Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "The Guardian" channel.

@pissfather6798 They where plundring churches because they where easy targets , full of people who couldn't or wouldn't fight, full of high value resources like gold and silver, and the products made by the munks and nuns and the serfs of the church etc.
9
Ja... Vikingene var nok så kosmopolitanske i den forstand at de drev handel med folk så langt unna som Syria og Afganistan, tjente under Byzantium og dro på raid så langt vekk som nordafrika og Italia. Bosatte seg på Grønnland, besøkte nord amerika, bosatte seg i Russland med mere... Det fantes mange byer rundt om i verden der folk hadde blandet blod for å si det slikt... Dublin ble grunnlagt av vikinger men befolkningen der var en blanding av norrønne folk, keltiske folk og en og annen anglosaxer, uten at dette ser ut til å ha vært mye til hinder for noen.
1
@ericktellez7632 Sorry about using Norwegian. If you want me to I can translate my comment for you.
1
@ericktellez7632 Yeah, I guessed as much, but it was rude of me to use Norwegian in a forum where many readers probably don't understand the language. And that was a terrible mistake on my part. And I really, really sorry. :-/ Also, come to think of it, I shouldn't have assumed that the original poster understands Norwegian either. As for the translation: "Yes... The Vikings where quite cosmopolitan in the sense that they where trading with people as far away as Syria and Afghanistan, serving under Byzantium and went on raids as far away as north Africa and Italy. They settled on Greenland, visited north America, settled in Russia and more. There was many cities around the world where people had mixed blood to put it that way. Dublin was funded by Vikings, but the population there was a mix of Norsemen, Celts and the odd Anglo-Saxon, without this seemingly being much of a hindrance for anyone." I hope that my translation held water.
1
@Guillermo153 Ps. Don't worry about using English if you want. The point is exclusion. Excluding someone through the use of language is rude. But we're both proficient in the use of English, so using that is fine. However if you where a Norwegian learner and someone from say China who's also learning Norwegian but doesn't speak or understand English at all where nearby then it would be rude of us to use English in our conversation even though you wheren't proficient in Norwegian and this Chinese person wasn't a part of the conversation at all nor fluent in Norwegian. It's because in that case Norwegian would be the lingua franca of the three of us, regardless of the proficiency levels.
1