Not lefty friends, says vikings don't like being replaced
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
No, the disagreement is whether they should be blindly believing what the media says. Because I know leftists who don't like immigration, but are still leftists for other reasons. They are hardly people who think that white people should not be around.
I assume you mean 'at the time'. Still, I'm not sure how much stealing and taking other people as slaves was a good thing, even at the time. It always struck me as rather unreasonable how much Muslims think that jihad and raiding infidels is a good thing.
It's like calling yourself Agricultist in honor of agricultural forefathers and then saying that being a farmer is not all you did. Of course not.
I thought pirate means sea-based raiding on land as well, but I'm not sure I used the term correctly.
Did you bother reading the OP?
Then you know leftists who love immigration. It's a package deal. If you vote for it, you vote for all of it, you don't get to pick and chose.
No, not really. We still do it nowadays we just call it different things and tend to spend more blood than strictly necessary.
Doing so as part of the normal human cycle of warfare, as opposed to doing so because muslims want to make everyone else worship the devil too?
There's a significant moral difference between the two.
Not in English, no. Piracy is ship to ship, and typically involves selling captured cargo and prize vessels. The correct term is sea raiders, or strangely enough, Vikings.
Typically the best defense that could be mustered is to prevent easy landings, but that was not particularly easy at the time given that professional armies basically did not exist and the bulk of most forces were seasonal peasant fyrds, who might as well have just been fodder.
That is in fact why the Danes had such an easy time conquering England at first, because shit-kicking peasants make shittier troops and that was the style of warfare the Saxons used at the time whereas every single Danish man who wasn't a cripple was a seasoned warrior(precisely because they raided all the time to get combat experience).
All too well.
You do know that nearly all American right-wingers who voted, voted for George W. Bush? I guess they also love immigration.
Either. I'm not that fond of robbing people and taking them as slaves.
Not that strange. Makes sense that it would be named after its best practitioners. Maybe Corsairs?
I guess that would also be why all civilized lands fell so easily to the Mongols, whose hunting experience was great for fighting humans as well.
You think the majority of the R electorate is over sixty? Stats don't pan out that way. Particularly since Trump has had success digging up right wing first time voters in 2016 who had been waiting for nationalism. Bush's most fervent followers are now publicly Democrats anyway, the neocons were never anything but D in disguise.
Oh that's right I forgot you were an atheist, morals don't enter into your thinking. Hence all the relativism.
A term specific to Barbary Coast mohammadan pirates of the early 1800s. Only in modern times(as most retardations) has it become synonymous with the term "pirate". The Barbary Coast muslims largely practiced it not for capturing ships but for taking of slaves.
You guess wrong. The West fell to the Mongols so easily because they had a doctrinal outmatch, not a lack of trained soldiery. At the time the West had plenty of professional armies, but they weren't prepared for an exclusively ranged cavalry opponent. Hence why the conquests fell so quickly after the Mongols lost momentum, because their various enemies adapted within a generation.
Besides dude, what do you think they hunted in the 1100s that required a swarm of horse archers to kill? It's not like the Mongols subsisted entirely on elephants or something.