Trump just recognized Jerusalem as Israel's Capital

[Neutraligon]

And that just leads me to restate me point. Hasn't the United States consistently, or at least more often then not, chosen to support Israel's interests over the interest of Muslims worldwide? Because I feel like we have.

We have, why? Cause the only Muslim country we are allied with is Saudi Arabia. Everyone else in the region, we don't care for.

Who knew Egypt was not a thing?

[Watuhuru]

Okay, so, I'm going to try to summerize my understanding of this situation. Please correct me if I get anything wrong.

1.) Israel says that Jerusalem is it's capital.
2.) Palestine says it's not.
3.) Every other nation who maintains diplomatic contact with Israel has their Embassy in Tel Aviv, as to avoid offending Palestine.
4.) Trump has decided to move the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
5.) Everyone is up in arms because that would offend Palestine.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the US consistently chosen Israel's interests over Palestine's?

Palestines views does not matter to America, they are not even technically allies.

Yes, exactly. We have consistently chosen our ally's interests over those of a nation we are not allied with. This is not a break from the established pattern.

[Principality of the Raix]

We have, why? Cause the only Muslim country we are allied with is Saudi Arabia. Everyone else in the region, we don't care for.

Who knew Egypt was not a thing?

Egypt, we barely treat as an ally. I mean look at the chaos it is in and we do nothing to help, lol.

[Grand Britannia]

And that just leads me to restate me point. Hasn't the United States consistently, or at least more often then not, chosen to support Israel's interests over the interest of Muslims worldwide? Because I feel like we have.

and Pakistan, and Afghanistan,

Nations we have good ties with

Those two don't compute.

[Principality of the Raix]

We have, why? Cause the only Muslim country we are allied with is Saudi Arabia. Everyone else in the region, we don't care for.

>Turkey
>Albania
>Morocco
>Egypt
We all have close ties with those nations, and even Pakistan, because of Afghanistan.

Yeah I forgot morocco as well did not know of albania, as we never do anything for the above listed named countries exception of turkey. We would obviously bend over backwards for them like Israel.

[Neutraligon]

Who knew Egypt was not a thing?

Egypt, we barely treat as an ally. I mean look at the chaos it is in and we do nothing to help, lol.

What exactly are we supposed to do to help? The fact is they are still allied with them.

[Grand Britannia]

Those two don't compute.

Like it or not, we need Pakistan because of Afghanistan and we need them to fight Terrorists(Though they are doing a shit job).
Afghanistan...Well we told them we got their back, and that's the official Trump policy to keep troops there until further notice, sooo....

They're not even "good" allies. It was like allying the Soviets in WW2.

[Principality of the Raix]

Egypt, we barely treat as an ally. I mean look at the chaos it is in and we do nothing to help, lol.

What exactly are we supposed to do to help? The fact is they are still allied with them.

An ally should seek to make the nation governable for the Government, like we see this many times. Not nowadays mind you, but in the past. Where troops have been used by allies to settle their area's down to ensure governance can become efficient. Course, we do not do that nowadays since the first world war. While any Nations contributing into a Nations government is normally attempting to tear it down these days.

[Principality of the Raix]

They're not even "good" allies. It was like allying the Soviets in WW2.

True but we still need to not piss them off else IS in Afghanistan could become a lot more powerful without us(assuming Russia-Iran don't intervene enough there), and assuming our official policy is to stay in Afghanistan, we can't just say "Well fuck you we're doing something you hate but you can't do shit because you rely on us." which may offend many and tempt some to join the Taliban or ISIS.

I find the subject of isis funny, seeing as the rumors around them. Muslims claim their Kurds, Kurds claim their Muslims, while Majority claim isis is backed by America. Either way you toss the cake, Isis is trying to kill you. So who cares, what they are or who backed them. When someone you backed attacked you, it's called betrayal. So in the end as stated, Isis is just trying to kill all. So who cares what they are, just kill em.

[Stormwrath]

1. I don't get the outrage? Isn't Jeruslam Israel capital?

2.Why is this not in the Trump thread?

