Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

Dutch are Nazi remnants - Erdogan


football forum

Recommended Posts

The Turks that are causing these kind of problems arent even from Turkey, they are 2nd or 3rd generation, who are born and brought up else where.

 

Knowing England I bet they will be allow Turkey to have their rally in London probably in an area like Wood Green.  England only ban people like Wilders and Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Turkish migration to the UK has largely been successful, Turkey, until recently, has been one of the modernising, secular forces in the middle east and culturally Turkey has looked Westward more than Eastwards for a century. Erdogan is a throwback, an unpleasant ethno-nationalist of the ilk we're seeing rising up in Western Europe and will damage Turkey greatly, that 'coup' attempt earlier last year was his Reichstag fire as he moves to completely banish parliament. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, VanPanna said:

Well helps when there are elections in a few days.

That's the only reason they did it, because Rutte hopes we'll forget his utter lack of balls over the past 4 years.

Not saying I disagree with the decision, but the motives are shady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how many times I bring it up, some people just refuse to believe me that some immigrants just don't want to integrate and never will. Seems to be an argument I'm always having with Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/13/2017 at 9:40 PM, Spike said:

No matter how many times I bring it up, some people just refuse to believe me that some immigrants just don't want to integrate and never will. Seems to be an argument I'm always having with Americans.

Americans have another perspective because their country was never a homogenous nation-state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, True Bender said:

At least we're the originals.

mwsbm.jpg

Did anyone notice Hitler looks like Erdogan's less retarded, little brother with a worse taste in mustaches.

Do you reckon Erdogan's more retarded fashion look and shit moustache will lead him to slaughter more jews, gypsies and others?  It will be interesting to read the stats when it's all over just for the sake of it and a satirical comment mate. 

The other part is how Erdogan could outdo Hitler on how he kills people...  A bit of Russian gas maybe?  Or maybe testing new medication on some degenerates?  Infact we he could go beyond melting flesh and bones so as to convert it into industrial use and actually just go all out and post YouTube videos with his foot on top of a mountain of dead humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Do you reckon Erdogan's more retarded fashion look and shit moustache will lead him to slaughter more jews, gypsies and others?  

You failed to read my post correctly. Hitler is the one with the shit moustache.

8 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

The other part is how Erdogan could outdo Hitler on how he kills people...  A bit of Russian gas maybe?  Or maybe testing new medication on some degenerates?  Infact we he could go beyond melting flesh and bones so as to convert it into industrial use and actually just go all out and post YouTube videos with his foot on top of a mountain of dead humans.

Erdogan is a rather primitive companion. So most of your fantasies are out of his reach. He'll just do what Turkey did last time: a genocide. But this time it will hit the Kurds, not the Armenians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, True Bender said:

You failed to read my post correctly. Hitler is the one with the shit moustache.

Erdogan is a rather primitive companion. So most of your fantasies are out of his reach. He'll just do what Turkey did last time: a genocide. But this time it will hit the Kurds, not the Armenians.

I failed on the moustache ratings. O.o

Don't put it past Erdogan...  These days humans are more indifferent where detailed details are in question.  They only react when the "pastors" spark them on.  Intellectuals tend to pass from one bother onto another and until someone in the more literate tells them otherwise, they'll be sailing next to Japanese fishing trawlers putting their necks on the line for possible dolphin clubbing.

Crimes of "war" (these days war isn't declared and registered) are always being committed, but these days in the world of "multimedia" you can actually reap even more havoc without being compared to the more infamous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spike said:

Wrong. America for most of it's history was English and Dutch.

America?

Wrong!

America is very diverse in its arrivals and bedding in.  Don't underestimate regional parts of the US (we are talking about the US in this I think because America is something else) and the époque is where you should be putting your emphasis on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

America?

Wrong!

America is very diverse in its arrivals and bedding in.  Don't underestimate regional parts of the US (we are talking about the US in this I think because America is something else) and the époque is where you should be putting your emphasis on.

Incorrect, up until the late 19th century the United States America (and colonial 'pre-USA') was nearly entirely racially homogeneous. It was only the 1820s when the Germans, Irish and Italians arrived. Up until that point the ethnic make-up of America was nearly exclusively Dutch and English/British, to the point where the Germans were the 'Mexicans' of their time.

The founders of America were exclusively English (except for John Jay; French Hugeonot) with most of them born in America to colonialists, they created a nation, they didn't immigrate to one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spike said:

Incorrect, up until the late 19th century the United States America was nearly entirely racially homogeneous. It was only the 1820s when the Germans, Irish and Italians arrived. Up until that point the ethnic make-up of America was nearly exclusively Dutch and English, to the point where the Germans were the 'Mexicans' of their time.

