UserWiki:Sheeth

Info
I'm an Arab who lives in Italy.

Beliefs
Everything is pretty self explanatory, I believe in a United Arab Nation with Centre-Left economics. How will a United Arab Nation be achieved? Hopefully through Diplomacy between a new era of Leaders who are more keen on Arabism and more importantly, are more Anti-Zionist. If diplomacy is impossible, we'll have to resort to violence, as I cannot continue to see the Arab world in such a sad state of affairs.

If you couldn't tell, I'm very Anti-Zionist. What isntreal is doing to the Palestinians is disgusting, and lets not even mention israel is a settler-colony made up of Ashkenazi Jews who have lived in Europe for more than 2,000 years, and no I do not advocate for the genocide of Jews after the recovery of Palestinian lands, Jews will be allowed citizenship and basic rights and all that shit.

This new Arab Nation should also lessen ties with the USA and the west, and become neutral, trading with China and Russia too. Aligning with one big country or alliance would be a big no no, as a United Arab Nation would be powerful and would tip the scales of the world's balance if siding with one side.

Italy [[File:Cball-Italy.png]]
For you to understand who I'd vote for you need to understand the shitshow that happened here. Funni bunga bunga man Berlusconi resigned after economic troubles and some really bad Governments came in his place. Eventually literally all parties (except Fratelli d'Italia) made a coalition decided to make smart bank man  Mario Draghi temporary Prime Minister (except  Fratelli d'Italia, a fringe near-fascist (though not really) far-right to right-wing party with only 6% of the Senate. This info is important for later). Eventually Draghi resigned because of something to do with a vote and the alliance between the parties breaking down, and literally everything fell apart. With Fratelli d'Italia being the only Party not in the Coalition, they won the vote by a landslide, with  Giorgia Meloni becoming Prime Minister and making all the Right wing Parties her slaves. And that's how a fringe near-fascist party with only 6% of the senate became the ruling Party.

Now on to who I'd vote. I would've voted for Lega since they're Pro-Federalism and actually recognise the differences between Italy's regions despite being Nationalist, but  Salvini (leader of Lega) promised to recognise isntrael's capital as Jerusalem, so nope. Five Star Movement already had their go, so I'd either would've voted for Fratelli d'Italia because they might actually stabilise Italy and are based Nationalists or  Forza Italia (Berlusconi's Party) because  Berlusconi is funni.

United Kingdom [[File:Cball-UK.png]]
Boris Johnson is a failure, Theresa May is a failure,  Starmer and  Corbyn are failures,  Rishi Sunak will probably be a failure and  Bl*ir is a demon in human skin. Not many people I can support except the Blue Labours. They've got Centre to Centre-Left economics, they're opposed to Bl*ir and they've got based cultural policies.

Russia [[File:Cball-Russia.png]]
This may come as a surprise to many, but if I was a Russian, I'd probably vote for the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and  Zyuganov. Zyuganov seems to have the interests of the people at heart, and prefers a slow transition to Socialism. He's also a based Intercultural Nationalist and tolerates religion, along with respecting Russia's ethnic minorities and advocating for greater recognition of farmers.

France [[File:France.png]]
For France it's pretty straight forward. I'd vote for Marine Le Pen, since she's slightly better than  M*cron.

Very Based
Ba'ath Party (88/100) - Ba'ased Arab Nationalist Party, sadly it split and none of the successor parties will be as based, still though, based. Also the Socialism should be a replaced with a SocAuth-type economy but Socialism wasn't really the priority of the Party anyways.

Arab Socialist Union (85/100) - Based, and the ASU led the project that got the closest to Arab unity, although a bit too Socialist.

Sinn Fein (84/100) - Gigachad.

Provisional IRA (83/100) - Based, Northern Ireland is rightful Irish territory. Cope Angloids.

Hamas (82/100) -

Awami League (80/100) - Nationalist, Secular, Social Democratic-type economics, BASED.

