>>717826896
>What does that say about your country?
What does that say about Catholics?
That they were too be trusted about as much as Ottomans since they engaged in the same shit. Yet their nations remained non-Catholic religions, because they were sane to know not to side with those who treated them equally, or worse, than Ottomans.
Which is where the start of this debate, the crux of this debate, lays.
>Thank you for pointing out how Catholics have to go out of their way to help the orthodogs
By enslaving, raping them, trafficking and raping their children, and genociding them?
Not gonna lie kid, Protestantism is what you deserved, and even most contemporary Catholic priesthood agree on it.
>Yes, the propensity of the orthodox people to side with Muslims at all times is a well known fact.
The Orthodox sided with themselves when they experienced that both Catholics and Muslims were trafficking, enslaving, and raping their children.
I'd say that's a pretty sane and morally consistent, and logical, choice to make. Unless you are gonna argue that trafficking, raping, and enslaving children is a bragging point for Catholicism.
>The Ottomans got their asses kicked when they tried to conquer Catholic lands
Is that why 90% of Croatia fell under them for 100 years, swathes of Hungary?
Or is it that the death and resistance of the people along the way slowed them down enough for the rest of Europe to have a breather and consolidate?
Apparently your arguments are just throwing basic education and logic, economics, logistics, everything, out the window to make Muslim or Commie-like arguments.
>manpower at a minimal risk
Last I checked one of those Orthodogs practically warred against the Ottomans alone for 80 successive years with almost no help for the majority of the battles before killing their Sultan and heavily weakening their military force to slow down their invasions and have to recuperate.
You seem to be losing it.
