Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

[Marduk]

or their war crimes in 2009 where they used chemical weapons on civilian populations.

You know that when you repeat claims containing such clear and traceable term manipulation, it hurts the credibility of all your other statements too, right?

Rain of Fire

This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza.

www.hrw.org

That's a humanitarian, generally anti Israeli organisation that didn't like this situation, but even they admit...

White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon and is not banned per se.

White phosphorus munitions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

At the start of the Normandy campaign, 20% of American 81 mm mortar ammunition consisted of M57 point-detonating bursting smoke rounds using WP filler. At least five American Medal of Honor citations mention their recipients using M15 white phosphorus hand grenades to clear enemy positions, and in the 1944 liberation of Cherbourg alone, a single US mortar battalion, the 87th, fired 11,899 white phosphorus rounds into the city. The US Army and Marines used M2 and M328 WP shells in 107mm (4.2 inch) mortars. White phosphorus was widely used by Allied soldiers for breaking up German attacks and creating havoc among enemy troop concentrations during the latter part of the war.

If its good enough for all major powers since it exists, why is it too bad for Israel to use it?

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

The only side that has ever considered coextistence a valid option is the Jewish one.

sooooooo.

 

[King Arts]

Of course for Poland specifically its an indirect relationship at best, due to geography alone if nothing else. The alliance here is US world hegemon to Israel and US world hegemon to Poland.

Again though, there is an argument about why America should even involve itself in the middle east, I'll ignore that and stick to Poland and other European nations. Eastern European nations have no interest in the middle east or Asia. They don't care if Iran beats Israel, or if China becomes hegemon of Asia. Their interest is in local affairs close to home, most pressing is making sure Russia doesn't puppet them again. The alliance with America is based on that. Now obviously since they are allies they will help out in other areas like for example they did sent support for the American mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though they really don't care about those areas, and to be frank America stomping around in the middle east is bad because it means refugees come to them. But the entire west isn't going to go on a crusade against Iran because American evangelicals worship Jews and the state of Israel. Or against China because America doesen't want to lose power in Asia. Sure Europe will help America in the hope that America will help against Russia, but there are limits.

 

[Marduk]

Again though, there is an argument about why America should even involve itself in the middle east, I'll ignore that and stick to Poland and other European nations.

Yes, there is an argument, its called the global oil market. And lately there are two more arguments, the islamist argument and the migrant argument.

Eastern European nations have no interest in the middle east or Asia. They don't care if Iran beats Israel, or if China becomes hegemon of Asia. Their interest is in local affairs close to home, most pressing is making sure Russia doesn't puppet them again. They don't care if Iran beats Israel, or if China becomes hegemon of Asia. Their interest is in local affairs close to home, most pressing is making sure Russia doesn't puppet them again.

Where do they get their oil and electronics from then...
Having viable alternatives to Russia and China respectively in these things is vital to the point of not getting puppeted.

and to be frank America stomping around in the middle east is bad because it means refugees come to them.

That's a bullshit argument when used by either side and you know it. Half the "refugees" come from countries that had no war in recent decades, nevermind American one, since decades. Its just that they are the proverbial shitholes, that's a perfectly sufficient motivator for them to try the whole migrant thing.

But the entire west isn't going to go on a crusade against Iran because American evangelicals worship Jews and the state of Israel.

That was always a simple soundbite for evangelicals with their weird ideas to get their votes.
The greater argument here is that if Iran is allowed to go on a tournee all around the Middle East to rebuild a Grand Persian Empire: Shia fanatic edition, with the memetic quality of Arab armies (problem which Iran does not have) it may just work well enough... to blow up global oil prices by causing a massive supply crunch through warfare. Then everyone who doesn't have their own oil supply has a problem. Unlike Russia, who has a surplus and would be able to sell it at robber baron prices then...

Or against China because America doesen't want to lose power in Asia. Sure Europe will help America in the hope that America will help against Russia, but there are limits.

Also its not like China is completely opposed to trying to puppet countries outside of Asia.

Why Is China Buying Up Europe’s Ports?

State-owned port operators are the aggressive leading edge of Beijing’s massive Belt and Road project.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[GoldRanger]

There's also another concern in play. After Iran takes the middle east and China takes east asia, who's to say that after a few decades of consolidation and build up their appetites won't extend all the way to Europe?

Despotic expansionist regimes should be nipped in the bud, before they start becoming a global rather than a local problem. God knows both the particular ones mentioned have global ambitions, even if at this point in time they have yet to build up the military capability to realize them.

