Rechristianization of the Middle East

[Noncommunist]

Recently, I was talking to a few Lebanese from my university. Both were working on their PhDs and were Christians. In the course of the conversation, they lamented the growing Islamization of their country. They attributed much of it to Christian migration and the birthrates of the Muslim population. To them, once Christians are a marginal minority in the country, it will lose any competitive advantage compared to any of its neighbors that have oil.

So why not reverse the process? Why not encourage the Duggars and other members of the Quiverfull movement to set up roots and rechrisitanize the country with their own excessive birthrate. And for those in Europe that complain that they suffer dhimmitude because they cannot freely commit hate crimes against Muslims, why not move to a country that can't even collect its garbage let alone monitor hate crimes. In addition, for those that complain that Muslims aren't assimilating to their culture, why not get revenge by doing the same to them?

If this actually happened, how do you think it actually would go? Would it turn out like Israel? Or the Crusades? Or Liberia? Or the lost colony? And if significant portions of the American and European far right did it, how would that affect Europe or America?

[Gilrandir]

Why not encourage the Duggars and other members of the Quiverfull movement to set up roots and rechrisitanize the country with their own excessive birthrate.

The crucial question is WHO will encourage it. Not the Lebannon authorities for sure, and why should others care?



And for those in Europe that complain that they suffer dhimmitude because they cannot freely commit hate crimes against Muslims, why not move to a country that can't even collect its garbage let alone monitor hate crimes. In addition, for those that complain that Muslims aren't assimilating to their culture, why not get revenge by doing the same to them?

If this actually happened, how do you think it actually would go?

It will not happen and the answer to "why" is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The rightists you refer to would like to afflict Muslims enjoying the level of comfort of their own country (well, according to Maslow, ALL people would like their physical needs to be satisfied first of all). Who would like to settle in a place with dismal living standards just to satisfy their moral/ideological needs? A few fanatics, no more.

[Fragony]

Things are kinda settled in the middle-east, it's muslim territory. Don't feel like taking that from them, everybody needs a place to live. A better idea would be if christians from the middle-east move to west, and we refuse muslims that aren't actual refugees.

Christians; welcome
muslims; better have a good reason, or are invited for a job

I know I am a bigot before anyone says I am, and I know that I hold double standards so don't bother pointing that out.

[wooly_mammoth]

In addition, for those that complain that Muslims aren't assimilating to their culture, why not get revenge by doing the same to them?


Because, from a religious standpoint, in AD 2015, only muslims still feel the need to harass people that not as they are.

[Crandar]

What did your friends say about the Phalanx?

[Kadagar_AV]

Because, from a religious standpoint, in AD 2015, only muslims still feel the need to harass people that not as they are.

Not only muslims...

But they sure are aiming for some sort of world record of fugged up religious beliefs.

[wooly_mammoth]

Of course. Don't take my reply too seriously, it was purposely a stupid answer to what I considered to be a stupid question (not implying anything whatsoever towards the poster, just towards the question itself).

[Kadagar_AV]

Of course. Don't take my reply too seriously, it was purposely a stupid answer to what I considered to be a stupid question (not implying anything whatsoever towards the poster, just towards the question itself).

Agreed.

Western idiots should be handled by the western world, other idiots should be handled by their cultures.

Mixing cultures under one nation's roof is just a recipe for disaster. People DO NOT WANT to live with people of other cultures, by and large. Sure we at times fall in love and move to other cultures... But that is something else entirely from the mass-migration towards Europe (Sweden and Germany in particular).

These are interesting times...

If not for any other reason that this is a "history first" of a leading culture voluntarily ruining itself.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, Lord Carey has called for Britain to help "Crush" ISIL in Syria, so the former head of the Anglican Church is clearly feeling his crusading arm twitching.

You're basically describing a Crusade though, because the reason Christians are leaving is anti-Christian violence, so you'd have to go to war and carve out a space for Christians through the use of violence, and then you'd have to hold it.

Hmmm.

We'd need to take Turkey first, it's a necessary strategic bridgehead and it'll get the Greeks onboard if they can move their capital from Athens to Constantinople and re-take Hagia Sophia. Then I'd recommend pushing down the Levantine coast, skipping over the Sinai and making an amphibious assault on Alexandria, from there we can retake the Nile Delta, destroy all the buildings the Egyptians have built on the floodplain and get the irrigation system sorted. After that I'd recommend committing two forces to go West from Egypt and East from Spain.

I reckon we could take back the whole lot in 20-50 years if the EU made a good, strong, collective effort towards Reconquest. It'd be a bit awkward to have Israel in the middle of Palestine though, and they have some important ports - we might have to absorb them.

wait...

It's still 900 AD, right?

