Israel's War on Civilization

sear said:
Which refers to religion.

Problem is, true to the author's intent or not, "...slay the infidels wherever ye find them..." Holy Qur'an: Sura (chapter) 9 Verse 5
is deemed by those brandishing, flailing their scimitars not merely to distinguish supernaturalists from others,
but as posted in #98 used to justify murder between Shiah and Sunni Muslims.


And the Holy Bible is equally clear: "turn the other cheek", a passage routinely refuted by a separate Biblical passage
"an eye for an eye".

It is as fundamental as the logic of the syllogism R5.

Major premise / Minor premise / Conclusion

If either premise is wrong, the conclusion is unreliable.

"Spare the rod, spoil the child" is not scriptural justification for merciless violent, injurious child abuse.
It's a reminder to parents that children need guidance to find and stay on the path.
...
Click to expand...

No, infidelity does not mean religion.
It means one who is unfaithful to a treaty.
The 9th surah is about how you can't trust anyone who broke treaties twice before.

The conflict between Shia and Sunni comes from a disagreement on which relatives were to inherit the dynasty after Mohammed's death, and also has nothing to do with religion.
 
sear said:
Which refers to religion.

Problem is, true to the author's intent or not, "...slay the infidels wherever ye find them..." Holy Qur'an: Sura (chapter) 9 Verse 5
is deemed by those brandishing, flailing their scimitars not merely to distinguish supernaturalists from others,
but as posted in #98 used to justify murder between Shiah and Sunni Muslims.


And the Holy Bible is equally clear: "turn the other cheek", a passage routinely refuted by a separate Biblical passage
"an eye for an eye".

It is as fundamental as the logic of the syllogism R5.

Major premise / Minor premise / Conclusion

If either premise is wrong, the conclusion is unreliable.

...

Bal·four (bălfr′, -fôr′), Arthur James First Earl of Balfour. 1848-1930.
British prime minister (1902-1905) who later served as foreign secretary under David Lloyd George (1916-1919). In 1917 he promised British support for a national homeland for Jews in Palestine, provided that the rights of existing communities would be safeguarded.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved. big emphasis sear's


A win / win.
Nations not wanting them can deport them.
And Israel can welcome them. Didn't we try something similar after the Gulf War, with the Kurds?

R5:
The purpose of law is human benefit. We like to think of this as a rule, yet it is in some circumstance a guideline.
In 1948 it's not difficult to imagine finding a permanent homeland for Jews was in context of post-war Earth, a good idea.

Over 8 Billion with a B humans infest this solar-system. We're fast running out of nomansland to offer Peoples in need. Liberia? A success?

I personally thought integration & assimilation viable. Trump's war on DEI has crippled that process. To benefit whom?
Click to expand...


The Balfour Declaration was in WWI, to get Jewish help.
But clearly it could not give Jews any rights to Palestine because England did not own Palestine, the Ottoman Empire did.
And a "Jewish homeland" just means facilitated immigration, not sovereignty.
This was explained by the Churchill Whitepaper of 1922.

{...
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that Palestine is to become "as Jewish as England is English." His Majesty's Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated, as appears to be feared by the Arab deegation, the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language, or culture in Palestine. They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.' In this connection it has been observed with satisfaction that at a meeting of the Zionist Congress, the supreme governing body of the Zionist Organization, held at Carlsbad in September, 1921, a resolution was passed expressing as the official statement of Zionist aims "the determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect, and together with them to make the common home into a flourishing community, the upbuilding of which may assure to each of its peoples an undisturbed national development."

It is also necessary to point out that the Zionist Commission in Palestine, now termed the Palestine Zionist Executive, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organization in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions. That special position relates to the measures to be taken in Palestine affecting the Jewish population, and contemplates that the organization may assist in the general development of the country, but does not entitle it to share in any degree in its government.

Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status. So far as the Jewish population of Palestine are concerned it appears that some among them are apprehensive that His Majesty's Government may depart from the policy embodied in the Declaration of 1917. It is necessary, therefore, once more to affirm that these fears are unfounded, and that that Declaration, re affirmed by the Conference of the Principle Allied Powers at San Remo and again in the Treaty of Sevres, is not susceptible of change.
...}

Clearly the Balfour Declaration does not remotely even hint at the creation of Israel.
A homeland is a place where you can immigrate to, but not a place you get to claim ownership of land without paying for it like the Zionists did.

