An interesting article I found today.

The case against Israel has just collapsed

Sat, 18 May 2024 at 1:30 pm GMT-6·3-min read
People gather in Parliament Square ahead of a pro-Palestine march
People gather in Parliament Square ahead of a pro-Palestine march

By rights, this should be the moment that the humanitarian case against Israel’s campaign in Gaza goes into terminal collapse. From now on, there can be no equivocation. Those who persist in opposing the war based on the number of civilian casualties are either ignorant or arguing in bad faith. Or both.

Earlier this month, the United Nations halved its assessment of the numbers of women and children killed in Gaza. Then: 9,500 women and 14,500 children dead. Now: 4,959 women and 7,797 children. In a further seven months’ time, perhaps another few thousand will be resurrected.

A moment’s thought reveals that it is impossible to quickly produce reliable figures. People might be missing but, in the chaos of war, how do the authorities know they haven’t fled, gone into hiding, or died of natural causes? Casualties may be buried under collapsed buildings, vapourised, burnt, or so disfigured that it would take complex forensic analysis to identify them. That is why it took months for Israeli investigators to arrive at a final figure for the victims of October 7, with some remaining unaccounted for.

With war raging, this kind of detailed work is impossible. Yet for months, the UN has trusted figures produced by the same savages who butchered poor Shani Louk and drank chilled water from an Israeli fridge while watching a dying young boy comforting his little brother who was missing an eye. At long last, it has taken a first step towards sanity. But it continues to rely on figures from Hamas as a touch-point.

Do those sanctimonious UN officials not realise how ridiculous they look? Have they forgotten how war works? Two decades after our invasion of Iraq, death tolls remain intensely disputed, ranging enormously from 100,000 to 600,000. Yet we’re expected to believe that Hamas, as it squats underground with its Jewish sex slaves, has the professionalism to provide statistics within hours, reliable to the single digit.

Statisticians have debunked the data. Yet the narrative remains unchanged, even by President Biden. Clearly, the sheer volume of the footage of suffering civilians – all projected by Hamas, which censors pictures of dead or wounded combatants – has caused us to lose our minds. When we fought in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, nobody debated civilian casualties. Yet when it comes to Israel, it’s all anybody talks about. We are being played.

This is why Gazan civilians are barred from the safety of the tunnels, even though the whole population would fit inside them. This is why they do not have a single air raid shelter. Hamas’s leaders have been doing their best to get their people killed on camera, then fabricated the figures. They have been doing so to brainwash the international media, political leaders, celebrities and the protesters on our streets, to believe the lie of Israeli “genocide”. They want Jerusalem to be pressured to stop the war, leaving them to plot the next act of savagery.

Every humane heart must bleed for Gaza. Even a single innocent death is appalling. But unless you are a pacifist, the tragedy of the individual civilian in a warzone – no matter how heartrending – is not what sways the argument. What should do so is the bigger picture. It is the principle of a just war, which always involves civilian casualties. Israel did not choose this conflict any more than Britain chose to fight Nazi Germany. Such is the curse of the world that democracies are sometimes faced with an ugly enemy and the only way to respond is with force. Churchill knew this. So does Israel. Do we?

Those of sound judgment must insist that the emperor has no clothes. The Jewish state is estimated to be killing proportionately fewer civilians than any other democracy in the history of warfare. To argue otherwise is simply wrong. Now let’s talk about destroying jihadism. — Jake Wallis Simons

This isn't often explicitly discussed, but there is a fundamental difference between an individual acting out of self-defense, and a state (an abstract idea) "acting" out of self-defense.

In my opinion, what constitutes genuine self-defense from a moral angle, is when the individual in question has no alternatives. — Tzeentch

Debunking the idea of a "war of self-defense" from a more practical angle: morality must be analyzed on the appropriate level - that of the moral agent, which is to say the level of the individual. — Tzeentch

morality:

• Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
• Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
• A personal or social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character, or the quality of being right and honest

I think it is about time to update your definition of morality. While I am not really sure about it most people are instructed in morality through social contact, making common morality a social construct. While a lot of people make some adjustment to the ingrained morality they learned from childhood, most of the bad guys just throw it out of the window or go in the opposite direction all together.

An individual can choose to flee from war. A state can't, nor will a state suggest that its people try avoiding the violence by fleeing.

A country on that is on the verge of being invaded may claim it is acting in defense of its citizens (self-defense by proxy), but in fact those citizens have an option open to them: flee.