The southern States (I assume you include them in the United States of America) were totally blanketed by "Hispanism" and that continues to be the general mainstay to this day.  Apart from that, America (The good old USofA) isn't a homogenous nation like Panflute has said and you inadvertently admitting, unless you're talking about its natives (you should know about this being Australian mate) has been "invaded" (invaded because the real Americans are your natives for what's left of them) by foreigners and there's been many of them (my époque statement) throughout history...  Due to it not being homogeneous, all arrivals are part of it's cultural history and makeup and it definitely isn't by a million miles just the Dutch and the English.  Infact the English went and took out another party (the French) to overtake for a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

The southern States (I assume you include them in the United States of America) were totally blanketed by "Hispanism" and that continues to be the general mainstay to this day.  Apart from that, America (The good old USofA) isn't a homogenous nation like Panflute has said and you inadvertently admitting, unless you're talking about its natives (you should know about this being Australian mate) has been "invaded" (invaded because the real Americans are your natives for what's left of them) by foreigners and there's been many of them (my époque statement) throughout history...  Due to it not being homogeneous, all arrivals are part of it's cultural history and makeup and it definitely isn't by a million miles just the Dutch and the English.  Infact the English went and took out another party (the French) to overtake for a bit.

Incorrect. There was no 'invasion' for their was no 'nation' to invade. It was a 'colonisation' No, the south wasn't totally blanketed in "Hispanism", as the only regions that were Spanish in the American south were Florida and Texas. The Mexicans were defeated during the Texan Revolution ergo making the ruling party of Texas 'Anglican' and was quickly annexed by the USA, effectively ending any 'Spanish' influence in culture, language and politics.  Florida was GIVEN to the British and had barely been conolised. NO, the Native Inhabitants were NOT AMERICAN, they were Cherokee, Innuit, Sioux, Apache, etc. To say they are American is an insult to their heritage, their culture and their people. They fought for 400 years to not be American, they fought for their land and their own people. You cannot call them that. AMERICA didn't exists until 1776 when it was founded during the Revolutionary War. American is NOT Louisiana, it is NOT the Spanish Empire, and it isn't Manifest Destiny. It was Thriteen Colonies that federalised and absorbed more land throughout the centuries.

You have to accept the fact that the Thirteen Colonies were British, the founding fathers were largely British, the United States of America was not founded by immigrants but by the sons of colonisers and the founding principles of American were based in Anglican-Chrisitanity and a sense of morality derived from the British. Only through a nation that created the Magna Carter and a desire for freedom and escape from tyranny could the USA exist. That is why so many "Hispanism" nations are failed states. They didn't have the morality or the philosophy to create what the British did.

invasionan instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

colonisation: the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.

immigratecome to live permanently in a foreign country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spike said:

Incorrect. There was no 'invasion' for their was no 'nation' to invade. It was a 'colonisation' No, the south wasn't totally blanketed in "Hispanism", as the only regions that were Spanish in the American south were Florida and Texas. The Mexicans were defeated during the Texan Revolution ergo making the ruling party of Texas 'Anglican' and was quickly annexed by the USA, effectively ending any 'Spanish' influence in culture, language and politics.  Florida was GIVEN to the British and had barely been conolised. NO, the Native Inhabitants were NOT AMERICAN, they were Cherokee, Innuit, Sioux, Apache, etc. To say they are American is an insult to their heritage, their culture and their people. They fought for 400 years to not be American, they fought for their land and their own people. You cannot call them that. AMERICA didn't exists until 1776 when it was 

You have to accept the fact that the Thirteen Colonies were British, the founding fathers were largely British, the United States of America was not founded by immigrants but by the sons of colonisers and the founding principles of American were based in Anglican-Chrisitanity and a sense of morality derived from the British.

invasion: an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.

colonisation: the action or process of settling among and establishing control over the indigenous people of an area.

History is made up of choices as life is. To say that the inhabitants of the land we now call the Americas weren't invaded actually leads me to believe you feel the same about those that were turned into mad "drunks" in Australia. 

In your post you've just admitted that North America is a region ruled by moments in time. Who cares who ended up victors in the latter years and who those that write books want to promote in their national cultural manifesto. I leave that to those that have a superiority complex to be honest because it's boring. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and you also forgot to add California in the Spanish thing which in total makes up for a very much dominating land mass of the US of A. And indeed Spanish is still much of the makeup (apart from the names of its towns and cities) of the underlying culture (obviously except for the uneducated red necks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...