Leaning Based
Radical Party (74/100) - Best Party in Ukraine, but the reason this isn't higher is because of the poor treatment of Russophones and the Russian minority in Ukraine if this Party would come to power.

CPRF (68/100) - I really like the ideology, but ditch the Communism. the CPRF is barely Communist anyways. Other than that, the Conservatism, Nationalism and tolerance of religion is based. Zyuganov also proposed more farmers' rights, a kind of French-style Presidential system and more Federalisation, so there isn't really much to hate other than the praising of Stalin.

Fratelli d'Italia (66/100) - Alright ideology and I guess the only real option for Italians along with maybe Cinque Stelle. The Populism and Nationalism seems a bit alright, but the Fascist symbolism is worrying.

Movimento Cinque Stelle (66/100) - Great ideology but I have yet to see the execution.

Chinese Communist Party (65/100) - Quite based, especially with Xi Jinping coming to power, but Jiang Zemin was absolutely horrible (RIP bozo) and Hu Jintao was basically a liberal.

Pro-Syrian Baath Party (64/100) - Bashar al-Assad is based I guess, but where's the Pan-Arabism?

Neutral
United Russia (49/100) - It certainly isn't good but it isn't devilish like the West portrays them to be. The ideology is kind of on the right track but the execution is pretty bad. Too Irredentist and Authoritarian too, and I don't really believe politicians like Medvedev and Lavrov have the interest of the people at heart. Certainly better than Yeltsin though.

Leaning Cringe
Communist Party of the Soviet Union (38/100) - Mixed bag, but mostly leaning cringe. The Party killed quite a lot of people, not as much as the dumbass Western estimates but maybe around 2-5 million people in total, many of whom were innocent. The Party also makes it very unclear if this Party was Patriotic and Nationalist, or Globalist.

Cringe
Pro-Iraq Ba'ath Party (29/100) - al-Bakr was alright-ish ig, but Saddam was just a disastrous idiot, and I'm not just saying this because he invaded my home country.

Very Cringe
Chinese Communist Party (Mao Era) (4/100) - Killed and overworked thousands of people, completely destroyed China's culture, turned the entirety of the youth into a mass paramilitary, shamed elders and teachers, this was the worst Communist Party ever along with Gonzalo's shining path.

Very Based
Salah ad-Din al-Bitar (89/100) - Probably one of the best Pan-Arabists out there tbh. He was almost flawless, and he left the Ba'ath Party after corruption and factionalism destroyed the Party.

Ahmed Jibril (88/100) - An extremely based freedom fighter who fought isntreal until the end. RIP.

Gaafar al-Nimeiry (83/100) - Extremely based Pan-Arab-Islamic-Socialist who greatly improved his country and was dedicated to Pan-Arabism. Sadly he was overthrown, and an era of chaos engulfed Sudan after. Slightly too Socialist though.

Gamal Abdel Nasser (82/100) - The legendary leader of Egypt and the UAR who almost achieved Arab unity. He was a brilliant statesman and popular leader. He is slightly to Socialist though, and he lost to isntreal many times, but other than that, full based.

Michel Aflaq (81/100) - Very based Pan-Arabist who would've made for a great Arab leader. Sadly, he served Saddam Hussein.

Leaning Based
King Faisal (72/100) - One Gulf Monarch that I have some respect for. Anti-Zionist, but also a firm believer in Pan-Arabism. Based.

Leaning Cringe
Joseph Stalin (37/100) - Killed quite a lot of people, deported many ethnicities and repressed religion, but also beat the Nazis, which is a big achievement.

Donald Trump (31/100) - Hypocrite, racist and terrible President, but he is slightly better than the Democrats.

Cringe
Todor Zhivkov (26/100) - Ethnokleptocrat and dumbass.

Barrack Obama (23/100) - Cringe Neoliberal War Hawk who killed thousands.

Mohammed Reza Shah (22/100) - Terrible ruler and Puppet of the USA and Israel. He was a Dictator who suppressed religion and had a brutal Secret Police, I'd prefer Khomenei to him.

