• The 'Comrade' title is now available in a fetching communist red for purchase by all of you capitalists who survived the Sietch gulag during the people's revolution. And in the spirit of all communists everywhere, it was broken until the capitalist pig dogs fixed it. ;)

Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,658
Wtf is even "right to complain"? Who grants or takes it away, by what standard, and by what power? You are trying very hard to extrapolate legal principles meant to work on the scale of a single polity's sovereignty and legal system onto the global state, where everyone is sovereign unto themselves and has their own legal system, or more than one if they want to.

Unfortunately everyone else doesn't share this preference. Other civilizations don't give a shit really. The weaker ones will demand your "justice for everybody" when it favors them until they become stronger, because that is your principle, while the stronger ones will do what they want, because that is their principle.

Universalism has failed, the lesson of what the western civilization got for trying is that gentlemanly agreements are nice, but they need to remain just that. Agreements, not unconditional and universal laws. When the other side doesn't follow an agreement, we shouldn't consider ourselves bound by it either, otherwise its just a self imposed handicap, which is not something a sane civilization does.
And if we create enough of these handicaps for ourselves, then one thing is certain, we will never again be faced with philosophizing about the question of whether justice should be for the strongest or for everybody, because certainly someone else will be the strongest, and as such, they will answer this question for themselves, without care about what the western civilization thinks of it.
1.Logic.I could not complain about being robbed,when i steal myself.

2.You missed a point.I do not say about being nice to thugs,but about using the same morality for everybody.Which include killing murderers or thieves,becouse i would do the same to my people who would do so.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
4,635
1.Logic.I could not complain about being robbed,when i steal myself.
What good is logic when you don't have unquestionable data to apply it to?

This is what i talk about, you are trying to upscale legal customs meant to work on the scale of individuals in a legal system to sovereign polities of the world.
If you get accused of stealing something, you get sued, you go to court, court establishes who is the legal owner of the item in question, and if its not you, court sentences you according to all sorts of factors.
But on the global stage, there is no real legal system, court, police, or any other universally recognized way of determining who owns a certain piece of land. Usually the ultimate way of settling such disputes is "its mine because it has my soldiers all over it".


This is a map of all countries that have their territory claimed by another, or in your terms, someone else considers them to have stolen land.
If that stuff is stealing, then we live on a planet of thieves.

2.You missed a point.I do not say about being nice to thugs,but about using the same morality for everybody.Which include killing murderers or thieves,becouse i would do the same to my people who would do so.
And no one cares whether you use the same morality for everybody. If you kill someone's ally, they will consider you a murderer. If you kill someone's enemy, they will consider you a hero. All the red countries on the map are formally considered a thief by someone and hence ok to kick the crap out of, and after adding unofficial claims the map would be even redder.
By your logic, the islamic civilization did more than its fair share of being thugs, if that doesn't give Israel the right to treat it like a thug, then what will?
You said they don't need to be nice to thugs.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,658
What good is logic when you don't have unquestionable data to apply it to?

This is what i talk about, you are trying to upscale legal customs meant to work on the scale of individuals in a legal system to sovereign polities of the world.
If you get accused of stealing something, you get sued, you go to court, court establishes who is the legal owner of the item in question, and if its not you, court sentences you according to all sorts of factors.
But on the global stage, there is no real legal system, court, police, or any other universally recognized way of determining who owns a certain piece of land. Usually the ultimate way of settling such disputes is "its mine because it has my soldiers all over it".


This is a map of all countries that have their territory claimed by another, or in your terms, someone else considers them to have stolen land.
If that stuff is stealing, then we live on a planet of thieves.


And no one cares whether you use the same morality for everybody. If you kill someone's ally, they will consider you a murderer. If you kill someone's enemy, they will consider you a hero. All the red countries on the map are formally considered a thief by someone and hence ok to kick the crap out of, and after adding unofficial claims the map would be even redder.
By your logic, the islamic civilization did more than its fair share of being thugs, if that doesn't give Israel the right to treat it like a thug, then what will?
You said they don't need to be nice to thugs.
1.You nailed it - for western cyvilisation exist only one morality,the same for people and states.We are dying becouse we abadonned it.
And it gave as right to kill cryminals from other states,as long as we punish our own the same.

