Who would you be?

[satsumaruma]

If you could be anyone from history who would you be and why?

[garyquinn1704]

Always an easy answer. I'd be Hitler and save the world a lot of trouble, loss and grief.

[absenteekendoka]

......hmm. It really is an interesting question......I guess i'd like to be myself.....just maybe in the past...not sure when.....but always me. :)

[MSPaintClock]

Always an easy answer. I'd be Hitler and save the world a lot of trouble, loss and grief.

Be a better painter too.

[Dervish]

To change history: Darius III (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_III_of_Persia); I'd do my best to stop Alexander from conquering Persia. ;)
William Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adams_%28sailor%29); the story of the man who inspired "Shogun". That had to be an interesting ride!

[Hisham]

I'd be Ibnu Batuta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Battuta), a traveler and explorer, why because i think that the only thing about visiting places that was complicated back in those days, was the time it'd take to travel from country to country other than that it was much simpler than our uptight era. And personally i like knowing stuff about other cultures.....etc

[D'Artagnan]

I'd be myself, but 2 weeks ago, of course now knowing the winning Lotto numbers...

[PlutoInLove]

Dervish, don't you think Darius DID do everything he could to keep Alexander from conquering Persia?! *mutters*

This is a tough question. I've studied so much history... hmm. I can't pick someone cliche like Catherine the Great or Cleopatra. Dido of Carthage would be a nice choice. She had kind of a nasty death though. *thinks* I want to rule out those with nasty deaths, but I'm attracted to tragic heroes. Heh. Is Oriana Fallaci dead? Didn't David Halberstam just die? Both heroes of mine.

[satsumaruma]

I think the problem with changing history is that you could not be sure how things would turn out. By stopping past atrocities you would wish to do good but it is quite possible that such an act would lead to an even bigger atrocity.


Me, I would like to have been the Prophet Mohammed. I would have written down my thoughts much more clearly to avoid the Islamaloonies hijacking my ideas for their own ends and delusions of glory by sending young impressionable kids to their deaths.

[chidokan]

me. In another 100 years I will be history...:laugh:

[ne0r]

Hm. I would like to be me, either. If I was someone else, I would need to reconsider who I would like to be again, so that's kind of an endless circle...
Oh, and I don't know if the person I'd like to be would like to be him-/herself. Tricky question ;D
I surely wouldn't like to be Kafka. He certainly didn't like to be himself, I believe ^^. But I like his writings...

But I'd really like to experience Japan in the edo period. I'd like to know what it takes to make a nation rest in peace for over two-hundred years (i.e. totalitarian regime?).

[manjisan]

I think the problem with changing history is that you could not be sure how things would turn out. By stopping past atrocities you would wish to do good but it is quite possible that such an act would lead to an even bigger atrocity.


Me, I would like to have been the Prophet Mohammed. I would have written down my thoughts much more clearly to avoid the Islamaloonies hijacking my ideas for their own ends and delusions of glory by sending young impressionable kids to their deaths.

Nice but there will probably always be people who can misinterpret writing, unless you go to extremes and expound on every little detail so that there couldn't possibly be any confusion.

[ahmed61086]

I think the problem with changing history is that you could not be sure how things would turn out. By stopping past atrocities you would wish to do good but it is quite possible that such an act would lead to an even bigger atrocity.


Me, I would like to have been the Prophet Mohammed. I would have written down my thoughts much more clearly to avoid the Islamaloonies hijacking my ideas for their own ends and delusions of glory by sending young impressionable kids to their deaths.

Its good to know that you would go to such great measures to save lives.

But...

I think anybody who knows even the smallest Iota of the religion, know that suicide bombing is Haram, totally forbidden. And it is EXTREMELY clear that suicide bombing, suicide, killing civilians, children, women, civilians, detroying temples(or other houses of worship) or the people inside, detroying trees, etc, etc, etc. Are Haram. These are extremely clear in the religion. From both the Quran and the Authentic Hadith(sayings of the prophet).

There is clarity that these type of things are Haram(forbidden), but when you have a crazy evil Old man, go to a little kid, and brainwash. And The kid doesn't know the teachings of the the religion. He now thinks the teaching are whatever the old man tells him.

It is not that there is not Clarity on this subject. It is that it doesn't matter when someone doesn't care to look for the proof, or even believe in the proof.