Very Cringe
Narendra Modi (9/100) - Islamophobe (despite 1/3rd of ethnic Indians being Muslim), Pro-isntreal, corrupt, overall gay and fash. Hope you get locked up and beat by the INC.

George W. Bush (9/100) - Killed thousands in Iraq and covered it up easily. Probably the worst American President.

Die.
Benjamin Netanyahu (-infinite/100) - Gay isntreali politician who caused the deaths of many Palestinian civilians and the displacement of many, many more.

Ariel Sharon (-infinite/100) - A literal, actual fat pig. Killed not only a massive amount of Palestinians but also Lebanese. Also a War criminal, and one of the worst war criminals of the 21st and 20th centuries. I have absolutely no respect for him.

Adolf Hitler (-infinite\100) - Do I really have to explain myself here?

Meir Kahane (-infinite\100) - Disgusting "person", literally him, wants and caused the death of many civilians. Again, disgusting pig that I have no respect for.

Baruch Goldstein (-infinite\100) - He shot civilians, and worse, in a holy site. Need I say more? He's a bitch.

Extremely Based
Black Nationalism & Pan-Africanism - Extremely based, (Sub-Saharan) Africa should unite. Also New Afrika is based.

Based
Burmese Way to Socialism - Highest ranking Commie on the list and probably the only fully based one.

Xi Jinping Thought - Based. Nationalist, Progressive and Conservative, protects country's interests, Anti-porn, Anti-Corruption, overall nothing that bad. Just stop praising Mao and stop destroying local economies of other nations and you'd be good.

Ba'athism - It's a shame, Aflaq, Arsuzi and al-Bitar were extremely based and I'm sure they would've been great leaders of the Arab world if they had the chance, but you fell off with Saddam (who was nepotistic and stupid) and to some extent, Assad, but Assad is still based though.

Neutral Leaning Positively
National Communism - Some of your ideologues were very based like Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev and Alexander Rankovic, but others were not great like Zhivkov, Gomulka (if you'd call him a Natcom) and Ceausescu (in his later years).

Paleoconservatism - Agrees that America should mind its own business, but I cant fully support you because of all the racism and shit.

Gaddafism - You were so based before, my God did you fall off after the late 80s. You started getting corrupt and nepotistic, started turning towards Pan-Africanism just to appease the US (Pan-Africanism is based, but Libya is Arab so yeah), and you became a drug and sex addict.

Neutral
Stalinism - You won the war against the Nazis which is extremely based, and you were somewhat Patriotic, but you killed lots of innocent people during your purge, you puppeted all of Eastern Europe, and you supported isntreal before 1947.

Peronism - Great Economics. I can't fully support you though because you housed nazis.

Juche - I don't know if I should believe the blatantly and obviously false Western propaganda or the blatantly and obviously false North Korean propaganda. What I can say for sure is that the ideology itself will probably get you in the based section, but the execution (of the ideology), I have no idea.

Bad
Kemalism - Hatay is rightful Syrian Arab land. You also ripped hijabs off women. The reason you aren't in the burn section is because I'd support you against the ott*man, br*tish and fr*nch Imperialists.

Burn.
Neoconservatism - You killed millions and you ruined the Middle East. You're also what keeps isntreal afloat, so fuck you.

Maoism - I would've put you slightly above in the bad section if you didn't do the cultural revolution and the great leap forward. First he made China into a cultureless hellhole, and then he topped it off by overworking his own people. He also turned the Chinese youth into a massive paramilitary.

Zionism - literal murderer. isntreal is rightful Palestinian Arab land, cope.

Trotskyism - the absolute worst Communist, no, the worst person in the entire left. Ultraglobtard, Interventionist, Anti-Peasantry, it's the apex of cringe.

Cliffism - This might just be worse than Trotskyism, which is certainly an achievement.

Gemayelism - Pure dogshit. Incredibly discriminatory to Non-Christian Lebanese, Anti-Arabist and believes Lebanese people are descended from "Phoenicians", but the worst part by far is that they helped the IDF come into Lebanon and slaughter their own people and especially Palestinians. These guys are straight up nazis, and to prove it search up the Sabra and Shatila massacre.

