS migration. The Mongols, like many peoples, were not some sort of single united tribe. They migrated and then came into conflict, not only with others people but also members of their own culture. But nothing the Mongols did or even the Ethiopians have any bearing on the subject we are talking about. We are talking about the colonization of people and raping them of their own cultures, history and identity. The Mongols and Turks who migrated west did the complete opposite, they actually converted themselves to Islam rather than try to convert Muslims to their own culture and exploit them that way. And there were also many who converted to Orthodox Christianity.

The whole idea of bringing up the Turks, Mongols or Ethiopians is flawed - its an entirely different discussion. We were and are talking about westerners invading the world and imposing their culture and ideas over people who did not ask for them. No one has ever done this since the Romans and European Christian empires started it. And today the new religion is 'free market' capitalism, which basically means 'You take **** from us and shut up'.<hr /></blockquote>The thing is Kelly (De Larosa?), you haven't posted a single link or any piece of information to backup your claims. Nothing. I'm sorry but I can't take you seriously until you do. I posted about the Mongols as a counter to your claim about Christianity etc. You have posted all sorts of spurious claims which I refuted. Every single one, and I have posted links to back up my claims. You may as well claim that the Martians are amongst us. It's just as spurious without any backing.

Lerkfish · Jun 13, 2002, 08:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
1. Did not claim to know 'every' Muslim in London, just many many Muslims, many of whom are well known.<hr /></blockquote>you said: I know so many Muslims in business, just look at the small businesses in the center of London. I know every one of them personally. in <a href="http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=45;t=006203" target="_blank">this thread</a> Indeed, you did not claim to know all of them, my faulty memory at work here.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
2.London is a successful recruiting base for Islamic fundamentalism. See Sheikh Abu Hamza or Omar Bakhri.<hr /></blockquote>yes, that is what you have said. (is this a disagreement?)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
3.Yes, I filmed fanatics and took photos. So?<hr /></blockquote>so, you might have names or evidence that the state department might be interested in (the help part of my post)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
4. Never claimed the US or any nation deserved to be attacked. Only pointed out why it was attacked from the point of view of those who attacked it.<hr /></blockquote>Then my memory paints a different picture here than yours.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
5.Never defended any Al-Qaeda point of view, only noted what the viewpoint is. I don't even believe something called Al-Qaeda exists so the point is mute. We're dealing with variousn levels of Islamic rebellion, not an organisation with a name, badge, uniform or heirarchy. It is, in the words of one journalist, a nebulous enemy.<hr /></blockquote>Then my memory paints a different picture here than yours.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
6. I never expressed hatred of any nation.<hr /></blockquote>Now that's just plain different from my perception.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
7. Never characterized Bin Ladin as a messiah or freedom fighter, only noted that he is seen in some circles as one. Also corrected the stupid Christian point of view of what a Messiah is supposed to be - a religious and political leader, a unifying king, a liberator of his people who kicks foreigners out of his land. Never said Bin Ladin was that but I'm sure he would like to be.<hr /></blockquote>again, our memories do not coincide here.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
8. I would blame not only the US but much of the western world's behavior throughout history. They invented racism, they invented conversion, they invented the idea that indigenous people who are colonized must be raped of their culture and history and they invented slavery on massive scales. But we live in modern times and our greatest journalists and scholars have revealed the extent of the corruption and exploitation by western elites of the rest of the world on a scale that has never been done before. They kill for money, they kill to increase the value of shares. I can understand war between one tribe and another for survival purposes, but to kill for a fatter bank account, for wealth beyond practical use, only for inflated egos is something the West, primarily the US, has excelled at beyond imagination. That's why it is hard for some of you to imagine that monsters 50 times worse than Hitler or Bin Ladin are getting away with things that make any Holocaust look puny./QB]<hr /></blockquote>but no hatred, right? (see above) this is just a friendly view?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
[QB]LErkfish, the next time you pull up a list of lies try to stop me from defending myself too. This is the second time you've done this.<hr /></blockquote>I did not put up a list of lies, I even prefaced it by saying "at the best of my recollection, you have stated something similar to"...that leaves you some leeway to correct me if my recollection is faulty. And, everything I put was the truth as I perceive it.