It's called foresight and strategic thinking. Countries that are thinking only one or two years ahead ("it's someone else's problem") tend to get into shock when the problem spirals out of control and comes knocking on their doorstep.

 

[King Arts]

Yes, there is an argument, its called the global oil market. And lately there are two more arguments, the islamist argument and the migrant argument.

Israel does not have any oil. The arabs do. So what oil argument is there for supporting Israel over the Arabs. The Islamist argument I'll give you, it makes sense to have the Muslims distracted fighting Jews instead of expanding elsewhere, but you can also make an argument that support for Israel draws Muslims to attack you even if they don't border you. Muslims are bad neighbors just like Russians are, India can attest to that, however it's only nations like the US that has problems with Muslims that are not a local part of it's territory. Nations like Japan, or Mexico that don't have muslim populations and don't get involved in that part of the world don't really have to worry about Islamists.

As for the migrant argument there is no argument, how is Israel helping to keep migrants out of Europe? They haven't done anything they aren't taking any in nor are preventing them from coming. The Turks are more useful than Israel at stopping migrants.

Where do they get their oil and electronics from then...
Having viable alternatives to Russia and China respectively in these things is vital to the point of not getting puppeted.

Yes viable alternatives to Russia, those would be the middle east and America. Thats why wanting stable middle eastern states that sell oil to be stable and not attacked is useful.

That's a bullshit argument when used by either side and you know it. Half the "refugees" come from countries that had no war in recent decades, nevermind American one, since decades. Its just that they are the proverbial shitholes, that's a perfectly sufficient motivator for them to try the whole migrant thing.

It's not a bullshit argument. Those countries were ALWAYS shitholes yet people only really started migrating in the 2000's. Why did we not face this problem in the 90's 80's or 70's or even earlier? It's because when America was stomping around in the middle east it gave those economic migrants the cover they need to slip in. Of course this is also Europe's fault for not just having soldiers shoot anyone who tries to cross the border illegally. But the globalists would just use the U.S. to sanction any nation that did that.

That was always a simple soundbite for evangelicals with their weird ideas to get their votes.
The greater argument here is that if Iran is allowed to go on a tournee all around the Middle East to rebuild a Grand Persian Empire: Shia fanatic edition, with the memetic quality of Arab armies (problem which Iran does not have) it may just work well enough... to blow up global oil prices by causing a massive supply crunch through warfare. Then everyone who doesn't have their own oil supply has a problem. Unlike Russia, who has a surplus and would be able to sell it at robber baron prices then...

Yes I don't think most politicians buy into the Evangelical bull crap they are too smart. But many American conservatives are those idiot evangelicals and they spread that idea on and vote for it to become policy.
Also yes Iran making a Persian Empire can be a very dangerous thing. While the middle east being stable under competent leadership can be a boon so that oil trade can be stable, it will also give them a lot of leverage to cut off all the supply. Here is the thing no one in Europe is supporting Iran taking all the middle east, at most they won't care if they gobble up Iraq. But the rest of the middle east would be supported because the choice isn't between smart Persians, and dumb Arabs. There are other Muslims that can be supported like Kurds, or god help us the Turks. Neither of those people are incompetent and if Iran really needed to be checked they could be used to do it.

Also its not like China is completely opposed to trying to puppet countries outside of Asia.

Owning property is not a puppet. They aren't taking territory, or imposing their laws, or even putting their soldiers in Europe. At that point we may as well say that Europe is America's puppet.

There's also another concern in play. After Iran takes the middle east and China takes east asia, who's to say that after a few decades of consolidation and build up their appetites won't extend all the way to Europe?

Despotic expansionist regimes should be nipped in the bud, before they start becoming a global rather than a local problem. God knows both the particular ones mentioned have global ambitions, even if at this point in time they have yet to build up the military capability to realize them.

It's called foresight and strategic thinking. Countries that are thinking only one or two years ahead ("it's someone else's problem") tend to get into shock when the problem spirals out of control and comes knocking on their doorstep.

Really? Going to fear monger with an Iranian world conquest? China world conquest? Laughable there are many countries that are Iran's peers close by that would not accept being their puppet. To the east Pakistan a nuclear power, to the west Israel, and Jordan is iffy they are Arab but they are more competent than other Arab nations, the Saudi's are incompetent but they have money to support the others. Also Turkey itself might jump in after all why would they allow Iran to become masters of the Islamic world? And that's without even getting into Europe.
There is a differance between foresight and thinking long term about possible threats and paranoia. After all using your logic the fact that the US is the hyper power is unacceptably dangerous, right now they are ok, but what if wokeists decide to take over completely and force their values on everyone, and genocide everyone who resists. The sheer power the US has is to dangerous to be left in the hands of one group. Obviously to prevent a single power that can control everyone the thing to be done is to support it's rivals like China and Russia to be strong enough to fight it easily. So that way there will be diffrent groups that can avoid being enslaved by a one world order. No this is a retarded argument. But it's still more intelligent than your fear mongering about Iranian world domination.