Based
CynicalLibra (//) - Extremely based person and the Guevarism and Indigenism makes up for the Maoism and State Atheism. Overall very nice person and pretty based ideology. Also nice ideas for creating a new American culture and really based Anti-Zionism.

Comrade Kretk (//) - Very based person, and the National-Communism and Guevarism make up for the Authoritarian Progressivism and State Atheism. Overall based.

Applethesky2021 (//) - Very based ideology which is pretty close to mine too. As for your Post-Zionism, I can respect two-state solutionists but I dont necessarily agree with it. the Kemalism is also kinda cringe, but other than that the Cultural Nationalism, Social Nationalism and Progressive Conservatism is omni-based.

Noel21231 - Based ideology, the Nationalism, Conservatism and Tridemism is all great, but I'm not sure about the economic Liberalism. Other than that, fully based.

Pretty based
Yoda8soup (//) - I like the economics but not sure about the supporting Rojava and Liberal-Socialism, but you seem like a based person so you're based.

Glencoe - You seem pretty based and a nice person irl, but I'm not a big fan of the Minarchism and the Liberal Socialism, but I really like the Social Patriotism which makes up for everything.

burn
=Comments= Glencoe - add me plz? Glencoe - if I remember correctly Cliff opposed Zionism post 1960
 * [[File:Syntridem3.png]] Apple - Looks based, add me pls. Also, why do you support Ne Win? He was basically the Myanmar Pol Pot, albeit less insane.
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] Sheeth - Hello, I added you btw. Oh and I support Ne win because he protected his Nation's culture and Independence, was Nationalist, and respected Buddhism, I don't see anything wrong with him.
 * [[File:Syntridem3.png]] Apple - Do you have discord?
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] Sheeth - Yep, it's Daixon#0015
 * - Add me?
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] Sheeth - Alr added
 * Sure

DragonRed - You look pretty grounded. Hatay is the legitimate territory of the Republic of Turkey. Syria is not Arab territory. You're fine out there. Leave Hatay to us.
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] Sheeth - I haven't really done much research on Cliff other than him being a Trotskyist born in isntreal, so thanks for correcting me, but I did read on an obscure article somewhere that he was a Zionist.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- np also when i say minarchism i mean economic minarchism as i think a market socialist economy with low(though not completely without) regulations is best

Todor Jinkov was Gorbachev's puppet. He was an ethnic Bulgarian Nationalist. He was chauvinistic. He discriminated against Bulgarian Turks and Pomaks. It disrupted Bulgaria's economy. Same with Rankovic. Albanian is discriminatory against Bosniaks and Croats. Other national communist leaders are pretty good.
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] Sheeth - Well, Hatay wasn't really Turkish until the 1930s, when Turkey made an Alliance with Fr*nce in exchange for Hatay. There was a "referendum" and Turkey just flooded Hatay with Turks before the election to rig it. Plus idk what you mean by "Syria is not Arab territory" because it's pretty well known Syria is very much Arab by both Syrians and the outside world. I do agree with you on Zhivkov, he was an Ethnokleptocrat. As for Rankovic, he did do some questionable things in Kosovo, but he still kinda is based.

Hatay was not taken by cheating. It's a lie. It's our land. Here we are looking at millions of Arab refugees. Do you want land without shame?
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] - It was, and I have proof. Hatay was very much majority Arab before the early 1930s.

