Not a serious Question:)
Your point about extremists failing the “civilisation test” is worth thinking about.
Oh, so Islamic Civilization is on both sides of the clash, plus on the side that isn’t part of the clash.
That sure clears it up.
Whoooaaa:
[url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/russia-targets-turkish-economy-in-retaliation-for-downing-of-warplane/2015/11/26/b0fb7fac-9433-11e5-a2d6-f57908580b1f_story.html] Washington Post: Moscow is ready to coordinate with the West over strikes on Syria, Putin says
[/quote]
This is an amazing, unexpected development.: Russia agreeing to be led in a common cause by the US.
Now let’s just see if that means the US can get Putin to ditch that slug Assad. I fear Putin is playing some kind of game, and that Assad is at the root of it.
That “irresolution” is another name for “hard lessons learned.” It exists because invading Iraq turned out to be a Very Bad Idea, as you know. It got us into an incredibly expensive and intractable quagmire, turned Iraq into a hell of poverty, instability, ethnic cleansing and refugees – and opened the way for the rise of ISIS.
Why would that work any better a second time?
The “Clash of Civilisations” is an obviously loaded idea.
We have 60 seconds to the minute and 360 degrees in a circle from the Sumerians.
Islamic thinkers have provided concepts that were instrumental in the development of “Western” civilisation.
The fact that “western” economic and military power has reduced the culture to the level of ignorance we see is a interesting question.
The recent events in Paris cannot be construed to represent anything that claims to be a civilisation.
Those people are savages.
They have a very limited connection to any civilisation.
The Romans were civilized. The Aztecs were civilized. Civilization is not a moral condition of a culture, it is a technological and organizational condition.
They’ve decided which pipeline they prefer. Whatever government, it will have to be pro Iran.
We used to burn witches.
There is no future in the Past…
I’ll get to the rest later, but the following makes for a brief enough inviting target to dispose of separately.
The only “specific stuff” and detail that mattered at the start was the attempt by the Persian Empire to conquer the Greek states.
The first target was the Ionian Greek states of the east coast of the Aegean. These had been for several generations semi-autonomous under the lax rule of the semi-Hellenic state of Lydia, which ruled what are now western and central Turkey. Lydia was conquered by the Persians under Cyrus ca. 550BCE, and their Ionian subjects fell into the Persian lap. The Persians then imposed a somewhat more closely supervised regimen on the Ionians, and the foremost Ionian city, Miletus, eventually revolted. After a fierce struggle the Persians took Miletus by siege (I think 494BCE) and leveled it. Numerous mainland Greek states to the west, first and foremost Athens, had aided Miletus. The Persians decided as their next step to punish Athens by conquering it. The famous battle of Marathon resulted, and that was the end of the 1st Greco-Persian War.
Ah, “civilization”, and its definitions. Here we go again. We had a whole thread about this a while ago (and somehow, at the end of it, things were even less clear than before).
“Civilization”, like “fuck”, is a word that is heavily dependent on context for its meaning.
Yes, that’s all. However, unlike “fuck”, which is sturdy and versatile enough to replace most of our daily vocabulary and still keep on making sense, “civilization” is so wobbly and gelatinous that it rarely makes it through a single conversation without becoming a useless mess.
“Fuck” is my favorite word. “Civilization” is quickly becoming more the opposite. I say fuck it. From orbit.
Um… yes. That you, very informative.
Your point? Or are we just trading random facts about history now, to see who [del]has the biggest penis[/del] is the best at reading Wikipedia? 'Cause, fuck, I can do that all day, and often do. Not sure what this has to do with your claim that there’s a “Clash of Civilizations” going on, though.
All of that sounds more like ordinary great-power politics than any “Clash of Civilizations.” The Persians tried to conquer the Greeks because that’s what empires do, and Alexander conquered Persia because he wanted one of his own – and, when he got there, found himself admiring Persian culture so much that he practically went native, and took two Persian wives. That’s no apostle of Hellenism, that’s a king being a king.
The “it’s all just semantics” argument is fine in theory.
Doesn’t seem too helpful in real life…
Sweeping historical metanarrative, on the other hand, is really helpful. I find it especially useful for doing laundry and stuff.
I do not know where you are going with this Alexandrian popularity contest, but it is a red herring because neither side in a war of civilizations is required to be united and at peace with itself.
And Oh boy I am ready for all you got.
What are you talking about?
West and East have clashed more or less constantly since the Hellenic era in the West. That is how history has taken place.
Gobbledygook. Rewrite it.
I cut Persians slack for emancipating slaves more than for anything else. That made even the Greek Democracies look bad in comparison. But the Persians wanted to conquer the world, it seems, and when their Eastern Civilization into the more militarily efficient and perhaps more motivated Western Greek Civiliazation it was their undoing. I never have understood why the Persians didn’t do more to copy the Greek military organization, but they failed to.
For the 2nd time: the reason it did not work was because we left too soon. People whining about we can’t stay forever and what not.
No. No, they haven’t. *Everybody *has been clashing more or less constantly with anyone they thought themselves big enough to beat up. That is how history has taken place. Well, until we got weapons nasty enough for mutually ensured destruction, which is the number one reason why we’ve been chilling out a bit, relatively speaking, since WWII.
Speaking of WWII, I can’t wait for you to shoehorn that one (or the first one) into your East vs West concept of history.
Reported.
And although I often find Wiki useful I have not needed to use it in this thread. If I do use it I will cite it.
How did you figure the Persians wanted to conquer the world?
OK, fine, let’s see…
No, actually, it’s not gobbledygook at all, it’s fine. I stand by it. In fact, I’ll keep it handy for the next time I’m describing the history of war and conflict to a kindergarten class. Or certain rooms full of PhD’s. The two can look oddly similar sometimes.
Seriously? Reported? You just broke my “reported” cherry? Wow, I’m not sure how to feel now. I didn’t even know you cared. Huh. This’ll be interesting.
What for, though? Was it because I keep saying “penis” and “fuck”? If so, maybe that is warnable in this forum, so fair cop. I’ll be willing to change my ways. I was a sailor in a former life, I’m sorry.