INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: El-Presidente on February 13, 2014, 02:24:09 PM
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10635054/British-child-beaten-to-death-with-cricket-bat-by-father-in-Australia.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10635054/British-child-beaten-to-death-with-cricket-bat-by-father-in-Australia.html)
How the fuck can something like this happen?
-
Couple horrendous incidents over here lately too. I hate even reading the news anymore.
They're are some really sick fucks out there.
-
Yeah I don't 'get' it either. I wonder why the other people there did not try to overpower the man? Maybe they did, and it all happened too quickly. His mum said she thought he was leaning over the boy, trying to help him as she thought he had been hit by a ball.
If my kid goes down on the deck, ever, I am not watching from a distance. Poor kid.
-
The article states that the police believe the father wanted to be shot dead after killing his son,
i.e. the attack on his son was his way of committing "suicide by cop," if I understand correctly.
I wish these murderer/suicides would be content with killing just themselves, if anyone,
instead of bringing a bunch of innocent bystanders along with them. :grrr:
-
Yeah I don't 'get' it either. I wonder why the other people there did not try to overpower the man? Maybe they did, and it all happened too quickly. His mum said she thought he was leaning over the boy, trying to help him as she thought he had been hit by a ball.
If my kid goes down on the deck, ever, I am not watching from a distance. Poor kid.
Seriously. I would have been on his back like a Tasmanian devil.
The mother thought he only posed a threat to "her", so obviously she had dealt with some shit in the past and was scared of him. :P
-
Makes you wonder how long it took, in real time. He was only 11 years old so probably just a few seconds, or a few blows.
He was armed with a bat and a knife so why didn't police overpower him instead of shooting him dead? He got what he wanted. Death. This is not what he deserved.
I would like to have seen him face a trial and court and a long miserable life in prison.
-
Makes you wonder how long it took, in real time. He was only 11 years old so probably just a few seconds, or a few blows.
Wishful thinking, sorry. Society is full of myths of "instant death", hell even a rifle blast to the face may take you a couple of long, agonizing minutes to succump completely from.
The luck, if any, is if you pass out, and fall unconcious. But the sad, horrible truth is that a human body can take an unbelievable ammount of punishment.
I actually saw a docu the other day about british soldiers in combat, and a mother who could NOT accept the story of how her son died - told by the soldiers _on the ground_, prefering the phoney bullshit she got from the dpt of defense or whatever it was.
Chronologically - she was informed by the dpt first, they told her "death was instant" (an impossibility, unless you are vaporized), but a standard thing to tell a grieving parent. She doubted them, and wanted to hear it from the boys on the ground. THEY told her that he probably lived for 10-15 minutes.
That is as good as instant. 10-15 minutes from bullet impact, untill last breat, that... is almost as instant as it gets. The guy collapsed _immediately_, and passed out from blood-loss within a minute or two. But had a pulse for about 10-15 minutes.
That's all, 10-15 minutes of pulse, and this traumatized the mother completely, she could not accept it at all.
-
obviously, I'm being a nitpicker, and there is a good chance the poor kid blacked out from the knock to the head. Hopefully...
-
Yes when people die we like to think of death being instant. If I had to tell a mother that her child was dead I would hope it was a question not asked, for I doubt I could lie.
It's about suffering. Although I not sure how much of that time would be spent suffering, or maybe just adrenalin soaked bewilderment.
Another mystery is when you hear about people surviving major trauma because they were 'fighters'. How does that happen? Surely most would fight for survival. How does one initiate this fighting will to survive? :dunno:
-
Reading this, and the comments, I fear the dad did not just want suicide by cop, but also agony for the mother of his son, killing her son at a distance, but very visible for her.
Lots of those family killings/suicides seem to be about hurting the remaining parent.
Last year there was a guy in the Netherlands who killed his kids, hid the bodies, and then killed himself somewhere else. Took days before the mother knew what the fate of her sons was.