Hatay is ours. Even if they were Arabs, they wanted to join us. Hatay Autonomous Republic of Turkey existed. The majority were Turkish. Also, I'm Turkish. According to him, Turks live in Northern Iraq and Northern Syria. By your logic, I should too. There is no evidence of cheating. History for you: Turks stole Hatay. They are telling. The goal is to knock each other down. You have many countries. You have enough land. You're fine. You've come across an understanding Turk. If you come with another Turk; not so understanding There are enough Arab refugees. People are tired of their disturbing things. As for Atatürk, he fought against the imperialist. You know this too. Atatürk forced anyone; she didn't wear a headscarf. There are people who wear headscarves and love Atatürk very much. It is not dishonorable just because a woman does not wear a headscarf. - Well, I'm not really Socialist but just Centre-Left because Welfare is mostly based and Regulation is necessary. I only support some Authoritarians because some of their policies are based, but in general I support power being given to the people.
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] - They never wanted to join you, the Arabs obviously voted against annexation. Turkey illegitimately annexed Hatay by flooding it with Turks, who would of course vote in favour. Turks do not live in Northern Iraq and Syria, but small amounts of Turkomen. Arab territory is vast yes, but this isn't a game of who owns how much land. Hatay is stolen land. Also what "disturbing things" have Arab refugees done? If anything, Turks have done "disturbing things" to Arab refugees in Turkey. Ataturk forced hijabs off women in Turkey, its a fact, no matter how much women with hijabs love him nowadays. It's the women's choice, and it isn't "dishonourable" not to wear one.
 * [[File:EndecjaPix.png]]Leonidasar - Very nice, calm with the socialism, also I think that authoritarianism is never good. Still very based though, I like everything else. Why do you support authoritarians?

Turkey became part of Hatay. Forget Hatay. Let's say you're right. It doesn't matter. The Turkish nation sees Hatay as a part of their homeland. You have to accept. I am against Turkey's intervention in Syria. I am in favor of making peace with Assad. I support the return of Syrian refugees to their homes. Since I don't want Turkey to be like the Taliban, I support Kemalism and the cult of strong personality Atatürk. Atatürk may have made mistakes. He did very right things for Turkey. I also like Assad Saddam and Gaddafi. My country is actually even if the neo-liberal neo-ottomanist crew is working against them.I am an anti-zionist. I support the Habas supporters of Palestine. - - I dont view Hatay as a legitimate part of Turkey, but if we put that aside, you're based. Peace with Assad and the return of Syrian refugees is based, although I don't know why Syrians would bring Radical Islamism to Turkey since almost all Syrians are just regular people who are generally Anti-Extremist (I mean of course ISIS destroyed their country). Supporting Gaddafi is based, supporting Saddam is meh, and the Anti-Zionism is very based. Overall, quite based. Still not sure about the Cult of Personality around Kemal though. Sheeth - Well, Castro was alright and I kind of like him for Liberating his country from a Fascist regime, but I wouldn't support him fully since he was a still a Marxist. Ben Bella was a gigachad, Boumediene less so but he was still pretty based. I generally support Tito since he followed his country's National interest went against the USSR rather than being subservient to Stalin, plus he was a based Nationalist, best allies with leaders like Nasser and had a significantly better economic system then other Communist States. As for the Saudi Crown Prince, I don't want to say too much since I might go to Saudi Arabia, but all I'll say is King Faisal is much, much better. Khomenei wasn't great either, he was slightly better than the Shah but he still made Iran into a Reactionary hellhole. - Of course, Erdogan is far from a Kemalist and it is ruled by a horrible regime, but Kemal was still an Imperialist.
 * [[File:Syntridem3.png]] Apple - What do you think about Castro, Ben Bella and his successor Houari Boumédiene, Tito, the Saudi Crown Prince, and Khomeini as an Arab?
 * [[File:Syntridem3.png]] Apple - Also, just because I support Kemalism doesn’t mean I agree with the foreign stances of Turkey. I see today’s Turkey under Erdogan an imperialist reactionary Islamic fascist regime.
 * [[File:Syntridem3.png]] Apple - No lmao, he wasn't. He established the Balkan Pact and the Treaty of Saadabad to work with the Third World peacefully. Also, Kemal didn't ban Hijabs for women; he stripped them off for men in public. This is a misconception. The Turkish military regime banned female hijabs in the 1980s. Turkey also didn't “ally” or “cooperate” with western imperialists (a total slander spread by anti-Turkish propaganda); it simply had agreements with the west and the Soviet imperialists to prevent them from invading Turkey. It was realpolitik. Ataturk regained Turkish tariff and economic sovereignty by amending the unequal treaties signed by the Ottomans with western imperialists.