1. Jerusalem is the de jure capital of Israel, while Tel Aviv is the de facto seat of government.

2. Eh.

[Principality of the Raix]

I find the subject of isis funny, seeing as the rumors around them. Muslims claim their Kurds, Kurds claim their Muslims, while Majority claim isis is backed by America. Either way you toss the cake, Isis is trying to kill you. So who cares, what they are or who backed them. When someone you backed attacked you, it's called betrayal. So in the end as stated, Isis is just trying to kill all. So who cares what they are, just kill em.

The Majority of Kurds are Muslims...

Yes, sorry I mean Arabian. As Kurds do not view themselves as Arabians. I am just too used to calling Arabians, Muslims as the vast Majority of Muslims are Arabians.

[Ransium]

This is one of Trump's dumbest moves, now he'll have the hatred of most of the world's muslim, even here in the States. More elite support for the fake nation of Israel.

I'm under the radical impression that the peoples of Islam aren't exactly in his favor regardless.

(((Trump)))

Use of the echo is seldom a good idea and is almost always considered trolling, even if it is sarcastic. Unofficial warning for echo trolling.

[Baltenstein]

Random unrelated fun fact: Hinduism has the greatest amount of followers outside India in Arabia.

Must be all the Indian slave labor guest workers in the Gulf states.

[Entronium]

Not another war........

[Principality of the Raix]

Yes, sorry I mean Arabian. As Kurds do not view themselves as Arabians. I am just too used to calling Arabians, Muslims as the vast Majority of Muslims are Arabians.

Actually not exclusively, Pakistanis have a huge pop of muslims, Indonesia is the biggest Muslim country in the world, and Iran and Turkey aren't Arabic by any stretch.

Random unrelated fun fact: Hinduism has the greatest amount of followers outside India in Arabia.

Actually, even if they do not state they are Arabian. They have Arabian ties or roots.

"“Arab” and “Muslim” are not synonymous terms. Muslims are followers of the religion of Islam. Arabs are an ethno-linguistic group of people, most of whom are Muslim in religion but some of whom are not. Their origins lie in the Arabian Peninsula, but they burst into the larger world in the seventh and eighth centuries with the dramatic conquests that followed the death of Muhammad in AD 632. Within a hundred years, they had spread to the west across North Africa and Spain and penetrated as far as southern France. To the east, they had conquered the Persian Empire and spread into modern-day Pakistan and Central Asia. They did so as followers of Islam, but they also did so as ethnic, linguistic and cultural Arabs. Initially, these Arabic Muslims lived as a ruling minority over most of their empire."

But like you stated, they do not identify as Arabian. However their ancestry is Arabian.

Noted: Though that is not many, as they began as a minority. So they would not be a majority unless they killed off the majority to begin with.

[Principality of the Raix]

Actually, even if they do not state they are Arabian. They have Arabian ties or roots.

"“Arab” and “Muslim” are not synonymous terms. Muslims are followers of the religion of Islam. Arabs are an ethno-linguistic group of people, most of whom are Muslim in religion but some of whom are not. Their origins lie in the Arabian Peninsula, but they burst into the larger world in the seventh and eighth centuries with the dramatic conquests that followed the death of Muhammad in AD 632. Within a hundred years, they had spread to the west across North Africa and Spain and penetrated as far as southern France. To the east, they had conquered the Persian Empire and spread into modern-day Pakistan and Central Asia. They did so as followers of Islam, but they also did so as ethnic, linguistic and cultural Arabs. Initially, these Arabic Muslims lived as a ruling minority over most of their empire."

But like you stated, they do not identify as Arabian. However their ancestry is Arabian.

Hmm...Makes me wonder about what'd have happened if Hinduism replaced Islam in the conquests...

Who knows, we just know we would not have terrorists per se. As hinduism is not very... volatile.

[Baltenstein]

Actually not exclusively, Pakistanis have a huge pop of muslims, Indonesia is the biggest Muslim country in the world, and Iran and Turkey aren't Arabic by any stretch.

Random unrelated fun fact: Hinduism has the greatest amount of followers outside India in Arabia.

Actually, even if they do not state they are Arabian. They have Arabian ties or roots.