The scholars of Islam, the real scholars, the one who have a apprenticeship and chain going back to the prophet, are very clear on the ruling of Suicide bombing. It is only the local Imams, who have no credence, except among there own people who make a different, and incorrect(fatwa) decree on teh matter, when they have no right to make such a fatwa. Because the scholars have allready made the fatwa.

I know you guys dont like having religious discussion, but I felt I must chime in.

[ahmed61086]

Nice but there will probably always be people who can misinterpret writing, unless you go to extremes and expound on every little detail so that there couldn't possibly be any confusion.

This is what I meant, in my post, you can say the word RED and any loony can interpret it to mean BLUE if so chooses.

[gholam]

I think the problem with changing history is that you could not be sure how things would turn out. By stopping past atrocities you would wish to do good but it is quite possible that such an act would lead to an even bigger atrocity.


Me, I would like to have been the Prophet Mohammed. I would have written down my thoughts much more clearly to avoid the Islamaloonies hijacking my ideas for their own ends and delusions of glory by sending young impressionable kids to their deaths.

If saving innocent life or undoing genocide is the main agenda, than the choice is really hard since there are too many alternatives. Going by the number of kills, most American presidents and Brittish leaders top the list of bad guys you should "wipe out of history", accompanied by Hitler, Stalin and Napoleon.
My own choice would fall on Churchill. The massacres in Africa, all because of him and all, years after Auschwitz, qualifies him as a good choice...

[Fonsz]

I think I would be St00pid Sensei.
He's living in Japan
Has time to provide an essential community service
Has all the answers and more to the difficult questions in life
His "powers of floccinaciniliphication " are some sight to see (whatever it may be)
Is intellectually superior and apparently travels around much
I'm sure there's more but for now that's the way to do it.

[Shazzanzzz]

i want to be confucious and have 13 billion people think like me. world would be a much better place.

[absenteekendoka]

Would've been intersting to pal around with Tesla (Not the Band:) )and see what he was really about. toyed with a few of his ideas designs.....some really cool results with coils and what not......but to have been there......would've been amazing..especially to see him and Edison at it.

[Mokujin77]

would've been amazing..especially to see him and Edison at it.

You want to see one of the luminaries of the engineering world get a good seeing to? I thought this was a nice clean thread about world history. What kind of perverted tomfoolery is this?! :eek:

[satsumaruma]

me. In another 100 years I will be history...:laugh:

Couldn't give you posrep for this but it deserved it.:)

Nice but there will probably always be people who can misinterpret writing, unless you go to extremes and expound on every little detail so that there couldn't possibly be any confusion.

yeah. I know this but I would like to give it a bloody good go. Problem is that concepts change. And so do some basic fundamentals. Muslims tend to avoid pigmeat because it is part of their religion to do this. However, there is good sense for the religion to have taken this position at the time it was being created. Without any refrigeration to keep it fresh pig meat goes off very quickly and therefor people might be tempted to eat it and become very ill or die if the meat had become rotten. so they made it forbidden. (coincidentally, did you know that in the UK people duidn't eat pork, bacon etc in summer for much the same reason?) Nowadays, we have freezers etc so it is possible for Muslims to eat meat but their religion still forbids it for tradition's sake rather than practicalities.

Its good to know that you would go to such great measures to save lives.

But...

I think anybody who knows even the smallest Iota of the religion, know that suicide bombing is Haram, totally forbidden. And it is EXTREMELY clear that suicide bombing, suicide, killing civilians, children, women, civilians, detroying temples(or other houses of worship) or the people inside, detroying trees, etc, etc, etc. Are Haram. These are extremely clear in the religion. From both the Quran and the Authentic Hadith(sayings of the prophet).

There is clarity that these type of things are Haram(forbidden), but when you have a crazy evil Old man, go to a little kid, and brainwash. And The kid doesn't know the teachings of the the religion. He now thinks the teaching are whatever the old man tells him.

It is not that there is not Clarity on this subject. It is that it doesn't matter when someone doesn't care to look for the proof, or even believe in the proof.

The scholars of Islam, the real scholars, the one who have a apprenticeship and chain going back to the prophet, are very clear on the ruling of Suicide bombing. It is only the local Imams, who have no credence, except among there own people who make a different, and incorrect(fatwa) decree on teh matter, when they have no right to make such a fatwa. Because the scholars have allready made the fatwa.

I know you guys dont like having religious discussion, but I felt I must chime in.