Therefore it is not an act of self-defense, and practically speaking wars of self-defense do not exist. — Tzeentch

Oh dear, how come you missed so many news article about people fleeing across borders to escape the war raging in their country or the mass evacuations of people from areas in danger of being overrun by enemies?

I mean that even if there is no warring troops coming into town, most governments, local or national, issue evacuation orders to get the people out of danger from flooding and hurricanes. Is this not an example of a government acting in self defense to protect the people.

Just because the enemy is wind and water does not take away the governments moral obligation to protect people, from there it is not a big leap to protect them from other forms of enemies.

If they were so generous from the beginning they wouldn't get to be billionaires in the first place. — Truth Seeker

Ain't that the truth man.

Good grief that was unexpected! Here it is in English. — Athena

It helps to view the video before linking to it, titles can be misleading

It might not be that they do not want to share, it is just too damned expensive to move the stuff and no on wants to pay. :sad: — Sir2u

Yep, that is what I said. It is too expensive to send it there and most of the places where they excess food have no way to ship it.

Come on, people around the world are very involved with saving those suffering from famine and war. — Athena

Yes, lots of little charities work to help, but what do they have to work with?

https://www.dlg.org/en/agriculture/topics/dlg-agrifuture-magazine/knowledge-skills/grain-reserves-in-the-hands-of-just-a-few-countries

If these countries would release the reserves they have a lot of suffering could be eliminated.

https://earth.org/countries-that-waste-the-most-food/

If these countries would do something about the amount of food they waste, that might have help to eliminate some suffering.

:up: Shit has happened around here, and will continue to do so

I was just thinking of history books. Extreme examples could be: the Holocaust was unjust offense, the imprisonment of Jeffrey Dahmer was just defense. — jorndoe

The Holocaust was probable a good example.
I had to look up the other one though, and yes it is an example of just defense. It also points out the obligation of a state to act in the protection of its people.
Which sort of answers the question on whether or not a government is justified in acting in a larger situation to protect its people against much larger threats.

I live next door to El Salvador, I seriously hope this guy does not get caught with shit on his hands.
A lot of politicians could learn something from him. Even with human rights groups screaming foul he appears to be getting the job done. The only problem is that a bunch of the bastards he missed are now causing problems here.

Those who have, do not want to share with those who do not have. So sad — Truth Seeker

It might not be that they do not want to share, it is just too damned expensive to move the stuff and no on wants to pay. :sad:

well, it's trivial to find examples of unjust offense and just defense. — jorndoe

And it is also difficult to do.

Anyway, I was trying to convey differentiating offense and defense, as opposed to war without further nuance. — jorndoe

I understand.

We don't have an implementable solution to the problems of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. — Truth Seeker

Actually a lot of suffering and death could be avoided, except that no one really wants to foot the bill for it. There are mas reserves of vital grains and other food stocks around the world, but it costs a lot of money that the tax payers would bitch about to take it where it is needed.

Is there such a thing as a just offense, and such a thing as a just defense?
Heck, while at it anyway, what about an unjust offense, and an unjust defense? — jorndoe

Is there an example of any of these you could give us? Just to be sure we understand properly.

Human rights movements and prisons say unjust offense and just defense, seems like a no-brainer, with the offense/defense nuance. — jorndoe

What do defense lawyers say?

Fun video of the day. How a war should be fought.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/27982809/india-and-china-medieval-style-border-clash/

What's it to do with books? You've presented a point of view and advocated for it quite vigorously. I see no reason to move the conversion into unrelated contexts. — Vera Mont

Ever heard the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"?

By all means, avoid fanaticism! — Vera Mont

Yep I am a fanatic when it comes to things like that.

Depends on the judges. — Vera Mont

Only school and college debates have judges, out here in the real world it is not like that.

I thought the subject was history, not paleontology. My mistake. — Vera Mont

Yes it is. Technically.
prehistory is the time before writing was invent, but humans kept oral history long before that happened.
History is the the earliest known written history was only about 4500 or so years ago.

So how is the 30,000 year span that you have called historical if most of it is in prehistory?
Or is there another term that you would you like to use for the 25,500 years before the invention of writing.

And the funny thing is that paleontology has given us so much information about the ancient civilizations that happen in the period called history.

I can only judge by what I've seen demonstrated. — Vera Mont

So you justification for saying that a book is bad is the few words on the cover.

My convictions based on what I have learned are consistent, yes. — Vera Mont

I try not to get too set in my way of think, it tends to make one biased. Fanatical even.

In this, we also differ. — Vera Mont

Your lose, if you cannot argue both sides of a debate you will end up losing it. Or just becoming grouchy.