But you have not answered the real question: do you have any specific knowledge of the terrorist operations that you could possibly pass on to the state department to help track down killers?

driven · Jun 13, 2002, 08:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mastrap:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
Actually volcanologists now say that Krakatoa also exploded in 530 CE. What? You think a volcano only explodes once in history?

Can you show me an example of a Mongol tribe conquering people for the sake of making them part of an empire, robbing people of their history, converting their religions and customs and turning them into enemies of their own people?

Also, Ethiopia was invaded numerous times, most famously by the Italians whom they defeated.<hr /></blockquote>AFAIK, invading and colonizing are two distinct things.

Kelly, I was wondering something, at the best of my recollection, you have stated something similar to:
1. knowing personally every muslim in london
2. London is the springboard for a great deal of al queda activity (and you mention successfully)
3. You have filmed (documentary) of many muslim fundamentalist activities that celebrated WTC deaths
4. You have often stated how the US deserved to be attacked (WTC) and future attacks. Almost gleefully so.
5. You frequently defend the al queda point of view, or anyone arrested who is connected with al queda
6. You express intense hatred of the "west" or america, to the point of near- religious fervor.
7. frequently characterize Osama Ben Laden as a freedom fighter or messiah
8. Blame the US for every possible ill in the world, and have suggested its complicity in every bad thing that's ever happened.

er....I'm seriously curious at this point, if you knew all the muslims in london personally, and that has been the point of operations for reid who attempted to blow up his shoes, Kelly, are you cognizant of, connected to, friends with any of the al queda terrorists, or have any specific information you could (hopefully) pass on to the US government that might aid in tracking down al queda terrorists?
Any help would be appreciated.<hr /></blockquote>Personally I have come to the conclusion that Kelly is actually a FBI or MI5 agent acting as an agent provocateur. Imagine what happens the second you agree with him - doubtless he's got access to extremely sophisticated IP address grabbing equiment, then next thing you're banged up as an enemy combatant.

<hr /></blockquote>Why not?

KH has already saved the world from one nuclear attack (remember that thread?) Why not save the world from terrorist activies too!

"Hi. The name is Hogan, Kelley Hogan".

<img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

theolein · Jun 13, 2002, 08:20 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:
...
But you have not answered the real question: do you have any specific knowledge of the terrorist operations that you could possibly pass on to the state department to help track down killers?<hr /></blockquote>Lerk. Don't you think this is a bit pointless? Don't tell me that you actually believe him with his wild notions of knowing this and that. If you look at the "Christian West etc, invading poor everywhere else and the others didn't do it vs. The Mongols, Ethiopians counterpoint" you may just have noticed that he:
a)Has a very vivid imagination
b)Never reads people's posts
c)Never concedes a point, even in the face of all the facts pointing the other way
d)Has a rather vague notion of truth
e)Seems to have a personality disorder (I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right etc ad infinitum)

I think, although it was posted in jest, that my post about the family messing up the pasta and the local Pakistani take-away giving him bad Samoosa's is probably closer to the real person. Notice how he never gives personal details about his life, where and how he lives etc. No talking about normal things friends talk about. No talk about parties, girlfriends or the lack of them. Always the manical, ficticious stories he puts together out of things he has read. Do you really think our Mr. Delarosa(?) has any information that would be of any value to anyone that wasn't a psycologist?

SimeyTheLimey · Jun 13, 2002, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr /> Notice how he never gives personal details about his life, where and how he lives etc. No talking about normal things friends talk about. No talk about parties, girlfriends or the lack of them. Always the manical, ficticious stories he puts together out of things he has read. Do you really think our Mr. Delarosa(?) has any information that would be of any value to anyone that wasn't a psycologist?<hr /></blockquote>What do you mean he doesn't tell us anything about his life. He told us just the other day that he works for MI5:

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Here in the UK they have jihad training, all under the eyes of MI5 (I know this from first hand experience...who do you think I was filming for?). <hr /></blockquote>Seems perfectly straightforward and believable to me.