-
It is fucked up. The strength of feeling to hurt an ex to be stronger than the natural feelings of a parent to protect a child. I don't get it. :grrr:
-
It is fucked up. The strength of feeling to hurt an ex to be stronger than the natural feelings of a parent to protect a child. I don't get it. :grrr:
Me neither.
Theoretically I can think why a severely depressed person could want to shield ofspring from life, making it a group suicide. But that is theoretical. My gut does not even want me theorising about it.
The need to hurt an ex by taking away what is most dear to both of you makes no sense at all to me. Safety and life of kids should come first.
-
Another mystery is when you hear about people surviving major trauma because they were 'fighters'. How does that happen? Surely most would fight for survival. How does one initiate this fighting will to survive? :dunno:
This has to do with the few cases where staying concious is crucial to surviving while help is on the way, for example during shock or freezing. Willpower makes the difference between fighting to stay awake and concious, and giving in to the drowsyness and letting yourself fall asleep.
However, this is merely ONE variable, that does not go for ONE kind of situation. One example of this is the winter drunkard in Norway - with a weak will, he might sit down in the snow, and fall asleep there. With a strong will he will remind himself the danger of that, and keep on walking home.
But you are right that this is not something people should apply to everything, it is a minor variable, and will only affect minutes at the time. It obviously also creates a very unfortunate "they shoulda fought better" mentality.
Also, you could check the docu out, youtube for "Ambushed", and sort for longer clips, it should be about an hour at least, and is about British troops in Afghanistan. It gives some remarkable insight on the brutal, unpolished, medieval nature of modern warfare. Western society is notoriously deluded as to how savage modern combat is. (Relax, the docu isn't bloody or gory.) It also gives an insight in the practical ways of warfare. When was last you learned about the actual process of troop movement? Who makes the decision to move a "piece of chess" across the battlefield? The docu doesn't quite elaborate on it, but by paying attention, you get a sense of how cold and crude, and most of all practical and automatic it is.
Specifically the notable chronology of:
A whole platoon of soldiers are stationed right next to a Taliban base. NOTHING happens - for days. The Talibans are in no hurry to die, and the british troops are in ABSOLUUUTELY NO hurry to die - at all! :D So it turns into instant stagnation. Who would have thought? It has nothing to do with brave/not brave, it's completely natural, and to be expected when you station troops somewhere without actual orders. So, the piece is placed, but it won't make contact by itself, it needs a nudge.
Next, the solution is both routine and simple: Place one man in that base, who outranks everyone, who is a bit of a loose-cannon, who wants to see blood spatter, who has no emotional connection with the troops, and just sit back and wait.
Their OWN command, will be very reluctant to dive head first into a Taliban nest. A commander who is eager about violence, and who has no connection with the troops, will have no problem making that decision. It seems these commanders are sortof "placed around", to get things moving. Interesting to see. The docu doesn't spell it out, that's why I describe it to you now, so you can notice in case you watch it :D
-
Apparently after reading the paper today, the Mother was saying that he loved the boy as much as she did but had psychological problems and it sounded like he simply lost the plot.
It sounded very unfortunate. A psychologically unstable man not obviously well enough medicated and with a cricket bat in his hand the moment he snaps.
-
@Zegh
I looked for 'ambushed' as am interested to see but could only find one about US Marine's. Do you have a link?
-
Apparently after reading the paper today, the Mother was saying that he loved the boy as much as she did but had psychological problems and it sounded like he simply lost the plot.
It sounded very unfortunate. A psychologically unstable man not obviously well enough medicated and with a cricket bat in his hand the moment he snaps.
That is very sad but does explain a little. I was thinking could be a bonding issue with a tiny baby or small child, but was puzzled to think about a man who is father for 11 years. 11 years must equal a lot of love. Sounds like a moment of madness.
-
@Zegh
I looked for 'ambushed' as am interested to see but could only find one about US Marine's. Do you have a link?