"“Arab” and “Muslim” are not synonymous terms. Muslims are followers of the religion of Islam. Arabs are an ethno-linguistic group of people, most of whom are Muslim in religion but some of whom are not. Their origins lie in the Arabian Peninsula, but they burst into the larger world in the seventh and eighth centuries with the dramatic conquests that followed the death of Muhammad in AD 632. Within a hundred years, they had spread to the west across North Africa and Spain and penetrated as far as southern France. To the east, they had conquered the Persian Empire and spread into modern-day Pakistan and Central Asia. They did so as followers of Islam, but they also did so as ethnic, linguistic and cultural Arabs. Initially, these Arabic Muslims lived as a ruling minority over most of their empire."

But like you stated, they do not identify as Arabian. However their ancestry is Arabian.

That's like saying that the majority of Europeans have Roman ancestry because Romans used to rule their countries.

[Nouveau Yathrib]

Voted Disapprove (Like Israel).

I am just too used to calling Arabians, Muslims as the vast Majority of Muslims are Arabians.

Actually not exclusively, Pakistanis have a huge pop of muslims, Indonesia is the biggest Muslim country in the world, and Iran and Turkey aren't Arabic by any stretch.

Random unrelated fun fact: Hinduism has the greatest amount of followers outside India in Arabia.

Only around 20% of the world's Muslims live in the Arabic-speaking countries of West Asia and North Africa. The majority of non-Arab Muslims are from this part of the world.

[Principality of the Raix]

Actually, even if they do not state they are Arabian. They have Arabian ties or roots.

"“Arab” and “Muslim” are not synonymous terms. Muslims are followers of the religion of Islam. Arabs are an ethno-linguistic group of people, most of whom are Muslim in religion but some of whom are not. Their origins lie in the Arabian Peninsula, but they burst into the larger world in the seventh and eighth centuries with the dramatic conquests that followed the death of Muhammad in AD 632. Within a hundred years, they had spread to the west across North Africa and Spain and penetrated as far as southern France. To the east, they had conquered the Persian Empire and spread into modern-day Pakistan and Central Asia. They did so as followers of Islam, but they also did so as ethnic, linguistic and cultural Arabs. Initially, these Arabic Muslims lived as a ruling minority over most of their empire."

But like you stated, they do not identify as Arabian. However their ancestry is Arabian.

That's like saying thata the majority of Europeans have Roman ancestry because Romans used to rule their countries.

Not entirely as the Romans, while a lot of their bloodline did expand beyond Rome into Turkey and Israel. It was the Germans, and Muslims that caused the collapse of Rome. So while many blood lines may carry Roman genetics mixed with Arabian or German/Scandinavian genetics. But no, they would and did not actually make much an impression on Europe. When you consider the collapse and facts, it was actually the Franks that continued the Roman etymology and culture as well as Byzantine that had the greatest affects on Europe over Rome.

Noted: However, I will give you without the Romans neither could of affected Europe to the degree both did.

[Principality of the Raix]

Not entirely as the Romans, while a lot of their bloodline did expand beyond Rome into Turkey and Israel. It was the Germans, and Muslims that caused the collapse of Rome. So while many blood lines may carry Roman genetics mixed with Arabian or German/Scandinavian genetics. But no, they would and did not actually make much an impression on Europe. When you consider the collapse and facts, it was actually the Franks that continued the Roman etymology and culture as well as Byzantine that had the greatest affects on Europe over Rome.

Noted: However, I will give you without the Romans neither could of affected Europe to the degree both did.

Let's just bring back Prussia and let it rule over the world.
Done. Everyone's happy. Except Poland. Sorry Poland.

Ah But I like the Nationalist Polish, let us just leave them be this time as Prussians should of done to begin with. I mean they protect Europe from the Muslim Invasions nearly always in the past. So, let their actions speak for themselves; They deserve to be left a lone.

[Baltenstein]

That's like saying thata the majority of Europeans have Roman ancestry because Romans used to rule their countries.