 

[Marduk]

Israel does not have any oil. The arabs do. So what oil argument is there for supporting Israel over the Arabs.

Israel is there, and has a population that has no allegiance to either more specific Sunni or more general Islamic community. With that, and their relationships with the above, they are stuck not being able to make friends with local islamists, and on top of that they have a non-Arab army.
This makes them a unique regional ally. Turkey was kinda similar in that regard and more, but between its own problems and also is experiencing reliability problems currently. Yet Turkey doesn't have oil either.
Iran used to be a good US ally (they didn't sell F-14's to just about anyone), but then the islamic revolution happened and things shifted 180 degrees, so there's an argument for having alternate options.
Who does have oil? Gulf States mostly. But they have the meme defining Arab armies, so in any serious fight they are more of a ball than a player.

The Islamist argument I'll give you, it makes sense to have the Muslims distracted fighting Jews instead of expanding elsewhere, but you can also make an argument that support for Israel draws Muslims to attack you even if they don't border you.

Just being infidels also draws them to attack you if they have particular opportunity, see Sweden, about as far away from Middle East and its conflicts as possible.

The other argument with Islamists is the Afghanistan style problems (international terror orgs shelter under sovereignty of an islamist friendly government so those have to be destroyed, or at least contained) and the pirate problem (land and sea, islamists allowed to operate at large scale attacking shipping and land transport infrastructure of nearby third parties, damaging oil market).

Muslims are bad neighbors just like Russians are, India can attest to that, however it's only nations like the US that has problems with Muslims that are not a local part of it's territory. Nations like Japan, or Mexico that don't have muslim populations and don't get involved in that part of the world don't really have to worry about Islamists.

No, they have USA to represent their interests there obviously.

'Flying objects' damaged Japanese tanker during attack in Gulf of Oman

Two "flying objects" damaged a Japanese tanker owned by Kokuka Sangyo Co in an attack on Thursday in the Gulf of Oman, but there was no damage to the cargo of methanol, the company president said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

As for the migrant argument there is no argument, how is Israel helping to keep migrants out of Europe? They haven't done anything they aren't taking any in nor are preventing them from coming. The Turks are more useful than Israel at stopping migrants.

Keeping islamist forces in Egypt and Lebanon on their toes.

Yes viable alternatives to Russia, those would be the middle east and America. Thats why wanting stable middle eastern states that sell oil to be stable and not attacked is useful.

Yup.

It's not a bullshit argument. Those countries were ALWAYS shitholes yet people only really started migrating in the 2000's.

Information age and creeping progressivism have finally reached a breaking point.
Before then, they didn't even imagine the westerners would be anywhere near naive enough to allow this kind of shit at this kind of scale, and westerners themselves may have been to sane too let local leftist activists push through their super wide interpretation of refugee conventions.
But then it slowly crept up, and then, with proliferation of internet and mobile phones reaching third world, the most interested people also knew, and that's what made the dam break.
Also third world itself got rich enough to even afford such travels. Even at the height of migrant crisis the going rate per migrant for the whole trip was few thousands USD, and currently it goes into high 4/low 5 digits.

Why did we not face this problem in the 90's 80's or 70's or even earlier?

This is a distinctly post cold war "end of history" problem. Back then security was taken seriously in the west, even if only because of the overarching narrative of conflict with the Soviet Union. And not just in the physical sense, but also in the sense of security services not allowing the left to run completely crazy in political/media sphere.

It's because when America was stomping around in the middle east it gave those economic migrants the cover they need to slip in. Of course this is also Europe's fault for not just having soldiers shoot anyone who tries to cross the border illegally. But the globalists would just use the U.S. to sanction any nation that did that.

Libya, Suez Crisis, Lebanon, of course America was involved then.

Yes I don't think most politicians buy into the Evangelical bull crap they are too smart. But many American conservatives are those idiot evangelicals and they spread that idea on and vote for it to become policy.
Also yes Iran making a Persian Empire can be a very dangerous thing. While the middle east being stable under competent leadership can be a boon so that oil trade can be stable, it will also give them a lot of leverage to cut off all the supply.

Obviously it would be years before it would become stable again, if ever.
The transitionary period would do plenty enough damage to most of western economies.