Something on the order of 30,000 years. Beyond that, the solid evidence is so fragmented that most of it is conjecture. — Vera Mont

So you do not believe that dinosaurs existed or the homo sapiens were around over 300,000 years ago?
Talk about narrow perspective.

Doesn't one? — Vera Mont

Not really easy is it when you spend your whole life believing that learning about the mistakes in history can help prevent them from happening again, only to be told that the images that are used to show what history was like are now racists relics of an awful past that needs to be swept away and never mentioned again.
Not easy either when they teach you that a kid that is born with a penis is a boy just to learn 60 years later that it can be a girl as well, but if you make a mistake while talking to that person or even ask about it is is homophobic, anti trans or whatever label they put on it today.
And I don't spend any time on tic-tacky, farcebook or twatter to try and figure out the differences.

I suppose it helps not to give a shit. — Vera Mont

Now your getting the right idea. You might get to be a philosopher someday. :wink:

Thus, to these folks, if it takes your army taking on massive casualties to get the bad guys in the attempt to minimize the enemies casualties, this is still the correct thing to do. — schopenhauer1

So to stop these people killing a few thousand over the next few years I am supposed to lose maybe that many today by playing by the rules. :rofl:
Your right, that is not going to make any sense at all.

I vote to make it illegal for anyone in the world to make, obtain or use any weapon, except small caliber handguns and rifles, under 25 caliber. That would include, missiles and bombs of any kind, warships and submarines, aircraft with guns or bombs, chemical weapons and anything else that goes bang, boom or splat.

And all swords have to have a 80cmm (32 inch) long by 10cm (4 inch) wide blade, be at least 2cm (3/4 inch) thick and have a padlock on the sheath. Pikes, spears, lances, war-hammers and other nasty things should also be banned.

In that case, how do we solve the problems of suffering, inequality, injustice, and death? — Truth Seeker

No big deal, just find a way so that everyone has the same as everyone else when it comes to resources, opportunities to work and develop, health care, security and a few other things.
Not going to happen until they actually build a device that can transform anything that is useless into something else that is useful. Can you imagine what the world would be like if you could put your garbage into the device and get a loaf of bread out or put a broken piece of an army tank in and get some medicine back. That would get rid of a lot of guns.

Hey, wait a minute. Don't they have one of those devices on the Enterprise?

I love your post. I strongly disagree with you about the importance of Scholasticism, but everything else is moving in the right direction. Something that is not well known is HOW we think is as important as WHAT we think and Scholasticism taught people to think critically. — Athena

Thank you.
Could you tell me what language the video you posted uses, I am pretty sure that it is Hindi. And if there is an English version of it.

What is important here is before Schalisticism people were not critical thinkers AND — Athena

And your wrong. Plato and Socrates were wayyy ahead of those people. And the actual term "critical thinking" in education circles is credited to John Dewey in the early 1900's.

Through Scholasticism, people learned HOW to think. — Athena

Do you really think that no one came up with any good ideas about anything until the Dark Ages?

For the modestly rich knight class, yes, they had the most to lose. — Athena

Nope, they had a lot less that the dukes, counts or barons to which they were vassals.

Changes in the technology of war put them out of business so they depended on their land for an income — Athena

Knight never owned land, just as their lords, baron or duke, did not own land. The land was owned by the king and he gave it or took as he saw fit. If someone failed to uphold their oath of loyalty to him, he would just take away the duchy or county. And lots of them had no idea how to run the land the were granted, because they were always away fighting the job fell to the peasants to do it themselves.

and it was rumored the Catholics shouldn't even own land. Certainly not the lying Church. — Athena

The churches actually had plenty of land that had been granted by the kings. Churches were very important in the Middle Ages. because of the churches blessings upon the warlord kings they became more powerful and gave great gifts to the church. There were abbeys and monasteries all over the place, and they even granted some of the land to others after an oath of loyalty had been given. Some abbeys even had their own armies and fought for the kings.

This was an opportunity for them to get more land and return to the higher standard of living they wanted. — Athena

Some stayed in Europe after the wars with the French ended and became rich. But not all knights had a high standard of living to begin with. Some of them came from peasant families and were awarded the title because of some special service to their lord.

These educated people used their education for a war that would increase their wealth and no one would benefit more from the change in social order than the peasants. — Athena

Which educated people are you referring to here? Because most knights were not very educated at all.