No Ahmed I am always happy to discuss religion and as I am sure you may have guessed form my previous scribblings on the subject I have read several religious books, scriptures etc including the qu'ran./

two points on what you have written. Suicide bombings are haram but the problem comes from the fact that Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) did warn Muslims to beware of Christians and Jews. this seems to be have been adopted as some kind of clarion call for disessension and a warping of the message.

the other thing is that not all the suicide bombers are that young or naive. I think we are seeing some kind of Luke Skywalker effect - they are purporting the myth that they are the freedom fighters against the oppressive tyrrany of the Evil Empire (usually the USA). people who have become disengaged with main society are easy pickings. We are having real probelms in the UK with Muslims being recruited for nefarious reasons. I rsik being shot down here but I suspect the problem stems from Multi-culturalism which has been the Governments adopted position on Immigaration here. The US did not do this - they expcet everybody to be an American citizen and take some kind of pledge (assuming you still do that). I think the US got it right and we got it wrong.

[Hisham]

I rsik being shot down here but I suspect the problem stems from Multi-culturalism which has been the Governments adopted position on Immigaration here. The US did not do this - they expcet everybody to be an American citizen and take some kind of pledge (assuming you still do that). I think the US got it right and we got it wrong.

Do you mean that some kind of pledge will make people of other cultures more prone to total integration?! I don't believe so, to my mind it's about how much history a certain ethnical/religious group shares with the "indigenous" people of a country, take for instance the Jewish comunity in Iran, the community existed since before islam, even after 1948 they still feel like part of iran because the majority doesn't treat them as outcast although they mostly keep to themselves, anyway the bottom line is that a pledge IMHO doesn't make a difference, these are trying times for muslims and sadly there is human colateral damage caused by many reasons
Now countries who uphold a high standard of democracy find themselves in a dilemma, how to deal with threats of terrorism without acting like a police states.
Don't misunderstand me but from a practical point of view, you gotta make it hard or even stop any muslim immigration and you'll have to discriminate against the muslim group inside the country when it comes to there freedoms and maybe even make it so that there citizenship can be scraped and be deported.
Yes i'm not politicaly correct, the above is a nightmare scenario for some but realisticaly it could be an efficient way of doing things without being branded as Nazies, i mean it's all for the security of the majority or as it is said in a certain country, national security.
Democracy, not an easy way of government especially when you deal with a non-homgenous group.

For the record i don't subscribe to what i discribed especially that i'm muslim and arabic.

[satsumaruma]

Do you mean that some kind of pledge will make people of other cultures more prone to total integration?! .

Some excellent points Hisham but I will focus on just this if I may.

No it is not really the pledge but the whole ethos of integrationalism/inclusionalism rather than multi-culturalism tends to have had better results with regard to immigration.

EG If a whole host of your traditional stereotypical Brits landed say in Casablanca and all lived in one part of town and turned it into a little Britain (Fish and Chips shops, pubs, vomit, football violence, chavs etc etc). It would be quite clear they had no intention of wanting to associate with the indigenous population. This would engender discord, disharmony and problems. However, if they dispersed around all Casablanca they would be more likely to assocaite with the locals and get on better and ultimately have fewer problems all round.

This is pretty mush what has happened in Britain. People have come in from all over the world, settled in communities all sticking together creating ghettos, not bothering to learn English, setting up separate schools even where their kids do not learn English. What this does is create tensions between people. The problem is that this was the Governments idea really. They encouraged this kind of behaviour by fostering 'multi-culturalism'. Now they have these little pakistans/albanias/Bangladesh/ punjabs/bulgarias etc etc they have realised that this creates division amongst people. People who have been born here and whos great grandparents were born here still do not think of themselves as British. Unfortunately the biggest group who 'suffer; this are Muslims - especially from Pakistani backgrounds. If you are ever in Britain please visit Leicester, Oldham, Blackburn and Bradford to see what has happened. there is violence between peoples of differing backgrounds simply because they create gangs based on colour/religion/regionalism and it is truly awful.


All is not lost however, because Middlesbrough has a boomong immigrant population but the people there have seen what has happend in may other UK cities and are refusing to let it happen to them. One Imam I know very well vset up a radio station called radio ramadan but would not allow it to play only music from the east. he insisted it must play music of all tastes. He wants people of all religions, faiths , backgrounds and beliefs to live together and integrate.