Lerkfish · Jun 13, 2002, 09:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by theolein:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:
...
But you have not answered the real question: do you have any specific knowledge of the terrorist operations that you could possibly pass on to the state department to help track down killers?<hr /></blockquote>Lerk. Don't you think this is a bit pointless? Don't tell me that you actually believe him with his wild notions of knowing this and that. If you look at the "Christian West etc, invading poor everywhere else and the others didn't do it vs. The Mongols, Ethiopians counterpoint" you may just have noticed that he:
a)Has a very vivid imagination
b)Never reads people's posts
c)Never concedes a point, even in the face of all the facts pointing the other way
d)Has a rather vague notion of truth
e)Seems to have a personality disorder (I'm right, I'm right, I'm right, I'm right etc ad infinitum)

I think, although it was posted in jest, that my post about the family messing up the pasta and the local Pakistani take-away giving him bad Samoosa's is probably closer to the real person. Notice how he never gives personal details about his life, where and how he lives etc. No talking about normal things friends talk about. No talk about parties, girlfriends or the lack of them. Always the manical, ficticious stories he puts together out of things he has read. Do you really think our Mr. Delarosa(?) has any information that would be of any value to anyone that wasn't a psycologist?<hr /></blockquote>not pointless...you've arrived at the point I was trying to make in a roundabout way....that nothing he says is valid. I was trying to call him on several of his claims....if even half of what he claims is true, he would HAVE to have inside knowledge...he doesnt, it isnt, case closed.

He has in the past admitted to trolling and enjoying it, I just wanted to say "see ya, call!" and force him to splay out his nonexistent hand.

BlackGriffen · Jun 14, 2002, 03:12 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
... point is mute. ...[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Ok, tonight I get to be english language nazi, because this error bugs the f*ck out of me. The word is moot people! Here is the relevant Oxford English Dictionary entry (one of 10) on mute:

obs. form of MOOT n.1, v.1, MOULT v.

And I'd bet money that no one here is using "mute" instead of "moot" because they're old fashioned.

Sorry for the digression, return to your argument, citizens.

BlackGriffen

P.S. don't try to chalk it up to American and British English differences, either, the OED is made in England, and is extremely comprehensive in noting differences between the two.

BlackGriffen · Jun 14, 2002, 03:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 Moving south into China is asking for nothing but trouble. <hr /></blockquote>You don't even know the first thing about the history of China, do you? I know that you're wrong, and I've only had an (admittedly honors) world history course in high school. Here's a <a href="http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/history/yuan.htm" target="_blank">link</a> to the web page, and a quote of the relevant text:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Genghis Khan (1162-1227) established the Mongol Empire, which would eventually incorporate all of China during the Yuan dynasty (1280-1368).<hr /></blockquote>Not only did Genghis Khan move in to China, but the Mongols even established a dynasty! Not to mention the Mogul Empire in India (another Mongol empire based government). The only thing that saved Japan was bad weather sinking the invasion fleets. Do you even know thing one about history outside of Europe? I admit that I barely have a vague idea about what wen on in thos areas of the world, and I obviously know more than you do!

How about Qin Shi Huang (pronounced Chin Shih Huang) for an example of a non-Western brutal dictator? Check out <a href="http://killeenroos.com/6/Chin1st.htm" target="_blank">this web page</a>. You may find the paragraph that mentions book burning particularly enlightening:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The adage the "Power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutly", however proved true and Ch'in became a totalitarian ruler. He created a system of spying through his military governnors and civil administrators in the provinces, and monopolized all basic goods. In an effort to produce intellectual conformity, in 213B.C. he ordered the burning of books, especially Confucian classics. But he saved works of medicine, legal philosophy, and magic, which relected his utlitarian attitude toward learning, ironically balanced with his interest in superstition. Soon he became a paranoid relcuse dodging assassination attempts on his life.<hr /></blockquote>BlackGriffen

KellyHogan · Jun 14, 2002, 04:07 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:

[QUOTE]Genghis Khan (1162-1227) established the Mongol Empire, which would eventually incorporate all of China during the Yuan dynasty (1280-1368).<hr /></blockquote>Not only did Genghis Khan move in to China, but the Mongols even established a dynasty! Not to mention the Mogul Empire in India (another Mongol empire based government). <hr /></blockquote>Oh boy. Firstly we were talking about Mongol movements from around the sixth century. I did not speak about Genghis Khan's invasion of China but prior movements. Nevertheless, the Mongols when they did invade China took on Chinese customs unlike, for example, the British who built a little England in Shanghai and flooded the poor Chinese classes with opium. There was no respect for Chinese custom.