2.Jesus care,and His Holy Mother.We do not need approval of others.
And Izrael had rights - but on their own land,not those who was stolen.Becouse stealing do not gave property laws.
And claiming land becouse some of their ancestors lived there 1900 years before they stolen it is farce.
If you support it,you should gave Europe to Celtic people.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
4,635
What I want to know is where you got the map, or did you create it?
Search engine skillz.
1.You nailed it - for western cyvilisation exist only one morality,the same for people and states.We are dying becouse we abadonned it.
And it gave as right to kill cryminals from other states,as long as we punish our own the same.
Except we don't kill criminals from other states unless they are weak ones without nukes or friends with nukes, or even a capable enough army to be too much hassle. No country that isn't suicidal does.

See what's the decisive condition here?
That's how war justifications work, if they are weak enough, anyone can figure out an excuse if they really need to, if they are strong, even the best justification isn't going to help.
2.Jesus care,and His Holy Mother.We do not need approval of others.
And Izrael had rights - but on their own land,not those who was stolen.Becouse stealing do not gave property laws.
So which land is their own land and who decides that?
And claiming land becouse some of their ancestors lived there 1900 years before they stolen it is farce.
If you support it,you should gave Europe to Celtic people.
Oh then, so how many centuries until stolen land switches to rightful land that no one should steal from them?
You say 1900 years is more than enough, but 70 years is not enough, so what's the line in the sand and why there?
 
Last edited:

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,518
Location
Israel
You say 1900 years is more than enough, but 70 years is not enough, so what's the line in the sand and why there?
Easy.

If they're Muslims, then if a given piece of land ever was under Muslim rule even for the briefest of times, then it's Muslim for eternity.

If it's Jews then never, Jews aren't allowed to own land.

/s
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,658
Easy.

If they're Muslims, then if a given piece of land ever was under Muslim rule even for the briefest of times, then it's Muslim for eternity.

If it's Jews then never, Jews aren't allowed to own land.

/s
Nope,my racist friend.

1900 years would remade entire Europe,so no.Even 900 years would be too much,becouse we need to remade Byzantine then.
Luder revolution/1517/ would be good,there was no major race claensing after that.

as you see,in this case i made practical solution - becouse if Izrael 2.0 had right to take land which some of their ancestors had,then everybody could do so.Which made mess of our world.
No morality at all here.

@Marduk -
1.then there is no law,do you really wont that ? becouse you are not always stronger.According to your logic,germans had right to genocide others,including jews,as long as they were winning.
2.That they buyed before 1948.Only by buing you could get land rightfully.
3.See above.Specially for you,i made practicall,not moral solution.

All in all - Iran had right to everything what other countries,included Izrael 2.),did.Izrael killed iranian cyvilans - fine,Iran could kill jewish cyvillians.
Or both countries are war cryminals.Only logical solutions,or you become as silly as @GoldRanger ,who truly belive that jews had special rights.
 
Last edited:

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
4,635
Nope,my racist friend.

1900 years would remade entire Europe,so no.Even 900 years would be too much,becouse we need to remade Byzantine then.
Luder revolution/1517/ would be good,there was no major race claensing after that.
Convenient only for certain parts of the world. Like ours.
Meanwhile all the New World countries are completely fucked, Balkans/Southern Europe are fucked with lots of "rightful" Ottoman clay, and Russia would be also not amused and have both nukes and facts on the ground to support that.
If you go beyond last major wars, whatever point you pick the more ridiculous claims you get.
That's my point, you have picked an arbitrary point in history too distant for your own good, and through ignorance you've thought it would not have ridiculous side effects.
1.then there is no law,do you really wont that ? becouse you are not always stronger.According to your logic,germans had right to genocide others,including jews,as long as they were winning.
Well if they won, no one would dare say otherwise. Being the strongest they would aven agree that there is a law and it says they are allowed to do that, because they wouldn't give a rat's ass what the more and less wannabe lawmakers of the past thought.