He says this is not only the way forward but actually the right way - the way of Allah. this view is shared by the Sikh minister and several high ranking Christian ministers. Unfortunately it is out of sync with our Government's thinking but still; out of acorns oak trees grow.

Sorry I did not explain this better last time. I am not sure I have done it any better this time but I hope you can see what I am driving at.

Regards

Lee


.

[Kagerou]

Sorry to interrupt your conversation guys but I thought I'd post my thoughts.

I'm in agreement with Chidokan....to a degree.
I wouldn't just be me, I'd be the person I think I can become.

As far as the Islam portion of this thread goes well, hopefully the majority of the population of Muslims will be able to safely convince the extremists to change their ways or prevent other from joining that group.
I don't think it's something that an outside group can do. The extremists will just say that an evil group of nonbelievers is oppressing them and continue as they are now.

The policy in the UK and in the US isn't what's affecting the attacks/attempts. If you're fighting against the US you want to make them feel alone in hopes of demoralizing them, so you take away their allies. By attacking the UK they hope to force the government to pull out of any cooperative operations with the US.

[Hai_hai]

If you could be anyone from history who would you be and why?
Just to preface my answer, this type of hypothetical question is similar to if you could have three wishes, what would you wish for. One's usually wishes for something extreme which ends up taking an unforeseen turn for the worse. If someone wished to be Abraham Lincoln, he would then become a pile of dust because Abraham Lincoln is not alive. If you wished to be yourself but two weeks ahead and knowing lottery numbers, yourself in the past would want some of the money of the early self and could, in fact, trick the bank and take all the money because oneself is oneself. Same fingerprints, voice, look, etc. The early self would then find and kill the past self... because the early self would think what and where would I go with stolen money. The early self would come to the same conclusions as the past self. Kill the past self, take the money back, and dispose of the body of past self. Police would investigate and then find that early self killed past self and early self would end up in prison and not get to enjoy all the money earned from the lottery.

So, my answer is I would want to be myself because of such crazy ramifications.

[Raindrop]

I don't want to be anyone from history myself but I'd like to hang out with some great people from the past. Mostly Leonardo di Vinci. He was centuries ahead of his time. What a smart man with so much unpresidented insight! I think if he lived in our time he'd still be one of the most intelligent people out there. I'd just like to be his apprentice and learn about everything by observation as opposed to from books, like we do now.

About people wanting to be hitler and not kill all those jews..., with my sci-fi-geek knowledge of the time and space continuum, I can tell you that wouldn't work because if you were Hitler you'd do exactly as he had cause you'd be him so nothing would change, however if you'd just be stuck in his body but with your own mind then he wouldn't have made history by doing all those things because you would prevent that, but that also means your future self would not consider being him because he would not have done anything worth preventing, which makes you not go back in time into his body and prevent what he did, which then leaves you absolutely nowhere, it's like an impossible loop.

Not to mention you'd change world history significantly and change the way we are now. Who knows maybe if the second world war hadn't happened in the 1940s, it would have happened some time later, and maybe we'd still be in a war right now.

[/geekmode]

hehe sorry xD

[JCM]

Hugh Heffner

[Hisham]

Some excellent points Hisham but I will focus on just this if I may.

No it is not really the pledge but the whole ethos of integrationalism/inclusionalism rather than multi-culturalism tends to have had better results with regard to immigration.

EG If a whole host of your traditional stereotypical Brits landed say in Casablanca and all lived in one part of town and turned it into a little Britain (Fish and Chips shops, pubs, vomit, football violence, chavs etc etc). It would be quite clear they had no intention of wanting to associate with the indigenous population. This would engender discord, disharmony and problems. However, if they dispersed around all Casablanca they would be more likely to assocaite with the locals and get on better and ultimately have fewer problems all round.



I totally agree with you, what throw me off is saying the US did it right, which as far as i know/saw, they didn't since there are in big cities many "little countries", ethnicities are still keeping to themselves out there,White people mostly live in "white neighboorhoods, black people do the same, hispanophones...and the list goes on.