Then regarding the 'Moghul' empire in India, this was not 'Mongol', this was a combination of Turkic and Persian. God knows where you got the idea that this was 'Mongol'. And since Persians and Turks are part of the northern Indian ethnic group then it is impossible to call this an invasion of foreigners. They also respected the indigenous religion, many Indians converted to Islam for economic purposes sure, just like Jews and Christians who converted to Islam in Palestine, but Hindus and Buddhists were not bannished and banned (although one or two local rulers like Orunzeb were bad to them). Indian culture, which also includes Islam, still flourishes after 500 years of Muslim rule and 250 years of British rule. Now look at Native Americans. They were completely raped of their culture and their land. I think the saying goes:

'When the white man came, we had the land and he had the Bible. He gave us the Bible and told us to close out eyes and pray. When we opened out eyes, the white man had the land and we had the Bible.'

BlackGriffen · Jun 14, 2002, 05:37 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BlackGriffen:


<blockquote>quote:<hr />Genghis Khan (1162-1227) established the Mongol Empire, which would eventually incorporate all of China during the Yuan dynasty (1280-1368).<hr /></blockquote>Not only did Genghis Khan move in to China, but the Mongols even established a dynasty! Not to mention the Mogul Empire in India (another Mongol empire based government). <hr /></blockquote>Oh boy. Firstly we were talking about Mongol movements from around the sixth century. I did not speak about Genghis Khan's invasion of China but prior movements. Nevertheless, the Mongols when they did invade China took on Chinese customs unlike, for example, the British who built a little England in Shanghai and flooded the poor Chinese classes with opium. There was no respect for Chinese custom.

Then regarding the 'Moghul' empire in India, this was not 'Mongol', this was a combination of Turkic and Persian. God knows where you got the idea that this was 'Mongol'. And since Persians and Turks are part of the northern Indian ethnic group then it is impossible to call this an invasion of foreigners. They also respected the indigenous religion, many Indians converted to Islam for economic purposes sure, just like Jews and Christians who converted to Islam in Palestine, but Hindus and Buddhists were not bannished and banned (although one or two local rulers like Orunzeb were bad to them). Indian culture, which also includes Islam, still flourishes after 500 years of Muslim rule and 250 years of British rule. Now look at Native Americans. They were completely raped of their culture and their land. I think the saying goes:

'When the white man came, we had the land and he had the Bible. He gave us the Bible and told us to close out eyes and pray. When we opened out eyes, the white man had the land and we had the Bible.'<hr /></blockquote>Firstly, I typed Mogul, and I meant Mogul. I said I only had a vague idea, and here's where my confusion came from:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Babur (also Zahir ud-Din Muhammad, Babar and Baber 1483-1530)
was the descendant of both Genghis Khan and Timur.<hr /></blockquote>He's the guy who founded the Mogul Empire.

Also, we were not talking about migrations. The other posters mentioned the Mongol Empire, which you conveniently ignored and started spouting off about population migrations. The Turks they were referring to weren't the migrants, either. They were talking about the Ottoman and Seljuk Turk Caliphates/empires.

How about this particularly brutal empire: the Assyrians. IIRC, they came from the mountainous area north of Mesopotamia (right around where the Kurds are today). They were definitely not Western (since the West didn't even really exist as a civilization back then). They had a brief but brutal reign between the empires of Babylon and Persia.

You are awfully deluded if you think that Western Civilization invented racism, or even slavery. Try reading Rising Sun, by Michael Chrichton. Japanese culture is about as ethno-centric as any other. Not to mention the fact that tribalism is just a more specific form of racism. You also find a lot of heavy homophobia in the Old Testament (you know, the part Christianity inherited from Judaism).