Of course for that reason plenty of movements, factions and politicians like to say there is a law, but they leave it to themselves to decide what exactly that law says, and usually it is very convenient to what they want to do with it. And it is perfectly pragmatic of them, if instead you try to larp that international arena is a country with rule of law, you get this silly conclusion - making yourself get involved in distant conflicts, on the side of factions who would sooner laugh you out than ever give you a similar favor, but will gladly take free help, even if it is driven by someone's delusions.
But only the strong can effectively enforce their idea of law on the international arena as opposed to others.
Saying that in international relations ultimately there is no hard law other than strength would be more honest than such a charade, and way too honest for politicians to agree to.
2.That they buyed before 1948.Only by buing you could get land rightfully.
That's silly.
Ownership =/= sovereignty. If a rich German comes to Poland and rightfully buys some land on the border, he can't decide that this land is part of Germany now.
That would be insurrection and would be dealt with by force.
All in all - Iran had right to everything what other countries,included Izrael 2.),did.Izrael killed iranian cyvilans - fine,Iran could kill jewish cyvillians.
Or both countries are war cryminals.Only logical solutions,or you become as silly as @GoldRanger ,who truly belive that jews had special rights.
The conflict with Iran goes much, much further than the scientist assassinations and the nuclear program that prompted them.
Yes, technically, with liberal enough interpretation of the term, pretty much everyone in ME is some variation of war criminal. So the term is either completely worthless or we need it better defined.
 
Last edited:

prinCZess

Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
4,629
Location
Off the Rez, on the Warpath
becouse if Izrael 2.0 had right to take land which some of their ancestors had,then everybody could do so.Which made mess of our world.
'Take' is doing a lot of work here that doesn't really make sense in the context of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, 'perfidious Albion' (and France in neighboring places) doing its thing in the aftermath of that with the creation of Mandatory Palestine, and subsequent collapse of the British and French empires post WWII and the descent of Mandatory Palestine into a shitshow. By the same logical procession the Arabs who claimed national sovereignty (as also promised by the British) over the region were attempting to unjustly 'take' it during their various revolts and 1948 war. So you need something with a greater degree of granularity to analyze the whole fiasco.

If you obtain that granularity the 'common' way of assigning authority to the United Nations--which is about the most internationalist solution to the 'not let everybody go willy-nilly warring for land' organization (even if it's bad at that job) available--and the post-war organization that it attempted, then it still doesn't make sense because one side was explicit and adamant in their rejection of any negotiated settlement whilst the other fought a miniature civil war to restrain their extremists that demanded 'All the land!'...And were rewarded for it by getting war declared on them.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,658
'Take' is doing a lot of work here that doesn't really make sense in the context of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, 'perfidious Albion' (and France in neighboring places) doing its thing in the aftermath of that with the creation of Mandatory Palestine, and subsequent collapse of the British and French empires post WWII and the descent of Mandatory Palestine into a shitshow. By the same logical procession the Arabs who claimed national sovereignty (as also promised by the British) over the region were attempting to unjustly 'take' it during their various revolts and 1948 war. So you need something with a greater degree of granularity to analyze the whole fiasco.

If you obtain that granularity the 'common' way of assigning authority to the United Nations--which is about the most internationalist solution to the 'not let everybody go willy-nilly warring for land' organization (even if it's bad at that job) available--and the post-war organization that it attempted, then it still doesn't make sense because one side was explicit and adamant in their rejection of any negotiated settlement whilst the other fought a miniature civil war to restrain their extremists that demanded 'All the land!'...And were rewarded for it by getting war declared on them.
Sorry for late answer.
I simply say,that anybody taking land becouse some of his ancestors owned it 1900 year ago is idiot.That is all.

@Marduk -
1.see above
2.Law of fist have unpleasent conseqences for all,becouse nobody is always stronger.
3.No,our eunuchs would do nothing.
4.Exactly.It is funny when somebody say that Izrael had right to kill iranians,but Iran had no right to kill jews.

All i want to say - either JESUS is God and then nobody have right to steal,or no.But even then Law of fist is destroing cyvilisation in long term - becouse we have cyvilisation and law becouse Europe was once Christian.
Steppe people never had that - and always was horde which supported stronger khagan.and abadonned him for other when he lost.Sure,you could live that way - but you become horde,not nation,and only nations achieved anything worthly.

So,even if we are just meat,we still should act as if God existed.For sake of our states.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
4,635
@Marduk -
1.see above
2.Law of fist have unpleasent conseqences for all,becouse nobody is always stronger.
But you can only enforce any other kind of law if you are the strongest.
If someone who chooses law of the fist is strongest, doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
Hence, if you treat those who propose law of the fist nicely, because this is your principle, they will laugh and not return that favor, because that is their principle. We should understand that before considering giving that favor. This way you get the downsides of both laws and benefits of neither.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but you sound like you expect them to be impressed by that treatment and return the favor.
3.No,our eunuchs would do nothing.
Regardless of whether they are enough of eunuchs or not, that's my point, only eunuchs would care about this argument, why do you expect Jews and Palestinians to care?
4.Exactly.It is funny when somebody say that Izrael had right to kill iranians,but Iran had no right to kill jews.
Its a proxy war with nuclear proliferation in the background which is dodgy enough so you can pick which rules you prioritize and arrive at any conclusion you want.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,658
But you can only enforce any other kind of law if you are the strongest.
If someone who chooses law of the fist is strongest, doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
Hence, if you treat those who propose law of the fist nicely, because this is your principle, they will laugh and not return that favor, because that is their principle. We should understand that before considering giving that favor. This way you get the downsides of both laws and benefits of neither.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but you sound like you expect them to be impressed by that treatment and return the favor.