Not entirely as the Romans, while a lot of their bloodline did expand beyond Rome into Turkey and Israel. It was the Germans, and Muslims that caused the collapse of Rome. So while many blood lines may carry Roman genetics mixed with Arabian or German/Scandinavian genetics. But no, they would and did not actually make much an impression on Europe. When you consider the collapse and facts, it was actually the Franks that continued the Roman etymology and culture as well as Byzantine that had the greatest affects on Europe over Rome.

Noted: However, I will give you without the Romans neither could of affected Europe to the degree both did.

My point is that claiming that Muslim peoples have "Arabian ancestry" is equally invalid to the claim of European peoples having "Roman ancestry". Just because a group of people used to be the ruling minority of a country long ago the inhabitants of said country do not automatically become their descendants. Rather, they are the descendants of the ruled-over majority.

[Principality of the Raix]

Ah But I like the Nationalist Polish, let us just leave them be this time as Prussians should of done to begin with. I mean they protect Europe from the Muslim Invasions nearly always in the past. So, let their actions speak for themselves; They deserve to be left a lone.

Or we could have Israel rule us all.
I mean what's the worst that could happen?
Guys?
Guys?

An Ethno-state, Genocide, Extinction of all but the Jewish race. Just a few things after what we seen, I mean if people still wanna argue over Stalin. Lennin was a jew for sure and so... I mean U.S.S.R massacres anyone?

[Principality of the Raix]

Not entirely as the Romans, while a lot of their bloodline did expand beyond Rome into Turkey and Israel. It was the Germans, and Muslims that caused the collapse of Rome. So while many blood lines may carry Roman genetics mixed with Arabian or German/Scandinavian genetics. But no, they would and did not actually make much an impression on Europe. When you consider the collapse and facts, it was actually the Franks that continued the Roman etymology and culture as well as Byzantine that had the greatest affects on Europe over Rome.

Noted: However, I will give you without the Romans neither could of affected Europe to the degree both did.

My point is that claiming that Muslim peoples have "Arabian ancestry" is equally invalid to the claim of European peoples having "Roman ancestry". Just because a group of people used to be the ruling minority of a country long ago the inhabitants of said country do not automatically become their descendants. Rather, they are the descendants of the ruled-over majority.

Which is basically the same thing...However, how do people get ruled over back in that time? Easily invasion is by killing the men, raping the women(sorry for the visual image in the mind for this) and basically genocide of the people that was ruling that land back then. When you consider it, however the culture is dependent on if it is continued on whether or not it impacts the society.

Note: Also I forgot the enslavement part of the defeated, if they do that. Sometimes they did, not always.

[Baltenstein]

Let's just bring back Prussia and let it rule over the world.
Done. Everyone's happy. Except Poland. Sorry Poland.

Ah But I like the Nationalist Polish, let us just leave them be this time as Prussians should of done to begin with. I mean they protect Europe from the Muslim Invasions nearly always in the past. So, let their actions speak for themselves; They deserve to be left a lone.

Considering that the extent of Prussia's and Poland's home territory is almost identical, they are not exactly pre-destined for good neighborly relations now, aren't they?
It's probably for the best that one of them is gone. The territory between the Oder and the Vistula just ain't big enough for the both of them.

[Baltenstein]

My point is that claiming that Muslim peoples have "Arabian ancestry" is equally invalid to the claim of European peoples having "Roman ancestry". Just because a group of people used to be the ruling minority of a country long ago the inhabitants of said country do not automatically become their descendants. Rather, they are the descendants of the ruled-over majority.

Which is basically the same thing...However, how do people get ruled over back in that time? Easily invasion is by killing the men, raping the women(sorry for the visual image in the mind for this) and basically genocide of the people that was ruling that land back then. When you consider it, however the culture is dependent on if it is continued on whether or not it impacts the society.

Note: Also I forgot the enslavement part of the defeated, if they do that. Sometimes they did, not always.

Um, no. That's not true at all. The idea that in order to rule a freshly-conquered land you have to REMOVEKEBAB all the original inhabitants first is very 20th Century in nature. In the overwhelming majority of conquests throughout history, the conquerors just took over as the ruling elite and let the subjugated majority go on with their lives.