[Pannonian]

Well, Lord Carey has called for Britain to help "Crush" ISIL in Syria, so the former head of the Anglican Church is clearly feeling his crusading arm twitching.

You're basically describing a Crusade though, because the reason Christians are leaving is anti-Christian violence, so you'd have to go to war and carve out a space for Christians through the use of violence, and then you'd have to hold it.

Hmmm.

We'd need to take Turkey first, it's a necessary strategic bridgehead and it'll get the Greeks onboard if they can move their capital from Athens to Constantinople and re-take Hagia Sophia. Then I'd recommend pushing down the Levantine coast, skipping over the Sinai and making an amphibious assault on Alexandria, from there we can retake the Nile Delta, destroy all the buildings the Egyptians have built on the floodplain and get the irrigation system sorted. After that I'd recommend committing two forces to go West from Egypt and East from Spain.

I reckon we could take back the whole lot in 20-50 years if the EU made a good, strong, collective effort towards Reconquest. It'd be a bit awkward to have Israel in the middle of Palestine though, and they have some important ports - we might have to absorb them.

wait...

It's still 900 AD, right?

Do we bring our siege engines with us, or do we build them when we get there?

[rvg]

Deus Vult!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do we bring our siege engines with us, or do we build them when we get there?

Bring them with us, I don't want to be caught out like that again!

[Noncommunist]

What did your friends say about the Phalanx?
They didn't mention it.


The crucial question is WHO will encourage it. Not the Lebannon authorities for sure, and why should others care?

Maybe some of the Lebanese Christians themselves? Or those in America that would love to never hear from the Duggars again.


It will not happen and the answer to "why" is Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The rightists you refer to would like to afflict Muslims enjoying the level of comfort of their own country (well, according to Maslow, ALL people would like their physical needs to be satisfied first of all). Who would like to settle in a place with dismal living standards just to satisfy their moral/ideological needs? A few fanatics, no more.

But the beauty of the Duggars and other Quiverfull members is that the population can increase by a factor of 10 within two decades so you don't need a large starting population. Of course, the Lebanese health care system probably won't allow growth quite that high but it could still be up there.


Well, Lord Carey has called for Britain to help "Crush" ISIL in Syria, so the former head of the Anglican Church is clearly feeling his crusading arm twitching.

You're basically describing a Crusade though, because the reason Christians are leaving is anti-Christian violence, so you'd have to go to war and carve out a space for Christians through the use of violence, and then you'd have to hold it.

Hmmm.

We'd need to take Turkey first, it's a necessary strategic bridgehead and it'll get the Greeks onboard if they can move their capital from Athens to Constantinople and re-take Hagia Sophia. Then I'd recommend pushing down the Levantine coast, skipping over the Sinai and making an amphibious assault on Alexandria, from there we can retake the Nile Delta, destroy all the buildings the Egyptians have built on the floodplain and get the irrigation system sorted. After that I'd recommend committing two forces to go West from Egypt and East from Spain.

I reckon we could take back the whole lot in 20-50 years if the EU made a good, strong, collective effort towards Reconquest. It'd be a bit awkward to have Israel in the middle of Palestine though, and they have some important ports - we might have to absorb them.


I don't know about going into Turkey, armies seem to get lost there. Plus, then you have to deal with the treacherous Greeks who call themselves Romans. And they don't even accept the emperorship of Louis the Child. And if you go by sea, taking siege weapons along is way easier.



wait...

It's still 900 AD, right?

Get with the times, it's almost 910. Teens these days are already nostalgic for the good old 890s.

[Papewaio]

Why not just all go atheist

[Crandar]

They didn't mention it.
Well, they should, because it is the party that actively tried to realise your friends' views, without any particular himanitarian consideration or very positive effects on the Lebanese people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre).

[rory_20_uk]

We've already got a mechanism for this - it has just forgotten its roots...

The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem.

St John Ambulance et al need to man up, boot up and start properly protecting people. And not just cups of tea at a football match, but hot lead (or steel cored, depending on audience) in the Lost Kingdoms.

"Give today, help us blow the faithless away"

Islam has spread mainly via aggression and they're not going to allow other religions into their main territories. And even if "they" is less than 1% of the population, that is still far too many who would be hostile.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Does anyone know what the mercenary pool is in that region? Can they be retrained, and if so, in what towns?

[Gilrandir]

We'd need to take Turkey first, it's a necessary strategic bridgehead and it'll get the Greeks onboard if they can move their capital from Athens to Constantinople and re-take Hagia Sophia. Then I'd recommend pushing down the Levantine coast, skipping over the Sinai and making an amphibious assault on Alexandria, from there we can retake the Nile Delta, destroy all the buildings the Egyptians have built on the floodplain and get the irrigation system sorted. After that I'd recommend committing two forces to go West from Egypt and East from Spain.