I invite you to comment here as well: — schopenhauer1

So I am not saying these are proof that there is now justification, but that these considerations along with merely "We are all people" when in a conflict of an enemy that wants to see you harmed or destroyed, is something to consider. — schopenhauer1

I think I can get behind that way of thinking.
The "We are all people" concept does need to be accepted by both parties in a conflict if it is to be acted upon. If only one side plays by those rules, they will be the ones to suffer because the other party will use it to their own advantage.

I don't think your POV will ever get any wider or your historical perspective any longer. — Vera Mont

Ah, now you have hurt my feelings. :cry:

You have no idea how wide my point of view is, I at least could argue without bias from either point of view. You seem to only have one.

Just because I decided to argue from this side today does not mean I could not oppose it tomorrow, because I really don't give a shit about any of it.

And just how long is your historical perspective, if that is not an impertinent question? One never knows today what is counted as racist, feminist, homophobic and so on.

Read carefully: he advised to use chemical weapons. — ssu

But he never did use it, are we discussing the OP or actually history?

And no, chemical weapons were not used in Iraq by the British forces (or else it would be part of the academic curriculum now days in the UK with all the neocolonialism etc). — ssu

OK, no idea what this has to do with the discussion though.

Some might argue thus that genocide is a defensive weapon: if the enemy hostile to your people are multiple times larger, isn't it then good to erase the threat? — ssu

Are we still discussing the OP? I am pretty sure that if Churchill had declared his desire to kill every single German, he would have gotten a lot of support for the idea.

There has to be some grain of reality even in a hypothetical, hence why think that "the only viable weapon" would an ineffective weapon system especially when all German soldiers have gas masks? — ssu

Of course there does, but in hypothetical questions one has to decide what part is reality.
In the OP it states that there is a good chance of success, that means that hypothetically someone must have done his hypothetical homework and reached that hypothetical conclusion. It is hypothetically possible that these particular invaders were to loaded down with admonitions to be able to carry gas masks. It is also hypothetically possible that the Germans thought that the British were to moral to use gas and eliminated them in favor of a couple of bottles of beer.
My point is that we are discussing the hypothetical question in the OP and not reality.

Or to put it another way: if some weapons system is really a game changer on the battlefield, in this World it surely isn't going to be banned. — ssu

This actually highlights the fact that gas being banned is just as ridiculous as banning swords and pikes. There are bigger and better ways to kill of a bunch of people nowadays which really makes both irrelevant.

I have many thoughts on the topic, and some historical data which I'm not prepared to share since they're available to anyone interested enough to bother. — Vera Mont

I asked what you thought, not what is available on the internet.
Could you send me a link to your brain so that i can look for myself.

The most straightforward causes of what is called terrorism ...................... is a people's sense of oppression, repression, and impending existential threat. — Vera Mont

Who oppressed ISIS, al-Qaeda?

This is all irrelevant because they don't have a just cause. If you really want to argue that war crimes are permitted then Hamas did the right thing since everybody is equating them with Palestinians which are an oppressed group. — Benkei

Have the Palestinians denied the claims that hamas represents them and their fight for freedom yet?

I thought this the most salient passage because I think it the crux of the debate on the whole current conflict. — schopenhauer1

Me too. I think that if the bad guys in any situation put noncombatants in danger, then I am not responsible for their safety. And I would not risk my people lives to try and solve that problem.

Israel fails on 4 and 6 for decades already. It is also illegally occupying land and had Gaza turned into an open air prison. — Benkei

How so, their intention is to get rid of a political party called hamas. They did not decide to eradicate hamas until the attack. They tried to live with them before that.

#6 they might have gone too far, but we are sitting far away from the fishbowl and cannot see the complete picture they have. Would you walk into a place were there are a lot of dangerous people trying to kill you while hiding amongst women and children?
If, from their point of view, this is the only way left to put an end to the evils of hamas, then who am I to say that they are wrong.

Its leadership had expressed genocidal intent again and again. — Benkei

I think that after such an attack it would be a normal response. The USA went after ISIS I believe after the attacks. There were fewer cases of lateral damage because the people from ISIS did not hide in peoples houses and hospitals.

Suppose on what evidence? — Vera Mont

In THIS hypothetical question, you use the evidence given in the OP.

I could. But it would take too long and you would never be convinced anyway, so it seems like a futile effort. — Vera Mont

All I asked for is what you think the reasons are for terrorist actions that have happened recently. I suppose that if you do not have any thoughts on the topic you brought up it says a lot about the things you have said so far.

Honestly, I am quite skeptical of how much of this is true, given by how many parallels there are. And if it is true, I would imagine that the story comes from contact with Christian missionaries.