Regardless of whether they are enough of eunuchs or not, that's my point, only eunuchs would care about this argument, why do you expect Jews and Palestinians to care?

Its a proxy war with nuclear proliferation in the background which is dodgy enough so you can pick which rules you prioritize and arrive at any conclusion you want.
1.No,no treating bandits nicely,only not being bandit myself.Which mean - i could kill slaver and take his property,but not sel his children and rape wife.
And those who decide following rule of fist pay for that - becouse they stop become nations and turn into hordes.
And hordes break after any disaster,when nations hold.
Polish nation survived 123 years of partition,if we were horde reling on rule of fist we would all become russians,prussians and austrians.
So,unless you are sure that you would always win,it is better to behave like christian,even if God do not exist.

2.They are tribal people,so i do not except anything from them.
And in 1415 in Konstancja polish delegation defended thesis,that everybody have right to live peacifully on his land.Teutonic knights attacked with your arguments.We win in diplomacy,just like on battlefield earlier.
So,you do not need to be either cunt of victim - you could win and live as Christian.

3.It is logic.Either one rule for both,or no rules at all.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
4,635
1.No,no treating bandits nicely,only not being bandit myself.Which mean - i could kill slaver and take his property,but not sel his children and rape wife.
And those who decide following rule of fist pay for that - becouse they stop become nations and turn into hordes.
And hordes break after any disaster,when nations hold.
Polish nation survived 123 years of partition,if we were horde reling on rule of fist we would all become russians,prussians and austrians.
So,unless you are sure that you would always win,it is better to behave like christian,even if God do not exist.
And where are the Russians, Prussians and Austrians now?
Austrians have a fine country though no longer imperial, Prussians after losing a war to Russians have been subsumed into Germany general which is trying to rule Europe again,
and last but not least Russians... 3 political systems later they still go around partitioning countries.
So your point doesn't work, but it should... It doesn't work because you only picked countries that belong to the western civilization, one kinda halfway in, but still.
No real hordes. Middle East has real hordes though. So guess what, being sticklers to whatever international rules someone imagines has little to do with nation's survivability. Cultural unity and not getting ruled by the not so nice guys for too long are what makes it happen.
2.They are tribal people,so i do not except anything from them.
And in 1415 in Konstancja polish delegation defended thesis,that everybody have right to live peacifully on his land.Teutonic knights attacked with your arguments.We win in diplomacy,just like on battlefield earlier.
So,you do not need to be either cunt of victim - you could win and live as Christian.
There is a reason why the Teutonic Knights had to be beaten on the battlefield, and these reasons never became obsolete. Diplomacy is an abstraction, it is only a matter of time and who the neighbors are until someone is done talking and knives come out. And if someone wants the knives to come out, they *will* find an excuse, no matter how much of a stickler to the rules you are.
3.It is logic.Either one rule for both,or no rules at all.
No, its a false binary. There are no rules for all, that is the reality, like it or not. But there are "clubs" that can have rules and can enforce them on their members by various usually soft means, which kinda works as long as there are benefits to being in the club and the rules are reasonable. But when a club starts caring more about outsiders than fellow members, even makes that the rule, its probably not going to have many people want to be in it.
That's the problem with western international rulemaking, too infested by leftist politics.
Caring about outsiders, enemies even, is the choice hobby of the rule writers, while the members are there only to pay and obey. While in reality a club has to be about the members, with outsiders playing second fiddle at best.