Don't forget to send these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Crusade) and these (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Crusade) in front.




Maybe some of the Lebanese Christians themselves? Or those in America that would love to never hear from the Duggars again.



"Encouraging" means "financing". Are those you mention ready to part with their hard earned do-re-mi for the wild goose chase in Outremer?

[CrossLOPER]

not implying anything whatsoever towards the poster
You can imply whatever you want with regards to some dude who uses a name like that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't know about going into Turkey, armies seem to get lost there. Plus, then you have to deal with the treacherous Greeks who call themselves Romans. And they don't even accept the emperorship of Louis the Child. And if you go by sea, taking siege weapons along is way easier.

Ah, you see, you are mistaken - we should allow bow down to one Emperor - he should be a man of supreme learning, diplomacy and sublime violence. The sort of man who spends Sunday morning in prayer, midday fasting and the afternoon killing the ungodly.

[HopAlongBunny]

The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem.

"Give today, help us blow the faithless away"
~:smoking:

I like it! Can I get the T-shirt concession?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Maybe we should just go back to installing secular, benevolent despots in these countries.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe we should just go back to installing secular, benevolent despots in these countries.

Like Saddam?

Or like King Faisal?

Despots require constant maintenance, one way or another.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Like Saddam?

Or like King Faisal?

Despots require constant maintenance, one way or another.

It's not ideal but in every case I think the secular despot has been better than whatever came after.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's not ideal but in every case I think the secular despot has been better than whatever came after.

That's somewhat difficult to judge, because the succession of secular Tyrants (they're not really Despots) have got progressively worse and western support for them has discredited us as a model for good governance.

You can see this in the change in Arab opinion between the campaign in Libya and the Syrian Civil War.

Remember the guy holding an olive branch to a tank who ended up eating his enemy's heart?

Our failure to intervene in Syria convinced the Arabs that we were purely cynical because, after Iraq, they saw no reason why Russian objections would prevent us. Of course, America has had a complete change in government but I suspect the relevance of that is lost on people who have never experienced the swings caused by democracy.

In the Forties and Fifties we supported Tyrants, including the Shah, because it was in our economic interest. In Persia we colluded in the overthrow of the democratic government in favour of the Shah despite Persia being a stable, secular and democratic country. Then, when the Shah became less tractable, we conspired in his overthrow and this allowed the creation of an Islamic Republic, likely in part because the secular democrats in Iran were discredited by having "Western" ideas.

RVG thinks Assad is good for Syrian Christians, which begs the question of how come they're so oppressed in democratic Lebanon.

[AE Bravo]

You can expect the worst with every type of thoughtless attempt at overthrowing regimes. They treat regime change like a game. Doesn't matter if you're a secular despot or a grand mufti.

[Crandar]

It's not ideal but in every case I think the secular despot has been better than whatever came after.
The Iranian Revolutionary Governments definitely were an improvement, compared to the previous SAVAK regime and I am not certain if things were so much better, during the rule of genocidal Saddam.
On the other hand, I would definitely prefer Assad to the heart-eating gentlemen of the FSA, so, in conclusion, I don't think any definite rule exists.
Every case depends on specific circumstances.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Iranian Revolutionary Governments definitely were an improvement, compared to the previous SAVAK regime and I am not certain if things were so much better, during the rule of genocidal Saddam.
On the other hand, I would definitely prefer Assad to the heart-eating gentlemen of the FSA, so, in conclusion, I don't think any definite rule exists.
Every case depends on specific circumstances.

Conveniently skipping over the fact that it was Assad's brutal oppression of that man's peaceful protest that turned him into a monster?

Remember, very few man are born evil, many can be made that way by circumstance.

[rvg]

Conveniently skipping over the fact that it was Assad's brutal oppression of that man's peaceful protest that turned him into a monster?

Remember, very few man are born evil, many can be made that way by circumstance.

Cmon man, one guy is a brutal dictator, the other guy eats people.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cmon man, one guy is a brutal dictator, the other guy eats people.

Yes, but he eats people BECAUSE of the brutal dictator - so we have a guy who eats people and a guy who makes other guys want to eat people.

The brutal dictator is actually making people evil - so HE'S the one who needs to go.

[rvg]

Yes, but he eats people BECAUSE of the brutal dictator - so we have a guy who eats people and a guy who makes other guys want to eat people.

Really? Then how come most Syrians aren't into cannibalism?

[AE Bravo]

When you suddenly get the urge to eat someone's parts on camera while your frat friends chant, chances are you were always a giant thunderkunt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Really? Then how come most Syrians aren't into cannibalism?

I don't know, how come more Syrians aren't fighting for IS?