It may seem like I am playing hard to catch but I studied a bit of anthropology and some red flags are being raised for me. — Lionino

There are many reasons not to be certain about it. When did the Genesis version of creation get written down and when christian missionaries go there?

The fact that their DNA remains without external influence for so long seems to indicate lack of contact with the outside world. I think that the Egyptians had a better chance of influencing them long before the christians ever got there, but there is little sign of influence from them.

You wouldn't even have to target N. Korean population centers. In the event of an invasion, tactical nukes against their invading forces would be sufficient. China would object, but they're not going to commit suicide to come to an invading N. Korea's aid. — RogueAI

I am sure that they have lots of other weapons that are just as effective but less damaging. But if not, let the bad birds fly.
On second thoughts, they will need to send at least one to nail the boss man, and he will probably have a lot of people around him. Let em rip, or is it R.I.P.?

Who started the peasants' rebellion? Might the trouble have begun with people with a degree of wealth and education who riled up the peasants? — Athena

The people with a degree of wealth and education had the most to lose from it actually. They were at least responsible for the peasants being able to enact the revolt. Because the lords having were to busy fighting or partying the estates were left for the peasants to run. With the help of the church some of them learned to read and they found out how the legal system worked. They used this to their advantage to try and get things like servitude and land laws changed. Unfortunately there were too few of them and the lords killed all of the ringleaders after the king promised to look into making the changes.

Might that rebellion have begun with Scholasticism? — Athena

Nope, it started well before Scholasticism reached maturity.

Is transubstantiated bread and wine real? :chin: — Athena

What has that got to do with the price of Polish cod? But I have no idea and I doubt you do either.

Well, let's look at one of those lines on a map. If North Korea invades South Korea and has killed hundreds of thousands of citizens in Seoul using gas weapons, and is poised to overrun South Korea, would the U.S. be justified in nuking North Korea to save South Korea? — RogueAI

Oh dear, don't you think that maybe it would be unreasonable and immoral to do something like that? Just think of all of the prisoners innocent people that live in North Korea, it is not their fault that their leader is an ugly twat.

But there again, I have not heard about how they have tried to get rid of him by staging mass revolution or just shooting the ugly mother. So maybe it would be justifiable to do it to get rid of one more dictator. Just make it is small enough that it does the minimum amount of damage possible.

Disclaimer: To the north Korean hackers; the writing contained in this post is for the enjoyment of the readers and in no way is meant as an insult to any world leaders.

Kill 'em all!
But for the sake of all that's unholy, do not, ever address the situations that give rise to terrorism. — Vera Mont

I would suppose that methods of doing this had already been tried, obviously without success.

Maybe you could enlighten us on what you think might be the causes of some of the terroristsy things that have happened recently and give us some advice about prevent them from happening in the future.

As one of the best know acts of terrorism, maybe you could start with 9/11.

After this brief survey of the Just War Tradition we can conclude the following six criteria regarding Ius ad Bellum:

1) right authority; meaning the supreme authority, which cannot turn to a higher authority
2) just cause; of which are identifiable, self-defence, defence of a friend or ally, wars of recovery both immediate and after some time, self-determination and finally humanitarian intervention; no punitive wars are allowed
3) right intention; an authority should have as its aim the common good of all involved although the particular good of its own community may outweigh such considerations; the intention to kill is lawful for a public authority
4) last resort; all other means to solve the conflict must have been tried and failed
5) reasonable chance of success; before waging a war an authority must surmise whether a war will be successful for otherwise he will waste the lives of its citizens
6) proportionality; the evils let loose by war should be proportionate to the evil avoided or the better peace attained — Benkei

Let us suppose the the objective of Israel is to rid the world of a terrorist group that defines itself as representatives of a country.
1. Who can get rid of Hamas? I have not heard of any other authority including the ones in the country they claim to represent offering to do the job.
2. I can think of a couple of things on that list that would cover the situation.
3. Getting rid of the terrorist group would be of benefit to even the people they claim to represent.
4. I am sure that they have tried other means of stopping people killing their people
5. Unless third parties actually intervene I see no reason why success is not a sure thing. And I do not see to many rushing to aid the terrorists.
6. If this method eliminates the terrorists and allows for peace then I am sure other groups will fear the same methods being used against them. The world could actually become a nice place.