If you want more nations to join the club rather than have them distance themselves from it, this is how a club (in this case you could call the club it western civilization) needs to be run.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Reaction score
2,658
And where are the Russians, Prussians and Austrians now?
Austrians have a fine country though no longer imperial, Prussians after losing a war to Russians have been subsumed into Germany general which is trying to rule Europe again,
and last but not least Russians... 3 political systems later they still go around partitioning countries.
So your point doesn't work, but it should... It doesn't work because you only picked countries that belong to the western civilization, one kinda halfway in, but still.
No real hordes. Middle East has real hordes though. So guess what, being sticklers to whatever international rules someone imagines has little to do with nation's survivability. Cultural unity and not getting ruled by the not so nice guys for too long are what makes it happen.

There is a reason why the Teutonic Knights had to be beaten on the battlefield, and these reasons never became obsolete. Diplomacy is an abstraction, it is only a matter of time and who the neighbors are until someone is done talking and knives come out. And if someone wants the knives to come out, they *will* find an excuse, no matter how much of a stickler to the rules you are.

No, its a false binary. There are no rules for all, that is the reality, like it or not. But there are "clubs" that can have rules and can enforce them on their members by various usually soft means, which kinda works as long as there are benefits to being in the club and the rules are reasonable. But when a club starts caring more about outsiders than fellow members, even makes that the rule, its probably not going to have many people want to be in it.
That's the problem with western international rulemaking, too infested by leftist politics.
Caring about outsiders, enemies even, is the choice hobby of the rule writers, while the members are there only to pay and obey. While in reality a club has to be about the members, with outsiders playing second fiddle at best.

If you want more nations to join the club rather than have them distance themselves from it, this is how a club (in this case you could call the club it western civilization) needs to be run.
1.Austria,Germany and Russsia was not occupied by 123 years.
Poland survived as nation 123 years of occupation - becouse we are nation.If you occupy Austria,Russia or Germany for 123 years,there MAYBE there would be small minorities - but rest would be whatever state conqered them patriots.Becouse that is how people worshipping strenght react.
Look at prussians - they were disbanded in 1945,and there is no longer such nation.Becouse they need strong state to support them.

2.As long as rulers abadonned Christianity,you are right.Countries ruled by Christian kings do not behave that way.

3.Reality is what God made,like it or not.Jesus proved so.And states which at least partially followed HIM made Europe,unimportant part of Asia,rule Earth.
Now we are dying becouse elites become satanists who belive in strenght.What following that give them in long run ?

We were strong when we were christian,we falled when we stopped - gradually,but still - and you say,that continuing that would save us ? you wont all of us dead or enslaved.
Becouse we could survive free only as christian nations.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
4,635
1.Austria,Germany and Russsia was not occupied by 123 years.
Poland survived as nation 123 years of occupation - becouse we are nation.If you occupy Austria,Russia or Germany for 123 years,there MAYBE there would be small minorities - but rest would be whatever state conqered them patriots.Becouse that is how people worshipping strenght react.
Nope. The whole collapse of French and English empires prove you completely wrong about that. Dozens upon dozens of strength worshiping peoples (including the Middle Eastern ones) went back to their own way of life as soon as their occupiers weakened.
Where are all the British and French patriots in Asia and Africa?
And that's despite the occupiers being civilizationally more developed than them, with all the comforts, riches and awe it brings.

Of course even then surviving 123 years of occupation is only a moderately desirable fate.
Its not the worst option, but also not something the world would be jealous of.
You know what would be better?
Never being occupied in the first place.
Look at prussians - they were disbanded in 1945,and there is no longer such nation.Becouse they need strong state to support them.
1945, that explains something. Of course they went back to Germany, they were never completely separate from that.
2.As long as rulers abadonned Christianity,you are right.Countries ruled by Christian kings do not behave that way.
No, see history. What did very Christian Spain do with its Muslims? What few technically Christian kings remain in Europe are generally no better than democratic governments, and sometimes worse.

3.Reality is what God made,like it or not.Jesus proved so.And states which at least partially followed HIM made Europe,unimportant part of Asia,rule Earth.
I have a bit wider view of history. That's an obviously silly argument because it requires you to completely ignore the importance and power of pagan built Greco-Roman world. Without it, there would be no Christian Europe, and if by some miracle without Rome a religious sect from Palestine somehow spread around Europe anyway, it would not be important without the heritage of those pagans.

Now we are dying becouse elites become satanists who belive in strenght.What following that give them in long run ?
For similar reasons as Rome died despite freshly converting to Christianity. Elites too comfortable, self-confident, busy with their little hot but unimportant social games and insufficiently interested in the real but hard to solve problems heading for them.
Last time kicked out of their comfy seats by strength worshipping warlords who set up their warrior-king states that eventually became the golden age of Christian kingdoms.