Here is the thing no one in Europe is supporting Iran taking all the middle east, at most they won't care if they gobble up Iraq.

Doesn't matter if they support it by word, what are they going to do to stop it and with what.

But the rest of the middle east would be supported because the choice isn't between smart Persians, and dumb Arabs. There are other Muslims that can be supported like Kurds, or god help us the Turks.

Kurds are more of a meme than a serious player in the region, and Turks got pushed into islamist direction too much for anyone's comfort (thanks EU).

Neither of those people are incompetent and if Iran really needed to be checked they could be used to do it.

Not to mention that if you want to support either, you get yourself into conflict with the other naturally.

Owning property is not a puppet. They aren't taking territory, or imposing their laws, or even putting their soldiers in Europe. At that point we may as well say that Europe is America's puppet.

Controlling enough strategic infrastructure means that if push comes to shove, they practically can control your large scale trade.

 

[GoldRanger]

Really? Going to fear monger with an Iranian world conquest? China world conquest? Laughable there are many countries that are Iran's peers close by that would not accept being their puppet. To the east Pakistan a nuclear power, to the west Israel, and Jordan is iffy they are Arab but they are more competent than other Arab nations, the Saudi's are incompetent but they have money to support the others. Also Turkey itself might jump in after all why would they allow Iran to become masters of the Islamic world? And that's without even getting into Europe.
There is a differance between foresight and thinking long term about possible threats and paranoia. After all using your logic the fact that the US is the hyper power is unacceptably dangerous, right now they are ok, but what if wokeists decide to take over completely and force their values on everyone, and genocide everyone who resists. The sheer power the US has is to dangerous to be left in the hands of one group. Obviously to prevent a single power that can control everyone the thing to be done is to support it's rivals like China and Russia to be strong enough to fight it easily. So that way there will be diffrent groups that can avoid being enslaved by a one world order. No this is a retarded argument. But it's still more intelligent than your fear mongering about Iranian world domination.

Iran is in the process of weakening or eliminating most of them. Other than Pakistan and Turkey there aren't many that will stand to it, and if Iran manages to gobble up its neighbours then they might be in a position to overcome those two in a few decades.

I wouldn't make light of a country with a population the size of Germany's that has an explicit ideology of "exporting" their religious doctrine to the rest of the world.

 

[Husky_Khan]

You know that when you repeat claims containing such clear and traceable term manipulation, it hurts the credibility of all your other statements too, right?

Rain of Fire

This 71-page report provides witness accounts of the devastating effects that white phosphorus munitions had on civilians and civilian property in Gaza.

www.hrw.org

That's a humanitarian, generally anti Israeli organisation that didn't like this situation, but even they admit...

White phosphorus munitions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If its good enough for all major powers since it exists, why is it too bad for Israel to use it?

He is the History Learner, he probably learned his talking points from the Wehrmacht.

 

[History Learner]

I couldn't find the old video, but here's something showing the attitude behind such things.

And here's the Israelis slaughtering children. Your point?

That's nice, if true. What actually happened the last time Israel offered the Palestinians literally everything they wanted though, was the beginning of the Second Intifada.

Which again shows your ignorance, because the Second Intifada was nearly a decade before 2008 when that article was made. You can expand upon it further by Hamas altering their charter in 2017 to accept 1967 borders.

When Hamas stops making rocket attacks into civilian-inhabited Israel, I'll believe it.

When Israel stops using chemical weapons on civilians, sure. Want to talk about what caused the issues this year? You know, violating the mosques and evicting people from their homes? If the Chinese showed up and started doing that in the United States you'd be baying for their blood too, as any person would.

You seriously cannot understand the difference between 'We want them out' and 'We want them all killed'?

I don't because both are Crimes Against Humanity amount to a genocide.

Also, the link on the attack on the beach itself describes a situation of collateral damage, not 'Oh hey, there's a bunch of civilians, let's shell them.' Civilians dying in collateral damage is a bad thing. Targeting civilians deliberately is literally the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Given the only thing on that beach was civilians, would you like to explain the strategic and/or tactical value of blowing up sand?

 

[ATP]

Again though, there is an argument about why America should even involve itself in the middle east, I'll ignore that and stick to Poland and other European nations. Eastern European nations have no interest in the middle east or Asia. They don't care if Iran beats Israel, or if China becomes hegemon of Asia. Their interest is in local affairs close to home, most pressing is making sure Russia doesn't puppet them again. The alliance with America is based on that. Now obviously since they are allies they will help out in other areas like for example they did sent support for the American mission to Iraq and Afghanistan. Even though they really don't care about those areas, and to be frank America stomping around in the middle east is bad because it means refugees come to them. But the entire west isn't going to go on a crusade against Iran because American evangelicals worship Jews and the state of Israel. Or against China because America doesen't want to lose power in Asia. Sure Europe will help America in the hope that America will help against Russia, but there are limits.