Our War | Ambushed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISEdzCGo6G4#ws)
//
As for snapping, I've seen it happen. My brother has that mentality. He will get a rush when he attacks what he loves. It is a huge problem. He has beaten up a lot of his friends, severed those friendships, he has verbally abused our mother on many occasions - and he picks the most hurtful sadistic things to say, and will usually just keep saying things purely to feel that rush of attacking what he loves. He is aware of this himself, but is unable to control his impulse once he gets angry.
-
Apparently not long after the incident, the mother walked out and told the news crews that she would give her side of the story rather than the newspapers revert to misinformation and sensationalism to sell a story and for 26 minutes between sobs and tears set them all right. She told of a loving Father and husband with psychological problems and how tragic it was and that there was no one to blame and how devastated she was.
Fucked up shit
-
It is a pity he wasn't shot before he killed the poor little bugger. Preferably by way of a benelli automatic pump action loaded with double ought buckshot cartridges and emptied into him after being shoved up his arse. A lead enema as it were.
-
@Zegh
I looked for 'ambushed' as am interested to see but could only find one about US Marine's. Do you have a link?
Our War | Ambushed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISEdzCGo6G4#ws)
//
As for snapping, I've seen it happen. My brother has that mentality. He will get a rush when he attacks what he loves. It is a huge problem. He has beaten up a lot of his friends, severed those friendships, he has verbally abused our mother on many occasions - and he picks the most hurtful sadistic things to say, and will usually just keep saying things purely to feel that rush of attacking what he loves. He is aware of this himself, but is unable to control his impulse once he gets angry.
OMG I have just seen it all the way through. Began to watch it yesterday but soon realised I needed to pick a time when the urchin was asleep and I could absorb everything.
Yeah I see what you mean, that Major came in and shook everything up when he ordered them to go on that patrol. I notice he never spoke on the documentary. He made them engage the enemy.
I really liked 'Bjorn Rose' who wrote the letter - just for his honesty. The other Sargent (Panzer?) seemed a bit ... I dunno, reserved maybe. Felt like he could be one of the ones who don't get PTSD for a long, long time, then 'booom'
The first thing that shocked me was how young they looked. It was very interesting Zegh, cheers :thumbup:
-
@Zegh
I looked for 'ambushed' as am interested to see but could only find one about US Marine's. Do you have a link?
Our War | Ambushed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISEdzCGo6G4#ws)
//
As for snapping, I've seen it happen. My brother has that mentality. He will get a rush when he attacks what he loves. It is a huge problem. He has beaten up a lot of his friends, severed those friendships, he has verbally abused our mother on many occasions - and he picks the most hurtful sadistic things to say, and will usually just keep saying things purely to feel that rush of attacking what he loves. He is aware of this himself, but is unable to control his impulse once he gets angry.
OMG I have just seen it all the way through. Began to watch it yesterday but soon realised I needed to pick a time when the urchin was asleep and I could absorb everything.
Yeah I see what you mean, that Major came in and shook everything up when he ordered them to go on that patrol. I notice he never spoke on the documentary. He made them engage the enemy.
I really liked 'Bjorn Rose' who wrote the letter - just for his honesty. The other Sargent (Panzer?) seemed a bit ... I dunno, reserved maybe. Felt like he could be one of the ones who don't get PTSD for a long, long time, then 'booom'
The first thing that shocked me was how young they looked. It was very interesting Zegh, cheers :thumbup:
It is very interesting that docu. And my first thought, regarding those soldiers, similar to yours was how young they are - but also - does nobody properly warn them? In the recruitment offices etc, I fully realize that it is bad advertisement to stop an eager recruit, and go "Hold on a moment - you realize that you might DIE yes?" - but they are owed to be told that, loud and clear.
You can see for yourself how incredibly unprepared they are, mentally. When shooting begins, they make rock-n-roll signs, they take it as "oh, finally some action" - no - it's not "some action", it's "mortal danger!!!!" and boy, do they come to realize that once it is too late. Once one of them is white as a sheet, one of their friends! DEAD!
I am always very conflicted about how the military forces of our ideally peaceful nations are treated. We have no war here. We have no business warring in other countries. Soldiers are here to defend us, and make sure nobody comes to attack us. All the propaganda bullshit aside, those troops are there - in Afghanistan - for politicians little games, not for freedom or people or justice or anything like that. If you ask those boys, THEY are there for the pay and the action! The illusion of "doing something good" is just a bit of icing on the cake for them.
Gah... I can't think about it too much, I get so irritated... :D
-
The thing i disliked about the army was the class thing. I thought it was obvious during that clip, too. Those higher up the food chain make the decisions that affect the boots on the ground who seem to be just disposable at times. It annoys me too.
-
The thing i disliked about the army was the class thing. I thought it was obvious during that clip, too. Those higher up the food chain make the decisions that affect the boots on the ground who seem to be just disposable at times. It annoys me too.
Oh, but that is ancient and integral to the nature of war. Why else would we be operating with such high numbers all the time? They are meant to be expendable, or we would be sending
1 king to duel 1 king
or
a handful of field marshals in a pile-up
or even a little band of generals battling it out, as a symbolic act.
Todays armies are still a "symbolic act", they are roughly 0,5% or so of a normal population, so it is not "truly" two nations fighting each others - but symbolic representatives of those armies fighting. And the "class pyramid" has so many levels and steps, that the lowest denominator - the private - usually count in the thousands. Even a small country like Norway has 25 000 troops ready at any time, plus the capacity to mobilize another 60 000.
It's a small number compared to big countries, but imagine shaking 85 000 hands :D The number is quite high, hello, hello, hello, hello, hello, and it is that high so that it would be able to sustain hundreds and hundreds of killed troops, thousands even - theoretically even tens of thousands!
Warfare is very unrefined :D
-
There was once a time here when a King would lead his country into war. :viking:
Also, English people were responsible for arming themselves.
In 1252 the 'Assize of Arms' ensured that all Englishmen were ordered, by law, that every man between the age of 15 to 60 years old should equip themselves with a bow and arrows. The Plantagenet King Edward III took this further and decreed the Archery Law in 1363 which commanded the obligatory practice of archery on Sundays and holidays! The Archery Law "forbade, on pain of death, all sport that took up time better spent on war training especially archery practise". King Henry I later proclaimed that an archer would be absolved of murder, if he killed a man during archery practise!
I discovered this while researching my longbow. Can you imagine a time where all the men in the land practised archery, and also the murders that would have taken place "It was an accident sir, I was practising my archery for King and country".
-
There was once a time here when a King would lead his country into war. :viking:
Also, English people were responsible for arming themselves.
In 1252 the 'Assize of Arms' ensured that all Englishmen were ordered, by law, that every man between the age of 15 to 60 years old should equip themselves with a bow and arrows. The Plantagenet King Edward III took this further and decreed the Archery Law in 1363 which commanded the obligatory practice of archery on Sundays and holidays! The Archery Law "forbade, on pain of death, all sport that took up time better spent on war training especially archery practise". King Henry I later proclaimed that an archer would be absolved of murder, if he killed a man during archery practise!
I discovered this while researching my longbow. Can you imagine a time where all the men in the land practised archery, and also the murders that would have taken place "It was an accident sir, I was practising my archery for King and country".