This is pretty mush what has happened in Britain. People have come in from all over the world, settled in communities all sticking together creating ghettos, not bothering to learn English, setting up separate schools even where their kids do not learn English. What this does is create tensions between people. The problem is that this was the Governments idea really. They encouraged this kind of behaviour by fostering 'multi-culturalism'. Now they have these little pakistans/albanias/Bangladesh/ punjabs/bulgarias etc etc they have realised that this creates division amongst people. People who have been born here and whos great grandparents were born here still do not think of themselves as British. Unfortunately the biggest group who 'suffer; this are Muslims - especially from Pakistani backgrounds. If you are ever in Britain please visit Leicester, Oldham, Blackburn and Bradford to see what has happened. there is violence between peoples of differing backgrounds simply because they create gangs based on colour/religion/regionalism and it is truly awful.


I agree.


All is not lost however, because Middlesbrough has a boomong immigrant population but the people there have seen what has happend in may other UK cities and are refusing to let it happen to them. One Imam I know very well vset up a radio station called radio ramadan but would not allow it to play only music from the east. he insisted it must play music of all tastes. He wants people of all religions, faiths , backgrounds and beliefs to live together and integrate.

He says this is not only the way forward but actually the right way - the way of Allah. this view is shared by the Sikh minister and several high ranking Christian ministers. Unfortunately it is out of sync with our Government's thinking but still; out of acorns oak trees grow.


That's good news. As you said, it might be a small step but in the right path, there should be a balance between one's original culture and the culture of your country, i mean you might be a ManU fan but when the world cup is on you'll have to rooting for all the players of the national team including Mr S.Gerrard :), don't know if this analogy makes sense


Sorry I did not explain this better last time. I am not sure I have done it any better this time but I hope you can see what I am driving at.

Regards

Lee


.

I understand and i concur with you whole heartedly. The exemple of Middlesbrough says a lot about the influence of comunity leaders in bridging gaps between minorities and the majority in a country.

Cheers

[satsumaruma]

I totally agree with you, what throw me off is saying the US did it right, which as far as i know/saw, they didn't since there are in big cities many "little countries", ethnicities are still keeping to themselves out there,White people mostly live in "white neighboorhoods, black people do the same, hispanophones...and the list goes on.


Cheers


yeah. I have re-read my original thread on this and note that I wrote it quite badly. Sorry about that.

What I was driving at was simply that the US at least try to make the attempt to encourage every immigrant to feel as though that now they live in the USA they can consider themselves as American citizens and enjoy everything USA has to offer ( not all of it good I grant you but I am sure they would wish to improve various things). The UK does not do this - we have gone out of our way to encourage immigrants to retain the identity of the country they left behind. Whilst it is quite natural for people to do this themselves, there should come a point where people have lived here for generations and naturally integrate. But our policies prevent that. It is so worrying that the head of the Commission for Racial Equality even saw fit to express concern that this is the effect of government actions.

This is what I meant when I said that I believe the US have got it right.


I always get the impression that UK policy on Immigration is like a house party. The host nation are holding a party and invite some friends, family and neighbours round for a few drinks. Whilst the friends and family are in the lounge, the neighbours are put in the kitchen. Yes they are all eating and drinking in the same house, but they never mix and it seems like the neighbours are being held at a distance. You know in your heart this is going to result in trouble. Real shame really. Because I truly believe that people(s) get along fine if they are left alone to get on with it. Yes there will be falling outs - but by and large they will get on okay.


Lee

[Hisham]

yeah. I have re-read my original thread on this and note that I wrote it quite badly. Sorry about that.

What I was driving at was simply that the US at least try to make the attempt to encourage every immigrant to feel as though that now they live in the USA they can consider themselves as American citizens and enjoy everything USA has to offer ( not all of it good I grant you but I am sure they would wish to improve various things). The UK does not do this - we have gone out of our way to encourage immigrants to retain the identity of the country they left behind. Whilst it is quite natural for people to do this themselves, there should come a point where people have lived here for generations and naturally integrate. But our policies prevent that. It is so worrying that the head of the Commission for Racial Equality even saw fit to express concern that this is the effect of government actions.

This is what I meant when I said that I believe the US have got it right.


I always get the impression that UK policy on Immigration is like a house party. The host nation are holding a party and invite some friends, family and neighbours round for a few drinks. Whilst the friends and family are in the lounge, the neighbours are put in the kitchen. Yes they are all eating and drinking in the same house, but they never mix and it seems like the neighbours are being held at a distance. You know in your heart this is going to result in trouble. Real shame really. Because I truly believe that people(s) get along fine if they are left alone to get on with it. Yes there will be falling outs - but by and large they will get on okay.


Lee

With what you mentioned about the UK policy in this subject, your point is even clearer.