All true.We have no interests in Asia.We need USA against Russia,that is all - and since USA would gave us to Putin for alliance against China now,we stop needing USA at all.
And even if Europe become christian again/need miracle for that/,we still do not care which pagans hold Holy Land,as long as they do not prosecute pilgrimes.
About USA - they paid,and still pay Izrael to change arab from loving americans to hate them.It is good to knew,that some nations are more stupid then us.

About @GoldRanger fairy tales about Persian empire - they fought Turks over who is top dog for centuries,so they would do that again without engaging Europe.For us,poles,Persia in 17th century was ally against Ottomans.
And now ,unless Izrael,they do not lie about polish dead camps.

 

[ATP]

No, because they messed with another state that worships strength, had more of it, and they lost, so the other state took a pencil to the map, as it often happens in such cases.

So where do they have rights to a homeland? Oh, right, nowhere.

Obviously there's no way they can share with Islamists, if they try only one of them can walk out of it alive and there are more Islamists.

And until Rome adopted it as official religion and made it a large organization with a consistent doctrine... obviously it wasn't running a civilization.

Well then, in that case its our job.

Christian Europe was not a country, certainly not when it could claim to rule the world. It was already divided in churches and empires. Rome was a singular polity on the contrary.

Probably, if you don't dig into the details. The fact is that the Jews are westernized and diplomatically somewhat cooperative, contrary to the alternatives.

Exactly. Whose job is it to inspire a will to fight.

Not for lack of trying. More for lack of proverbial Maxim guns.

SS was just like the leftists. Couldn't care less for science, they also had to get ideologically correct results. Just the ideology was different.

No they couldn't. Sovereignty vs ownership yet again. Jews owned a lot of land all around Middle East, no one cared, they had to leave it for their own good when all the countries there got pissed about Israel winning wars. If the sovereign won't protect you on the land you own by property law, it doesn't matter you have a paper that says you own it. And even then the sovereign can just pass a law saying you don't own it (see: our little mess with commie government's handling of real estate).
They had to claim their own sovereignty to be able to use what they bought, and that meant a state.
They run a state better than any Islamic country in the region, so why not.

When states do it its called conquest. Its how Jews stopped owning that land in the first place too. Lost by the sword , taken by sword, how can you protest?
Ownership is not a game of king of the hill, and if it was, its not you who pick a period of time after stolen property becomes legitimate and the owner can't take it back.

That's a silly take, you may aswell say that there should be no military alliances and politics at all then, after all wars only concern 2 countries.

It seems,that we are talking the same things again and again.So,to made it short:

About what you talked -

1.I agree,that state need strenght to survive.Without good army states could not be moral,becouse they cease to exist.
2.I agree, that cunt states could prosper,for a time,Assyria or soviets are best example.They simply doomed themselves in the long run.
3.If Jesus exist,we should be moral in politic,too.But, i could be wrong,we could be just meat.
4.Even if Jesus do not exist,in long term it is better follow his teaching.Becouse chritian nations,as poles would survive defeat without state,and prussian who worshipped strenght died without state.
5.The same goes for science - christian cyvilisation created it becouse we belive in Truth,so we seek laws in nature.Cyvilisation which do not follow Truth do not seek for laws of nature,and they eventually lost science.
For few generations you would keep it without Christian morality,but later it would end.

What you seek is powerful horde which fall after somebody defeat them,and its people join winner.And becouse they gradually lost science,they must lost to numbers,and Europe become unimportant part of Asia - which it were before Greek created its philosophy,roman law,and christians morality.

About Iran - they always fought Turks and Russia,so they continue doing so as long as Russia and Turkey exist.Only reason why they support each other now is USA meddling there.Leave it to them,they would start kill each other again.

About Izrael - they demand property of jews who was murdered with families by germans and were polish citizen.According to western cyvilization standarts,their property belong to polish state,and Izrael is following tribal standarts,not western ones.

 

[Marduk]

2.I agree, that cunt states could prosper,for a time,Assyria or soviets are best example.They simply doomed themselves in the long run.

Correction, by law of large numbers all states are doomed in the long run. The only question is how long is long.

3.If Jesus exist,we should be moral in politic,too.But, i could be wrong,we could be just meat.
4.Even if Jesus do not exist,in long term it is better follow his teaching.Becouse chritian nations,as poles would survive defeat without state,and prussian who worshipped strenght died without state.

That's a very selective choice of examples.
Yes, it sucks to lose wars to other strength worshippers. By the same measure Poland has lost its borderlands in the east.Russians were as dickish as Prussians yet they still are around, and still boss around their neighborhood.
And Prussians are just Germans, who are also still around, and play conquest by economic means now.

5.The same goes for science - christian cyvilisation created it becouse we belive in Truth,so we seek laws in nature.Cyvilisation which do not follow Truth do not seek for laws of nature,and they eventually lost science.

Then how do non-Christian Asian countries copy science and just roll their eyes at western ideological inventions messing it up?
Science is, at its core, a simple realization that nature follow rules, and you can do a whole lots of nifty things if you know these rules well enough and can game them in clever ways.

For few generations you would keep it without Christian morality,but later it would end.

As i said, Japan and China want a word with that.

What you seek is powerful horde which fall after somebody defeat them,and its people join winner.

Depends if the people have their own culture they are attached to.

About Iran - they always fought Turks and Russia,so they continue doing so as long as Russia and Turkey exist.Only reason why they support each other now is USA meddling there.Leave it to them,they would start kill each other again.

They are as likely to fight Russia as Turks are. Which is - if they feel like they will benefit from it.

About Izrael - they demand property of jews who was murdered with families by germans and were polish citizen.According to western cyvilization standarts,their property belong to polish state,and Izrael is following tribal standarts,not western ones.

Its not something Israeli government is doing, its shitty Soros style NGOs (mostly based in USA) who are leading that and demand the money, if they would succeed they would get the money. Some Israeli politicians are giving this a supporting word coz politics, but the Israeli government budget would not get the money anyway, the NGOs would get the money instead.

 

[ATP]

Correction, by law of large numbers all states are doomed in the long run. The only question is how long is long.



That's a very selective choice of examples.
Yes, it sucks to lose wars to other strength worshippers. By the same measure Poland has lost its borderlands in the east.Russians were as dickish as Prussians yet they still are around, and still boss around their neighborhood.
And Prussians are just Germans, who are also still around, and play conquest by economic means now.



Then how do non-Christian Asian countries copy science and just roll their eyes at western ideological inventions messing it up?
Science is, at its core, a simple realization that nature follow rules, and you can do a whole lots of nifty things if you know these rules well enough and can game them in clever ways.


As i said, Japan and China want a word with that.


Depends if the people have their own culture they are attached to.


They are as likely to fight Russia as Turks are. Which is - if they feel like they will benefit from it.


Its not something Israeli government is doing, its shitty Soros style NGOs (mostly based in USA) who are leading that and demand the money, if they would succeed they would get the money. Some Israeli politicians are giving this a supporting word coz politics, but the Israeli government budget would not get the money anyway, the NGOs would get the money instead.

1.Those states which made other hate them fall faster.
2.bavarians are still there,prussians not.And neosoviets are not russians - but neosoviets now,and would be whatever next ruler order them.When poles are still poles,no matter what current leaders says.
3.Yes,science is about rules - but also about existence of Truth.If you deny Truth in politics,it is matter of time till you deny it elsywhere.Of course,it need few generation to occure,but,unless they become christians nation,their science would fall.
4.Once you create system based on strenght,horde would not care about culture.
5.Of course Iran would do what benefit them.That is why they would not engage in wars against other states then neighbours,if Izrael do not attacked them first.Why they killed those scientists ? before that their bombs would be used on other muslims or russians,now they really could attack Izrael.
6.Izrael still support that.And,as only state except Russia and Belarus,still made 9th of May as date of end of WW2,when all western countries knew that it was 8th of May.

I belive,that behaving as christian is better for long prosperity of our nations even if Jesus never existed/I belive HE IS,but i could be wrong/.And that following strenght lead to following one khagan after another.Nothing stable could be made that way.

 

[Marduk]

1.Those states which made other hate them fall faster.

Those states which made other strong ones hate them for a long time fall faster.

2.bavarians are still there,prussians not.And neosoviets are not russians - but neosoviets now,and would be whatever next ruler order them.When poles are still poles,no matter what current leaders says.

Prussians are not because they got scattered across Germany, and that is not conductive to sustaining a regional culture obviously. Those are kinda dying in Europe in general, in Poland too. See: Silesian's pathetic attempts to be an autonomy. Nevermind few other groups who don't even bother trying.

3.Yes,science is about rules - but also about existence of Truth.If you deny Truth in politics,it is matter of time till you deny it elsywhere.Of course,it need few generation to occure,but,unless they become christians nation,their science would fall.

That's a very much untested theory. Note that most Christian nations never had functional science over time, many in Africa and South America still struggle with it despite being more Christian than the west, and the few that did most of science over last 3 centuries or so were not exactly the most devout ones.

4.Once you create system based on strenght,horde would not care about culture.

Tell that to Romans, Egyptians, Babylonians.

5.Of course Iran would do what benefit them.That is why they would not engage in wars against other states then neighbours,if Izrael do not attacked them first.

Purely out of geographic reasons. Picking fights with Israel improves their diplomatic potential with the "Arab street" (they sure need every advantage to overcome the inherent Sunni-Shia hostility), and if all goes their way in that Israel is their future neighbor, so you are technically right.

Why they killed those scientists ? before that their bombs would be used on other muslims or russians,now they really could attack Izrael.

Americans or American's allies more likely. And that would include Israel too.
They don't need nukes to deal with Arab armies, and Russians don't care who wins that fight. Perhaps against Turks. Who are also their future neighbors if all goes well for them.

6.Izrael still support that.And,as only state except Russia and Belarus,still made 9th of May as date of end of WW2,when all western countries knew that it was 8th of May.

Pure symbolic politics.

I belive,that behaving as christian is better for long prosperity of our nations even if Jesus never existed/I belive HE IS,but i could be wrong/.And that following strenght lead to following one khagan after another.Nothing stable could be made that way.

You say stability? Haven't you noticed that "behaving as a christian", particularly on international stage, means a completely different thing now than 500 years ago?
That's about as stable as anything else.
And if you decided to act like it was proper for Christendom 500 years ago, most of current Christendom would call you the barbarian.

 

[ATP]

Those states which made other strong ones hate them for a long time fall faster.

Prussians are not because they got scattered across Germany, and that is not conductive to sustaining a regional culture obviously. Those are kinda dying in Europe in general, in Poland too. See: Silesian's pathetic attempts to be an autonomy. Nevermind few other groups who don't even bother trying.

That's a very much untested theory. Note that most Christian nations never had functional science over time, many in Africa and South America still struggle with it despite being more Christian than the west, and the few that did most of science over last 3 centuries or so were not exactly the most devout ones.


Tell that to Romans, Egyptians, Babylonians.


Purely out of geographic reasons. Picking fights with Israel improves their diplomatic potential with the "Arab street" (they sure need every advantage to overcome the inherent Sunni-Shia hostility), and if all goes their way in that Israel is their future neighbor, so you are technically right.


Americans or American's allies more likely. And that would include Israel too.
They don't need nukes to deal with Arab armies, and Russians don't care who wins that fight. Perhaps against Turks. Who are also their future neighbors if all goes well for them.



Pure symbolic politics.


You say stability? Haven't you noticed that "behaving as a christian", particularly on international stage, means a completely different thing now than 500 years ago?
That's about as stable as anything else.
And if you decided to act like it was proper for Christendom 500 years ago, most of current Christendom would call you the barbarian.

1.If you are cunt,you would fall faster no matter who hate you.
2.Till 1918 prussian was bulling poles - but in 1918 in Poznań we kicked them out in few hours using weapons buyed from german soldiers for private money.Prussian did nothing,becouse without state they were nothing.That is difference - we are nation no matter if polish state exist or not.prussian was only as long as strong state supported them.
3.Of course - but if you try use Truth in science,but deny in politics or elsywhere,you gradually go mad.And when some madman could be great scientist,it not help science in long run.
4.Romans cared about law,and both Egyptians and babilonians about their religions.Without them,they would do not last long after bigger defeats,like assyrians.
5.Izrael did killing in Iran first,so they picked a fight.Not mention training shah torturers.
6.They always fought Russian and Turks - if Izrael do not wanted fight,they would treated them as second target at best.
7.No,making 9th May holiday is showing that you do not belong to western cyvilisation.
8.Becouse there is no more countries led by christian rulers anymore.And that is why we are dying,and only God could save us now.

 

[Marduk]

1.If you are cunt,you would fall faster no matter who hate you.

Yet Russia is still around and kicking.

2.Till 1918 prussian was bulling poles - but in 1918 in Poznań we kicked them out in few hours using weapons buyed from german soldiers for private money.Prussian did nothing,becouse without state they were nothing.That is difference - we are nation no matter if polish state exist or not.prussian was only as long as strong state supported them.

Of course, because Prussians were just Germans at that point, and Germany didn't care.

