OlivierK wrote:

Ironclad wrote:The north of Cyprus? Would that count? Following the actual military invasion the island filled with Turkish civilians who presumably believe they are home.

You've answered your own question.

Besides, it's pretty clear that the topic isn't actually about whether non-military invasions are possible, but in fact about the standard "OMG, Europe will become a caliphate by stealth!!1!" bollocks that anyone could just as easily get at any far-right website of their choosing, should they desire it. If not, then no need to participate in the same conversation here, because how this goes down from here is entirely predictable, as many have demonstrated by correctly predicting how it's gone down so far.

Was it! LOL I guess I should have read the thread in full. I thought we were seeking some curios from history. Ho hum.

Well, to his credit (a tiny amount), he had enough self-awareness to be quite coy about it for a short while.

I still think its too bad because I think it's important to talk about problems and what is happening in Greece these days, and the whole mass migration to the EU phenomena, is a problem. I've talked about it with several people who were also concerned about culture, among other things, and I think its a legitimate concern.

Not one that concerns me all that much but a case study on the given subject is the burqua ban in France and other countries debated here several times. Then the ruling was: Cant wear it because it undermines the notion of “living together” and the face played a significant role in social interaction. So there is clearly a culture that uses the law to let's say sustain itself, or someone could say to defend itself, or better yet takes legal steps to prevent another culture from its influence. And if that is so, the question is how far a culture ought to go to resist the said "invasion", various influences?

So to me, it's a legit concern and that can be approached in a civil way. Obviously, arguments ... Let them stay in Turkey, its a sunny country .. are not good enough but .. Let them stay in Turkey because its a safe country is legit. Or what should Greece do when Turkey opens the border? What should other countries, EU countries, who are far from the said borders do? What-if they dont want to take any migrants? etc etc

I've talked about it with several people who were also concerned about culture, among other things, and I think its a legitimate concern.

That assumes their concern with culture is grounded in something tenable, not just ethnonationalism.

What-if they dont want to take any migrants?

Well, they start by withdrawing from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and probably from EU law too if they're an EU country. And then, with that in mind, they start weighing up the actual pros and cons.

By default (when no family reasons or humanitarian grounds are present), the first member state that an asylum seeker entered and in which they have been fingerprinted is responsible. If the asylum seeker then moves to another member state, they can be transferred back to the member state they first entered. This has led many to criticise the Dublin rules for placing too much responsibility for asylum seekers on member states on the EU's external borders (like Italy, Greece, Croatia and Hungary), instead of devising a burden-sharing system among EU states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis

etc etc as I said its complex but I am not talking to you on your own request. Hello?

That doesn't have any impact on the point, though."What if they don't want to take any migrants?" - then they forgo their commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and they potentially come into conflict with EU law. This then will have repercussions, so their wants may well end up costing them a damn sight more than accommodating some refugees, and that's really the point of those commitments in the first place.

etc etc as I said its complex but I am not talking to you on your own request. Hello?

I don't care tuco - at no point did I say I wasn't replying to your posts, I don't give a toss if you reply or not. I expect at some point you'll grow up and drop your childish games.

omg

edit: I think I will keep the game because you, unlike others, changed nothing.

I would say the revolt against the British stationed Roman empire in AD60, led by Queen Boudicca of the Iceni tribe must have been pretty amazing

Boudicca was a queen of the British Celtic Iceni tribe who led an uprising against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire in AD 60 or 61. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica#Uprising

Considering at one point, Nero was considering withdrawing all Roman forces from Britain

The crisis caused Nero to consider withdrawing all Roman forces from Britain, but Suetonius' victory over Boudica confirmed Roman control of the province https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica#Uprising

And all the Iceni were, were rebels that had ran from Norfolk to a British rebel Druid stronghold in Anglesey,

In AD 60 or 61, while the current governor, Gaius Suetonius Paulinus, was leading a campaign against the island of Mona (modern Anglesey) in the north of Wales, which was a refuge for British rebels and a stronghold of the druids, the Iceni conspired with their neighbours the Trinovantes, amongst others, to revolt. Boudica was chosen as their leader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica#Uprising

That was a pretty amazing little Celtic invasion, trying to take back the kingdoms that had just been stolen from them.

How was Boudicca's uprising an invasion? It as a revolt of the locals versus the occupying Roman forces.

Svartalf wrote:How was Boudicca's uprising an invasion? It as a revolt of the locals versus the occupying Roman forces.

Because Boudiccas husband had his own Kingdom in Norfolk, and he was an independent ally of Rome, and when he died, he had left at least half of the kingdom in his will, to his two children, but his will was ignored by his independent ally, and his kingdom and property were taken from his two children.

Boudica's husband Prasutagus, with whom she had two children whose names are unknown, ruled as a nominally independent ally of Rome, and left his kingdom jointly to his daughters and to the Roman emperor in his will. However, when he died, his will was ignored, and the kingdom was annexed and his property taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica

Must be added, for justice sake

According to Tacitus, Boudica was flogged and her daughters raped. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica

This would mean that Boudicca was left without a military army. They are reduced to guerillas, without legitimacy in the eyes of the "law".

And therefore, whilst they were actually freedom fighters, attempting to defeat occupying forces, they were reduced to a position, where they were now barbarians and rebels in their own kingdom, that the law would say, they were invaders.

Tacitus records that she addressed her army with these words, "It is not as a woman descended from noble ancestry, but as one of the people that I am avenging lost freedom, my scourged body, the outraged chastity of my daughters," and concluded, "This is a woman's resolve; as for men, they may live and be slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica#Uprising

Nero, at that time, was the one making the laws.

Nevets wrote: where they were now barbarians and rebels in their own kingdom, that the law would say, they were invaders.

They "invaded" their own kingdom.

K

Lemme see if I understand you right. You mean that during WWII, the Resistance invaded France since, at the time, Hitler was the one making the laws?

Sendraks wrote:

Nevets wrote: where they were now barbarians and rebels in their own kingdom, that the law would say, they were invaders.

They "invaded" their own kingdom.

K

You have Caratacus to thank for that

If the degree of my nobility and fortune had been matched by moderation in success, I would have come to this City as a friend rather than a captive, nor would you have disdained to receive with a treaty of peace one sprung from brilliant ancestors and commanding a great many nations. But my present lot, disfiguring as it is for me, is magnificent for you. I had horses, men, arms, and wealth: what wonder if I was unwilling to lose them? If you wish to command everyone, does it really follow that everyone should accept your slavery? If I were now being handed over as one who had surrendered immediately, neither my fortune nor your glory would have achieved brilliance. It is also true that in my case any reprisal will be followed by oblivion. On the other hand, if you preserve me safe and sound, I shall be an eternal example of your clemency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caratacus

Yay for wikipedia based non-sequitur responses!

tuco wrote:omg

edit: I think I will keep the game because you, unlike others, changed nothing.

And as I've told you - while you're acting like a spoilt little brat threatening to take your ball home whenever you don't get your way, I am not in the slightest bit interested. Go kick your ball against a wall by yourself for all I care.

Sendraks wrote:Yay for wikipedia based non-sequitur responses!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia