Expansionist empires

Islamic Dictatorships and literal Mongols =/= Stable anything Imma have to disagree with your assessment...

Pax Mongolica

That is a fucking thing

Mongols were basically peace loving hippies bro

Pax Mongolica lasted maybe a generation, tops

Dictatorships are the best thing for the middle east

Persians were the only based niggas. The rest were mindless savages.

Throughout all history

But americans and jews try to subvert and kill everybody who doesn't bow down to them

<:pepe_smug:560207654207750154>

The political struggles between the heirs of the khanate brought an end to the Pax M-.

Stability and peace needs to be understood on multiple scales

On the big scale, pax mongolica indeed collapsed

On a regional/local scale, not so

Gaddafi's libya used to be a holiday destination for Europeans

No it can not. A tyrannical regime who oppressed it's people can never ever be classified as Stable or Peaceful.

I'm not denying any of that

It absolutely can

Gaddafi saying alive wouldn't been better for the people

Each splinter horde claimed an area and proceeded to subjugate and enslave the local population. So you could argue for stability. But I wouldn’t.

It would be better

But it's still NOT Stable

Yes

Alternative is fucking slavery, war, and death

Gaddafi kept the country together

@JayJS nigga, nowhere was stable

Relatively fucking stable

More stable than europe for example

There was slavery and death with Gaddafi it was just a lot less

just because they didnt write down their horrifc shit, doesnt mean they didnt behead thoese they didnt like

A lot lot less exactly

GTFO

Libya was the richest and most prosperous country on the fucking continent

Europeans holidayed there

So?

and cia didnt like it

Less Stable or More Stable doesn't mean anything. You are either Stable OR a tyrannical regime. You can't be both.

Tyrannical regimes can and often were stable

You are saying "middle east"

then you just point at one country ?