We were strong when we were christian,we falled when we stopped - gradually,but still - and you say,that continuing that would save us ? you wont all of us dead or enslaved.
Becouse we could survive free only as christian nations.
Christian world obviously didn't begin strong, you can leave out that selective narrative. It grew out of ruins of Rome and building on its heritage.
Then again, Rome itself also didn't start strong.
No civilization did.
No civilization ever did get strong though by not being willing to put own interests above those of their enemies. That is, very obviously, a recipe for disaster. The Christian kingdoms you idolize would not cry over the comforts and rights of Palestinians. They would worry about Mohammedans plotting to control the Holy Land. That's what makes the difference between western civilization now and western civilization in whatever of its golden ages, Christian or Greco-Roman.
 
Last edited:

King Arts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Reaction score
1,160
Nope. The whole collapse of French and English empires prove you completely wrong about that. Dozens upon dozens of strength worshiping peoples (including the Middle Eastern ones) went back to their own way of life as soon as their occupiers weakened.
Where are all the British and French patriots in Asia and Africa?
And that's despite the occupiers being civilizationally more developed than them, with all the comforts, riches and awe it brings.

Of course even then surviving 123 years of occupation is only a moderately desirable fate.
Its not the worst option, but also not something the world would be jealous of.
You know what would be better?
Never being occupied in the first place.

1945, that explains something. Of course they went back to Germany, they were never completely separate from that.

No, see history. What did very Christian Spain do with its Muslims? What few technically Christian kings remain in Europe are generally no better than democratic governments, and sometimes worse.


I have a bit wider view of history. That's an obviously silly argument because it requires you to completely ignore the importance and power of pagan built Greco-Roman world. Without it, there would be no Christian Europe, and if by some miracle without Rome a religious sect from Palestine somehow spread around Europe anyway, it would not be important without the heritage of those pagans.


For similar reasons as Rome died despite freshly converting to Christianity. Elites too comfortable, self-confident, busy with their little hot but unimportant social games and insufficiently interested in the real but hard to solve problems heading for them.
Last time kicked out of their comfy seats by strength worshipping warlords who set up their warrior-king states that eventually became the golden age of Christian kingdoms.


Christian world obviously didn't begin strong, you can leave out that selective narrative. It grew out of ruins of Rome and building on its heritage.
Then again, Rome itself also didn't start strong.
No civilization did.
No civilization ever did get strong though by not being willing to put own interests above those of their enemies. That is, very obviously, a recipe for disaster. The Christian kingdoms you idolize would not cry over the comforts and rights of Palestinians. They would worry about Mohammedans plotting to control the Holy Land. That's what makes the difference between western civilization now and western civilization in whatever of its golden ages, Christian or Greco-Roman.
Marduk those same Christian kingdoms would not support Israel. Do you think that a Jewish state conquering the holy land is better than a Muslim one. It’s not under Christian hands that’s the problem. As for the pagans why would they care about the squabbling of desert tribes in some distant land. So they also wouldn’t be Israel’s best friend like America is. They wouldn’t be hostile they would be like India, Japan, or China in their outlook uncaring.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
6,518
Location
Israel
Marduk those same Christian kingdoms would not support Israel. Do you think that a Jewish state conquering the holy land is better than a Muslim one. It’s not under Christian hands that’s the problem. As for the pagans why would they care about the squabbling of desert tribes in some distant land. So they also wouldn’t be Israel’s best friend like America is. They wouldn’t be hostile they would be like India, Japan, or China in their outlook uncaring.
Actually, India and Israel are very friendly, bordering on allied.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2021
Reaction score
1,160
Actually, India and Israel are very friendly, bordering on allied.
Are they allied or friendly? There is a difference, hell I’m sure Japan is friendly with Israel they aren’t going to be sending soldiers to help Israel out if they fight their neighbors. Most nations don’t care what happens far from their borders.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
4,635
Are they allied or friendly? There is a difference, hell I’m sure Japan is friendly with Israel they aren’t going to be sending soldiers to help Israel out if they fight their neighbors. Most nations don’t care what happens far from their borders.
So far i would say friendly. A large part of it is common orientation in regional web of relationships - India is naturally doomed to be disliked by the general islamic world's masses due to their local conflict with Sunni islamist Pakistan... So no loss for them to be buddies with Israel who is hated by the same people for their own regional conflict with roughly the same faction.
 
Top Bottom