You're asking a Norwegian if he can imagine a past where civilians were heavily armed, and sometimes performed a manslaughter or two? Yes ;D Yes, I can image! :D
But yeah, notice that it took a single accidental murder to outlaw that practice, and leave longbow-shooting to the professionals ;D I find that comforting, that despite these popular ideas of savage and barbaric pasts, it wasn't as wild and out of control as people imagine. It reminds me of when Norwegians jokingly refer to vikings who would "settle scores" by chopping each others heads of and such "those were the days lol", but no, if they actually read the rest of those stories, they develop quite similarily - usually the perpetrator has to flee into exile, often in far away colonies, like Iceland or Greenland, or the British Isles :D
-
I love learning history about these things. I have never studied the Vikings, they were painted as savages when I was at school. I must get round to doing some proper reading on them.
The 'Mayans' are another group i want to learn about.
-
I love learning history about these things. I have never studied the Vikings, they were painted as savages when I was at school. I must get round to doing some proper reading on them.
The 'Mayans' are another group i want to learn about.
I also love to "un-label" these groups - that helps you understand them better, because it makes them human.
"Vikings" = Scandinavians
"Mayans" = Guatemalans (with the end-of-the-world scare, I always tried to remind people that "mayans" arent some mythical, ancient, extinct culture. 60% of Guatemala are Maya, also a lot of southern Mexico :D In the same vein, about half of Peru is considered Quecha and or Aymara = "Inca", with over a million speakers of the old language)
the word "Viking" evolved, and changed meaning even by the time of the viking-age. Exactly what and when and how is obscure, but if we sortof cut it down to the raw basics, it is most likely that it started like
1. (Probably in the bronze age) bandits sailed down the fjords, the INLETS - "vik" (same as -wick-names in english), a viking was simply a notorious band of raiders coming down the fjords. Why fjords? Because Norway is full of mountains. In the bronze age communities/kingdoms were small, numerous and scattered. Imagine a criminal fleeing to Mexico, to avoid American juristiction. The long winding fjords allowed bandits to hit-and-run very effectively, for then to vanish in the many inlets. So the word "viking" most likely started out as a synonym for raider or bandit, just hill-people attacking fellow Norwegians, looting and raping as bandits always do.
2. With that use allready in vocabulary, by the Iron age the world would allready signify a raider, wether he be a bandit criminal, or a brave warrior raiding foreign settlements. By the viking-age Scandinavians use the word as a noun, to describe a brave soldier who has participated in foreign raids, and brought home loot and gold, often as a compliment "He is a great viking!"
3. Eventually, the word begins to signify more and more foreign adventures, and becomes a verb, with vikings themselves refering to "Let's go viking!" "He has travelled off viking in the south."
Black death strikes Norway, a "dark era" begins, and as the nation is rebuilt, gunpowder and new trends are imported. Old notions are pushed away as primitive, and the word falls out of use completely, untill national-romantic renaissance, especially in Norway and especially after centuries of being Sweden/Denmark's bitch, we begin to long for something to be proud of. Icelandic sagas are given attention, Snorris writings, and the tales of violence and horror is "better than nothing" because at least we are badasses and not bitches in those tales. Horns on helmets comes from a Swedish painter from the same period, responding to the new romantic idea of the ancestor barbarians, and from there on it will take us another century to form a much more realistic and nuanced picture of "vikings".
Today most Norwegians will almost compensate, and argue to you that vikings were "not as bad as everyone says" and such, which I consider common sense, but maybe not everyone does.
Normal viking-age Scandinavians were farmers, as you can imagine, but the pre-christian ones did worship warfare and death by war, and so participation in foreign raids was not too uncommon, and in certain periods youth were mass-drafted for adventures abroad, many went willingly, others were dragged along against their will, sortof something that was compulsory.
Due to the fragmented nature of populations, there were also wars between kingdoms, but that is the same for most places in those days, such as todays England - back then consisting of various rivalling kingdoms, warring for territory, on and off.
All of this stretches over centuries though, and over many independent kingdoms at the time, so there is no ONE right answer.
"Berserker" is an even more obscure and complicated term to decyphre :D
-
I love learning history about these things. I have never studied the Vikings, they were painted as savages when I was at school. I must get round to doing some proper reading on them.
The 'Mayans' are another group i want to learn about.