The Arab World might not like Atarurk for abolishing the reactionary Caliphate and Sultan and reforming Islam. Still, Turkey’s international reputation was good, and Ataturk inspired many anti-imperialist nationalists like Amanullah Khan, Sukarno, Bourguiba, etc.

But I do agree that Tito is one of the only tolerable commies as he did stand up against Nazi Germany and Stalinist USSR. He was a Yugoslavian nationalist rather than a USSR collaborationist and a nation traitor who is willing to sell his country to Moscow, which imo is no better than Nazi collabs. But he was still a commie who committed imperialism on Macedonia and participated in Stalinist purges, and created the notorious secret police organization known as UDBA (the incarnation rate of SFRY was only behind the USSR). This is why I don't really like any communist. Ahmed Ben Bella is based, and Castro is okayish imo (his alignment with the USSR was really cringe even though he was forced by America). Khomeini was a reactionary fundamentalist fantatic who turned Iran backward and destroyed the secular progress made by Reza Shah (who was also inspired by Ataturk). He was also an imperialist who tried to spread his reactionary Shia Islamism everywhere.
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] Sheeth - I view Kemal as an Imperialist. I don't see how the Balkan Pact or just establishing alliances with neighbours to the South is Anti-Imperialist, especially considering the Sidqi Government of Iraq who agreed to form the alliance was Anti-Arabist. These aren't Anti-Imperialist actions at all, especially when comparing these actions to Nasser's, who was an actual Anti-Imperialist. Ataturk actively engaged in Imperialism against the Arabs, he made a deal with the Frenchoids and flooded Hatay with Turks to steal it during a "referendum". Antioch had been Arab ever since the 500s or 600s AD, and Turkey has no claim to it. This deal was obviously not "protect Turkey", it was an Imperialist landgrab. Also, "stripping them off for men" ? Isn't that just forcing Hijabs off women? the Arab World doesn't dislike Ataturk for "abolishing the Reactionary Caliphate and Sultan and reforming Islam", us Arabs aren't backwards Reactionaries, we dislike Ataturk for actively engaging in Imperialism against us. Tito of course still had flaws, but I view him positively considering most Yugoslavs did. The creation of the UDBA was necessary to combat KGB and CIA forces in Yugoslavia, and sure Tito did a few purges, but they were again necessary, he needed to combat corruption and even dissent to make Yugoslavia work. Also, Reza Shah, or at least Mohammed Reza Shah, who Khomenei overthrew, was far from someone who should be praised. If Ataturk didn't rip Hijabs off women, then Reza Shah definitely did. He was also a Western Puppet Leader who made Iran into a brutal Dictatorship, treated foreigners better than his own people, gave all the oil rigs to the USA and Britain, and couped Mossadegh with the help of the CIA. I'd actually support Khomenei over him.