3.Of course - but if you try use Truth in science,but deny in politics or elsywhere,you gradually go mad.And when some madman could be great scientist,it not help science in long run.

Madness in politics of course helps nothing, not science, not economy, not even military.

4.Romans cared about law,and both Egyptians and babilonians about their religions.Without them,they would do not last long after bigger defeats,like assyrians.

My point exactly. They had their system, and they applied it to their polity, no more, no less. They invested no effort in the delusional hubris of pretending that the law of their land should bind them the same way on and in regard to all other lands too. Law of the land is of the land, that's the sane way. On international arena though, they didn't say ultima ratio regum for nothing.

5.Izrael did killing in Iran first,so they picked a fight.

Iran's new government picked a fight with Israel's ally, USA, during revolution, as their first act.

Not mention training shah torturers.

They are islamists, they hired half of these torturers for themselves and trained more.
Iran has trained terrorists against France, UK, Israel, USA and even India, so by that logic they are a fair target for pretty much half the world.

6.They always fought Russian and Turks - if Izrael do not wanted fight,they would treated them as second target at best.

And they do treat is as second target, for now. They invest more effort into Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon since forever, if Israel was their first target they would not be conserving Hezbollah forces for local uses and even Syria. They shit talk Israel a lot though because it is free to shit talk and it buys them PR with Arabs.

7.No,making 9th May holiday is showing that you do not belong to western cyvilisation.

No more than Russia, certainly. But Russia itself is a tough question.

8.Becouse there is no more countries led by christian rulers anymore.And that is why we are dying,and only God could save us now.

Have some perspective.
Rome did fine for centuries without Christian rulers, so can we.

 

[Zachowon]

Yet Russia is still around and kicking.

Of course, because Prussians were just Germans at that point, and Germany didn't care.

Madness in politics of course helps nothing, not science, not economy, not even military.

My point exactly. They had their system, and they applied it to their polity, no more, no less. They invested no effort in the delusional hubris of pretending that the law of their land should bind them the same way on and in regard to all other lands too. Law of the land is of the land, that's the sane way. On international arena though, they didn't say ultima ratio regum for nothing.


Iran's new government picked a fight with Israel's ally, USA, during revolution, as their first act.


They are islamists, they hired half of these torturers for themselves and trained more.
Iran has trained terrorists against France, UK, Israel, USA and even India, so by that logic they are a fair target for pretty much half the world.

And they do treat is as second target, for now. They invest more effort into Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon since forever, if Israel was their first target they would not be conserving Hezbollah forces for local uses and even Syria. They shit talk Israel a lot though because it is free to shit talk and it buys them PR with Arabs.

No more than Russia, certainly. But Russia itself is a tough question.

Have some perspective.
Rome did fine for centuries without Christian rulers, so can we.

Rome reached its peak before Chsristian Rulers.
Augustus

 

[King Arts]

1.If you are cunt,you would fall faster no matter who hate you.
2.Till 1918 prussian was bulling poles - but in 1918 in Poznań we kicked them out in few hours using weapons buyed from german soldiers for private money.Prussian did nothing,becouse without state they were nothing.That is difference - we are nation no matter if polish state exist or not.prussian was only as long as strong state supported them.
3.Of course - but if you try use Truth in science,but deny in politics or elsywhere,you gradually go mad.And when some madman could be great scientist,it not help science in long run.
4.Romans cared about law,and both Egyptians and babilonians about their religions.Without them,they would do not last long after bigger defeats,like assyrians.
5.Izrael did killing in Iran first,so they picked a fight.Not mention training shah torturers.
6.They always fought Russian and Turks - if Izrael do not wanted fight,they would treated them as second target at best.
7.No,making 9th May holiday is showing that you do not belong to western cyvilisation.
8.Becouse there is no more countries led by christian rulers anymore.And that is why we are dying,and only God could save us now.

Prussia did not fall because they were dicks after all Russians are dicks yet they are still here. Prussia fell because it was a false nation. There was no organic Prussian people Prussia was created when the Teutonic order abandoned their vows and their faith and became Protestants so the leaders could gain power outside the church marry and have their own dynasty.

Rome reached its peak before Chsristian Rulers.
Augustus

Augustus was not Romes peak it’s peak was with Trajan and Hadrian.

 

[Zachowon]

Prussia did not fall because they were dicks after all Russians are dicks yet they are still here. Prussia fell because it was a false nation. There was no organic Prussian people Prussia was created when the Teutonic order abandoned their vows and their faith and became Protestants so the leaders could gain power outside the church marry and have their own dynasty.


Augustus was not Romes peak it’s peak was with Trajan and Hadrian.

Still before christianity