As for slavery, have some more other examples:

The Great Wall of China was constructed with slave-prisoner labor.
</li>
Slavery was extremely common in the Roman Empire. Christians were not permitted to own (Christian?) slaves, so slavery actually died out (replaced with serfdom, but that, too, was eventually phased out) in Europe. During the age of exploration, Europeans came in contact with African nations seeking trade. Since slavery was still a common practice there, the local leaders offered slaves for trade. The traders said to themselves, "Cool beans! They aren't Christian, are black, etc. Cheap labor for the colonies." If anything, slavery was a custom imported in that era.
</li>

Not to mention some of the brutal human sacrifice practiced by the Aztecs et al. on captured enemies.
Granted, the West has done some F*cked up $hit in colonialism, and now with unbridled capitalistic self-interest, but painting one civilization and/or people as the source of all the world's problems is ignorant.
J'ai finis, au revoir.

BlackGriffen

Edit: fixed some tags, added a section that disappeared.

[ 06-14-2002, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: BlackGriffen ]

theolein · Jun 14, 2002, 05:43 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:

[QUOTE]Genghis Khan (1162-1227) established the Mongol Empire, which would eventually incorporate all of China during the Yuan dynasty (1280-1368).<hr /></blockquote>Not only did Genghis Khan move in to China, but the Mongols even established a dynasty! Not to mention the Mogul Empire in India (another Mongol empire based government). <hr /></blockquote>Oh boy. Firstly we were talking about Mongol movements from around the sixth century. I did not speak about Genghis Khan's invasion of China but prior movements. Nevertheless, the Mongols when they did invade China took on Chinese customs unlike, for example, the British who built a little England in Shanghai and flooded the poor Chinese classes with opium. There was no respect for Chinese custom.

Then regarding the 'Moghul' empire in India, this was not 'Mongol', this was a combination of Turkic and Persian. God knows where you got the idea that this was 'Mongol'. And since Persians and Turks are part of the northern Indian ethnic group then it is impossible to call this an invasion of foreigners. They also respected the indigenous religion, many Indians converted to Islam for economic purposes sure, just like Jews and Christians who converted to Islam in Palestine, but Hindus and Buddhists were not bannished and banned (although one or two local rulers like Orunzeb were bad to them). Indian culture, which also includes Islam, still flourishes after 500 years of Muslim rule and 250 years of British rule. Now look at Native Americans. They were completely raped of their culture and their land. I think the saying goes:

'When the white man came, we had the land and he had the Bible. He gave us the Bible and told us to close out eyes and pray. When we opened out eyes, the white man had the land and we had the Bible.'<hr /></blockquote>Mr Delarosa, what you said doesn't change the fact that you still not have admitted that you did not know what you were talking about with respect to the Mongols. I don't know much about India and China but I do know a fair bit about the Mongols, and you have been lying throughout all your postings here in order to keep up your sham.

Actually, I think it's about time that I, for one, stopped responding to your posts. I can only assume that you have some sort of personal problem that makes you post so many lies in order to avoid having to admit that you lost a point.

Edit: Je pense que, moi aussi, j'ai fini. Au revoir M. Delarosa.

[ 06-14-2002, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: theolein ]

Lerkfish · Jun 14, 2002, 08:37 AM

moi aussi, por le derniere fois.
(my french probably is incorrect here, being over twenty years since I took it.)

Lerkfish · Jun 14, 2002, 08:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
... point is mute. ...<hr /></blockquote>Ok, tonight I get to be english language nazi, because this error bugs the f*ck out of me. The word is moot people![/QB]<hr /></blockquote>thank you! that one bugs me to no end, as well as:

site instead of sight
to instead of too

Its like the internet has either sucked the grammar out of everyone's head or just people with lousy grammar are on the internet. Probably a little of both.

roger_ramjet · Jun 14, 2002, 08:55 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Lerkfish:

site instead of sight
to instead of too<hr /></blockquote>loose instead of lose.

I can't believe how many times I see that one.