People are different, have different breaking points and go different ways. If he joined the FSA then chances are he started out loathing the abuses of the regime and signed up to stop them, which tracks with the first recorded image of him holding out an olive branch to a tank.

What did he see to make him want to eat the heart of his enemy? I don't know - it could be children dead from gassing, it could be the result of one of IS' slave auctions, all those young girls raped.

My point is, Syria is where it is because Assad chose to go down in flames and has escalated in his brutality, if this man has become a monster then that's because of Assad.

Also, you don't know what his moral lines are - he may be into eating the hearts of men he considers evil for his crimes but might otherwise be very moral. That's not to say it's not monstrous, but eating ones enemies does not translate into mass murder, rape, tortue, or brutality in general.

[Montmorency]

Also, you don't know what his moral lines are - he may be into eating the hearts of men he considers evil for his crimes but might otherwise be very moral. That's not to say it's not monstrous, but eating ones enemies does not translate into mass murder, rape, tortue, or brutality in general.

Fear justifies everything for men.

[rvg]

I don't know, how come more Syrians aren't fighting for IS?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe they are capable of seeing the IS for what it is?


People are different, have different breaking points and go different ways. If he joined the FSA then chances are he started out loathing the abuses of the regime and signed up to stop them, which tracks with the first recorded image of him holding out an olive branch to a tank.
Okay, so at which point is it okay to eat a random captured enemy soldier? Note that he wasn't eating Assad's heart. The victim was just an average Alawite schmuck press ganged into Assad's army. Did he really deserve to be eaten?


What did he see to make him want to eat the heart of his enemy? I don't know - it could be children dead from gassing, it could be the result of one of IS' slave auctions, all those young girls raped.
If he ate Assad's heart, I would understand.


My point is, Syria is where it is because Assad chose to go down in flames and has escalated in his brutality, if this man has become a monster then that's because of Assad.
Once again, he became a monster while most didn't. The problem is with this guy.


Also, you don't know what his moral lines are - he may be into eating the hearts of men he considers evil for his crimes but might otherwise be very moral. That's not to say it's not monstrous, but eating ones enemies does not translate into mass murder, rape, tortue, or brutality in general.
Well, I'm not quite sure why you're so eager to justify this guy's actions. I see no justification for them, since the victim was not Assad.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I don't know. Maybe they are capable of seeing the IS for what it is?


Okay, so at which point is it okay to eat a random captured enemy soldier? Note that he wasn't eating Assad's heart. The victim was just an average Alawite schmuck press ganged into Assad's army. Did he really deserve to be eaten?


If he ate Assad's heart, I would understand.


Once again, he became a monster while most didn't. The problem is with this guy.


Well, I'm not quite sure why you're so eager to justify this guy's actions. I see no justification for them, since the victim was not Assad.

All I'm saying is that this guy is a symptom, Assad is the disease so it's Assad you have to cut out to save Syria.

[rvg]

All I'm saying is that this guy is a symptom, Assad is the disease so it's Assad you have to cut out to save Syria.

Just be sure not to kill the patient in the process.

[Montmorency]

All I'm saying is that this guy is a symptom, Assad is the disease so it's Assad you have to cut out to save Syria.

Very well, I'll repeat myself.

This is why it is impossible to take "humanitarian interventionism" seriously, this idea that "you have to beat all the bad guys and help the good guys, and then we'll all be good", here made even more invidious by the sublimation of all ills into one evil persona.

What your vision boils down to is pure narcissism and hubris, and it is nothing but a hindrance and a blinker.

[Viking]

It's not ideal but in every case I think the secular despot has been better than whatever came after.

This is backwards reasoning. The secular dictatorship is the least stable form of governance in the Middle East. Assad is the last one clinging to power - the rest have been toppled. Now compare that to how many of the countries not ruled by a secular dictator that have experienced revolution or full-scale war during the 'Arab spring': 0.

If Saddam had still been around, his country would probably have gone up in flames, too. Especially since neighbouring Syria descended into war.

[Crandar]

You forgot el-Sisi.

[classical_hero]

All I'm saying is that this guy is a symptom, Assad is the disease so it's Assad you have to cut out to save Syria.

You are just making things up. Basically you are attributing what is inside this guys head when you haven't even met this guy. By doing so you are excusing his behaviour.

[Viking]

You forgot el-Sisi.

No, he is a symptom, as he would likely not been in power now if not for the toppling of Mubarak. We've yet to see how well Sisi himself will do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You are just making things up. Basically you are attributing what is inside this guys head when you haven't even met this guy. By doing so you are excusing his behaviour.

I can also explain to you why Archbishop Arundel starting burning people at the stake for being Lollards - and I'm basically a Lollard.

Understanding is not the same as sympathy or endorsement.