I also love to "un-label" these groups - that helps you understand them better, because it makes them human.
"Vikings" = Scandinavians
"Mayans" = Guatemalans (with the end-of-the-world scare, I always tried to remind people that "mayans" arent some mythical, ancient, extinct culture. 60% of Guatemala are Maya, also a lot of southern Mexico :D In the same vein, about half of Peru is considered Quecha and or Aymara = "Inca", with over a million speakers of the old language)
the word "Viking" evolved, and changed meaning even by the time of the viking-age. Exactly what and when and how is obscure, but if we sortof cut it down to the raw basics, it is most likely that it started like
1. (Probably in the bronze age) bandits sailed down the fjords, the INLETS - "vik" (same as -wick-names in english), a viking was simply a notorious band of raiders coming down the fjords. Why fjords? Because Norway is full of mountains. In the bronze age communities/kingdoms were small, numerous and scattered. Imagine a criminal fleeing to Mexico, to avoid American juristiction. The long winding fjords allowed bandits to hit-and-run very effectively, for then to vanish in the many inlets. So the word "viking" most likely started out as a synonym for raider or bandit, just hill-people attacking fellow Norwegians, looting and raping as bandits always do.
2. With that use allready in vocabulary, by the Iron age the world would allready signify a raider, wether he be a bandit criminal, or a brave warrior raiding foreign settlements. By the viking-age Scandinavians use the word as a noun, to describe a brave soldier who has participated in foreign raids, and brought home loot and gold, often as a compliment "He is a great viking!"
3. Eventually, the word begins to signify more and more foreign adventures, and becomes a verb, with vikings themselves refering to "Let's go viking!" "He has travelled off viking in the south."
Black death strikes Norway, a "dark era" begins, and as the nation is rebuilt, gunpowder and new trends are imported. Old notions are pushed away as primitive, and the word falls out of use completely, untill national-romantic renaissance, especially in Norway and especially after centuries of being Sweden/Denmark's bitch, we begin to long for something to be proud of. Icelandic sagas are given attention, Snorris writings, and the tales of violence and horror is "better than nothing" because at least we are badasses and not bitches in those tales. Horns on helmets comes from a Swedish painter from the same period, responding to the new romantic idea of the ancestor barbarians, and from there on it will take us another century to form a much more realistic and nuanced picture of "vikings".
Today most Norwegians will almost compensate, and argue to you that vikings were "not as bad as everyone says" and such, which I consider common sense, but maybe not everyone does.
Normal viking-age Scandinavians were farmers, as you can imagine, but the pre-christian ones did worship warfare and death by war, and so participation in foreign raids was not too uncommon, and in certain periods youth were mass-drafted for adventures abroad, many went willingly, others were dragged along against their will, sortof something that was compulsory.
Due to the fragmented nature of populations, there were also wars between kingdoms, but that is the same for most places in those days, such as todays England - back then consisting of various rivalling kingdoms, warring for territory, on and off.
All of this stretches over centuries though, and over many independent kingdoms at the time, so there is no ONE right answer.
"Berserker" is an even more obscure and complicated term to decyphre :D
Awesome post Zegh, history + etymology = epic win
-
I love learning history about these things. I have never studied the Vikings, they were painted as savages when I was at school. I must get round to doing some proper reading on them.
The 'Mayans' are another group i want to learn about.
I also love to "un-label" these groups - that helps you understand them better, because it makes them human.