 * [[File:Syntridem3.png]] Apple - I don’t care about Hatay and plus Syria wasn’t even a state. Nasser’s UAR also made Egyptians reap the benefits over Syrians, does that make him an imperialist? Also, Reza Shah is not his son Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. He tried to nationalize British oil. There is no “imperialism of Turkey” and Ataturk didn’t try to invade the entire Syria and Iraq to restore the Ottoman Empire. Ofc combating CIA and KGB influence is good, but Tito was a dictator and he also jailed many innocents and people like libtards and succdems (even if I don’t like them they shouldn’t be in jail). I didn’t say the Arabs are reactionaries, I said the Islamists and the Ottoman Caliphate were.
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] Sheeth - Not sure what you mean by Syria not being a State, but I'll just clarify that it was a Region of the Imperialist Ottoman Empire and before that, the Arab Empires, before Britain carved us up the Arabs were basically one Nation with many different Regions, if you're suggesting it's supposed to be Turkish then you should already know that's wrong. Also, Nasser originally wanted a Federation, but the Syrian Leaders insisted he make it a Republic. In making the UAR a Unitary State straight away, he had to control it as if it was a part of Egypt. Yes I think Nasser kind of screwed up, but he's still a great Anti-Imperialist leader. As for Reza Shah, yeah he's based. Imperialism comes in many forms, and he didn't have to just invade Syria and Iraq to become an Imperialist. He stole Hatay from us. If you don't care about Hatay, well you should, because it's where Antioch is located. As for Tito, he didn't really have any choice. Obviously being a Dictator is bad, but in order to make Yugoslavia work there couldn't be any elections, plus, Tito was extremely popular anyways. And if you meant the Islamists in the Ottoman Caliphate, than why did you say "The Arab World might not like Atarurk for abolishing the reactionary Caliphate and Sultan and reforming Islam"?, you're addressing the Arab World.
 * [[File:Syntridem3.png]] Apple - I read that the Arab World didn’t like the abolition of the Caliphate, and people like Gaddafi also criticized it. I view the Hatay dispute between Turkey and Syria as a border dispute. Syria was under the French Mandate, and it wasn’t a sovereign state. That’s what I meant. Turkey did use the Balkan Pact to resist Italy’s imperialist ambition and used the Saadabad Pact to build friendly relations with newly independent third-world countries. I do not take positions regarding border disputes.

Also, would you consider yourself a social authoritarian? Why do you support the reactionary Islamist Hamas? Sure I get that Israel is very cringe, but they aren’t good either.
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] Sheeth - The decline of the Caliphate was bad for all Muslims, of course Muslims oppose(d) it. The end of the Caliphate marked the end of the Islamic Golden Age and the steady decline of the Islamic World's prominence. The Caliphates were also inclusive and religiously tolerant, so their collapse wasn't a good thing and it would lead to other less tolerant dynasties such as the Seljuks and Timurids taking over. The Caliphates weren't Ultra-Theocratic Draconian States, but rather tolerant dynasties which granted rights to religious and ethnic minorities and women while supporting and funding the arts and sciences. Caliphate ≠ ISIS. In a modern sense, a Caliph would just be the leader of the Muslim community, a bit like Pope Francis, that is if we chose a Caliph.

Yes, Syria was a part of France, and Ataturk made an Imperialistic deal with the French in order to take Hatay. I wouldn't just view it as a border dispute since Hatay includes Antioch. Turkey just created the Saadabad pact to exert more influence over it's southern neighbours and take advantage of Anti-Arabist leaders such as the then Iraqi Prime Minister. I wouldn't really consider myself a Social Authoritarian, although I do support and have taken influence from some Social-Authoritarian Leaders. I support Hamas because they're freedom fighters, and one of the only people who are actually doing shit against Israel. The west portrays them as an Ultra-Jihadist Reactionary ISIS-type terrorist organisation, but that is far from the truth. They're Moderate-Islamist Palestinian Nationalist freedom fighters fighting for their country and their people, and I see nothing wrong with that. Women also get rights in Gaza and don't need to wear hijabs. Plus, most of Hamas's missile attacks are in retaliation to something Israel did, such as the 2020 missile attacks, which was in retaliation to the forced evictions in Sheikh Jarrah and the al-Aqsa mosque raid, (raiding a holy site is of course extremely offensive in Islamic culture, plus, Israel's retaliation to Hamas's retaliation killed more than 7,000 people in a week, including 1,000 children).

- Looks interesting, add me in relations please.


 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] Sheeth - Sure

DragonRed - So; When the Pan Arabs unite, you will work to take Hatay. It is also shameful to call Atatürk an imperialist. Even though I support Assad, Saddam and Gaddafi against the western imperialists, I will definitely be anti-Pan-Arab. - Add me plz
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] - You cannot support Gaddafi, Saddam and Assad while being Anti-Pan-Arab, the basis of their ideologies is Pan-Arabism.
 * [[File:Sheeth.png]] - sure