Now lets apply it to the OP
1. Churchill was the highest authority, there was no one else he could have passed the decisions on to.
2. Again there are several options here.
3. Defeating the nazi war machine at any cost would benefit the whole world, except those that started the action.
4. No way out of the hole they were in. The bad guys did not want anything but war.
5. As stated in the OP, there was a good chance of success.
6. Again, ridding the world of the bad guys at that moment would halt further evil and make it easier to obtain peace.

I like this idea.

Well, if all the Palestinians have to die in order to stop one terrorist organization out of the sixty or so designated by the CIA, why should we question that moral choice? — Vera Mont

As it says in the article, the Palestinians are the ones that have the responsibility to stop the terrorist that are supposedly acting on their behalf.
Is no one in Gaza telling them to stop being terrorists or is it that no one is listening to their pleas to stop?

Many of the countries that host terrorist groups have corrupt governments that are unwilling to stop them because of the financial gains involved.

So how do you know they are older than the Jews? — Lionino

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-book-of-genesis?lang=eng

Who wrote this book?

Moses is the author of Genesis. Moses was a prophet who was called by God to lead the children of Israel out of bondage from Egypt, through the wilderness, to the promised land of Canaan. Because the events in Genesis occurred before Moses’s time, he did not learn about them firsthand. They were made known to him through revelation (see Moses 1:40; 2:1), and he may also have relied on historical sources available to him (see Abraham 1:31).

Depending on your beliefs, you might think that an all powerful and knowing god wold actually tell his most important person something like this.
The only historical sources available to him that were from before his times were oral histories

I found again the story I was looking for earlier from the Efé Pygmies, it is called the Forbidden Fruit.
The Efé Pygmies have been shown to be one of the oldest intact cultures on Earth by dNA studies.

Pretty sure the Yoruba had no contact with the Egyptians. — Lionino

That was in answer to a comment from someone else that suggested that the stories moved out of Egypt along the trade routes.

Very interesting, I am in total agreement with him.

Spoken like a true nationalist. — Benkei

Me, a nationalist. :rofl: :rofl:
I have not been near my country of birth in 50 years, and I am not even politically minded.

the nation is a specific power structure leveraging a national (often ethnic or cultural) identity to generate loyalty in accordance with that identity — Benkei

And while saying this you keep repeating that the nation is not the people? Who makes up the ethnic or cultural groups if it is not the people? Who are they going to be loyal to if not the people that make up the nation?

None of that proves that the Hebrew creation myth comes from Africa. — Lionino

However, it is impossible to say that African versions of this story are the originals. There is no written material coming out of SSA that is as old as the Mesopotamian sources. The Yeruba people didn't emerge until millennia later and the Asante are a good deal later than them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Nothing proves that the Hebrew creation myth is anything more than a story made up by a bunch of old men with nothing better to do while waiting for an animal to fall into a trap.
But there are a few old African stories, possibly including that of the Yoruba, that were passed by word of mouth from generation to generation well before the Jews existed and contain elements of the creation story related in the bible. We only know about them from when they were made contact with so we have no idea how old their stories are.

Maybe they did copy some ideas from the Egyptians, but I cannot imagine that the old wise men would take kindly to changes being made in the centuries or millennium years old chants that had had to be recited for years to be remembered. Adding a new beginning to oral history I think would tend to screw things up a bit.

He says "Biblical story of creation", not that the story of creation was invented by Christians. Obviously not, since Genesis is in the Torah. — Lionino

My mistake, we were talking about the middle ages which were christian and most bibles contain the old testament.

Source? Businessinsider articles don't count. — Lionino

This is an Asian myth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

There are many creation stories from Africa that have parts similar to the bible. This one contains an all knowing, all seeing god and a snake giving sex ed classes.

https://www.gateway-africa.com/stories/Ashanti_on_procreation.html

This one has gods making people out of clay and a flood

https://www.gateway-africa.com/stories/Yoruba_Creation_Myth.html

When Rome fell the Biblical story of creation remained. Some call this period the Dark Ages. What changed the direction Europe was going? — Athena

The story of creation was not actually a christian idea, it came from African tribes and was already ancient when the christians adopted it.

The western part of the Roman empire was broken down into many little kingdoms that over centuries became larger with only one king and developed the feudal system of government.
Christianity expanded and became the major religion in western Europe and separated for the Orthodox church in the east.

Over the centuries both the church and the lords eventually became so corrupt that the peasants revolted against both.

During the Early and High Middle ages, most advancements came about through the inventiveness of the peasants, better farming methods and tool technology, the use of wind and water power.

The Late Middle Ages was when the started to re-discover the ideas of the ancient Greeks and that started the renaissance.