"Vikings" = Scandinavians
"Mayans" = Guatemalans (with the end-of-the-world scare, I always tried to remind people that "mayans" arent some mythical, ancient, extinct culture. 60% of Guatemala are Maya, also a lot of southern Mexico :D In the same vein, about half of Peru is considered Quecha and or Aymara = "Inca", with over a million speakers of the old language)
the word "Viking" evolved, and changed meaning even by the time of the viking-age. Exactly what and when and how is obscure, but if we sortof cut it down to the raw basics, it is most likely that it started like
1. (Probably in the bronze age) bandits sailed down the fjords, the INLETS - "vik" (same as -wick-names in english), a viking was simply a notorious band of raiders coming down the fjords. Why fjords? Because Norway is full of mountains. In the bronze age communities/kingdoms were small, numerous and scattered. Imagine a criminal fleeing to Mexico, to avoid American juristiction. The long winding fjords allowed bandits to hit-and-run very effectively, for then to vanish in the many inlets. So the word "viking" most likely started out as a synonym for raider or bandit, just hill-people attacking fellow Norwegians, looting and raping as bandits always do.
2. With that use allready in vocabulary, by the Iron age the world would allready signify a raider, wether he be a bandit criminal, or a brave warrior raiding foreign settlements. By the viking-age Scandinavians use the word as a noun, to describe a brave soldier who has participated in foreign raids, and brought home loot and gold, often as a compliment "He is a great viking!"
3. Eventually, the word begins to signify more and more foreign adventures, and becomes a verb, with vikings themselves refering to "Let's go viking!" "He has travelled off viking in the south."
Black death strikes Norway, a "dark era" begins, and as the nation is rebuilt, gunpowder and new trends are imported. Old notions are pushed away as primitive, and the word falls out of use completely, untill national-romantic renaissance, especially in Norway and especially after centuries of being Sweden/Denmark's bitch, we begin to long for something to be proud of. Icelandic sagas are given attention, Snorris writings, and the tales of violence and horror is "better than nothing" because at least we are badasses and not bitches in those tales. Horns on helmets comes from a Swedish painter from the same period, responding to the new romantic idea of the ancestor barbarians, and from there on it will take us another century to form a much more realistic and nuanced picture of "vikings".
Today most Norwegians will almost compensate, and argue to you that vikings were "not as bad as everyone says" and such, which I consider common sense, but maybe not everyone does.
Normal viking-age Scandinavians were farmers, as you can imagine, but the pre-christian ones did worship warfare and death by war, and so participation in foreign raids was not too uncommon, and in certain periods youth were mass-drafted for adventures abroad, many went willingly, others were dragged along against their will, sortof something that was compulsory.
Due to the fragmented nature of populations, there were also wars between kingdoms, but that is the same for most places in those days, such as todays England - back then consisting of various rivalling kingdoms, warring for territory, on and off.
All of this stretches over centuries though, and over many independent kingdoms at the time, so there is no ONE right answer.
"Berserker" is an even more obscure and complicated term to decyphre :D
Awesome post Zegh, history + etymology = epic win
Yep. Zegh writes some awesome stuff. Zegh should be a history teacher 8)
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10635054/British-child-beaten-to-death-with-cricket-bat-by-father-in-Australia.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10635054/British-child-beaten-to-death-with-cricket-bat-by-father-in-Australia.html)
How the fuck can something like this happen?
Nobody should have to go through the upsetting ordeal of stopping such a thing. That's the state's job. :laugh:
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10635054/British-child-beaten-to-death-with-cricket-bat-by-father-in-Australia.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10635054/British-child-beaten-to-death-with-cricket-bat-by-father-in-Australia.html)
How the fuck can something like this happen?
Nobody should have to go through the upsetting ordeal of stopping such a thing. That's the state's job. :laugh:
The state's job is to control all. :police:
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10635054/British-child-beaten-to-death-with-cricket-bat-by-father-in-Australia.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/10635054/British-child-beaten-to-death-with-cricket-bat-by-father-in-Australia.html)
How the fuck can something like this happen?
Nobody should have to go through the upsetting ordeal of stopping such a thing. That's the state's job. :laugh:
The state's job is to control all. :police:
Indeed. To hell with an innovative free market, to hell with these inconvenient "rights", to hell with compassion or responsibility or empathy. Nobody needs to think about anything if they can just leave it to the state.