The whole point of the Diaspora Decree of 136 AD is for Jews to integrate with other cultures, in order to atone for sins.
Going to Palestine and taking land illegally is in total contradiction to the Diaspora Decree, and desecrated 2000 of atonement by faithful Jews who were greedy invaders.
 
Rigby5 said:
"No, infidelity does not mean religion.
It means one who is unfaithful to a treaty." R5 #101
Click to expand...

in·fi·del (ĭnfĭ-dəl, -dĕl′)
n.
1. Often Offensive An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.
[Middle English infidele, from Old French, from Latin īnfidēlis, disloyal : in-, not; see IN-1 + fidēlis, faithful (from fidēs, faith; see bheidh- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots).]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

Rigby5 said:
"The conflict between Shia and Sunni comes from a disagreement on which relatives were to inherit the dynasty after Mohammed's death, and also has nothing to do with religion." R5 #101
Click to expand...
And the carnage between Shia and Sunni continues?

Rigby5 said:
"Jewish homeland" just means facilitated immigration, not sovereignty."
Click to expand...
Perhaps, "majority Jewish population" could be facilitated immigration.
But in this formulation the adjective "Jewish" modifies not the residents, but the "homeland".
And since acreage cannot be Jewish (Horowitz, Nebraska ?!) the term "Jewish homeland" suggests sovereign control.

Rigby5 said:
"The whole point of the Diaspora Decree of 136 AD is for Jews to integrate with other cultures, in order to atone for sins." R5 #102
Click to expand...
And thus Jews out of compliance indicate some alternate intent, potentially socio-geopolitical rather than Jewish for example.

Rigby5 said:
"Going to Palestine and taking land illegally is in total contradiction to the Diaspora Decree, and desecrated 2000 of atonement by faithful Jews who were greedy invaders." R5 #102
Click to expand...
You've already posted possible Putin motives for invading, occupying, and attempting to assimilate Ukraine.
I'm not denying any of them.

But whether or to what degree they apply, I believe the more obvious Ockham's Razor explanation.
Vlad Putin is former KGB, a dyed in the wool Cold Warrior. Putin is a conspicuous, flagrant ignorant regarding economics, much if at all what applied in the Soviet Union.
Therefore Putin is unable to grasp the concept of post Cold War Russia grasping its share of post-industrial prosperity, in Russia's case taking Russian software talent (Russia
has some of the best cyber-criminals in the world), and convert their black hat ops to white hat. I suspect that's where the $money is anyway.

Putin is a 2nd millennium knuckle-dragger. He thinks a national leader's path to greatness in military conquest. It is soooo last Tuesday.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"If memory serves correctly Israel has attacked the Palestinians every day since the so called "cease-fire" was signed." S2 #106
Click to expand...
A "sanity check" would help here.

This iteration of hostilities began during the Biden administration.
Trump wants a Nobel prize.
So Trump cramps Netanyahu's style (Netanyahu wanted to continue the carnage until there were no Palestinians left alive),
the compromise: declare implementation of a peace deal, Trump claims credit, Netanyahu ignores it, and life death goes on.

Right? Far right?
 
sear said:
in·fi·del (ĭnfĭ-dəl, -dĕl′)
n.
1. Often Offensive An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion, especially Christianity or Islam.
2. One who has no religious beliefs.
3. One who doubts or rejects a particular doctrine, system, or principle.
[Middle English infidele, from Old French, from Latin īnfidēlis, disloyal : in-, not; see IN-1 + fidēlis, faithful (from fidēs, faith; see bheidh- in the Appendix of Indo-European roots).]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.


And the carnage between Shia and Sunni continues?


Perhaps, "majority Jewish population" could be facilitated immigration.
But in this formulation the adjective "Jewish" modifies not the residents, but the "homeland".
And since acreage cannot be Jewish (Horowitz, Nebraska ?!) the term "Jewish homeland" suggests sovereign control.


And thus Jews out of compliance indicate some alternate intent, potentially socio-geopolitical rather than Jewish for example.


You've already posted possible Putin motives for invading, occupying, and attempting to assimilate Ukraine.
I'm not denying any of them.

But whether or to what degree they apply, I believe the more obvious Ockham's Razor explanation.
Vlad Putin is former KGB, a dyed in the wool Cold Warrior. Putin is a conspicuous, flagrant ignorant regarding economics, much if at all what applied in the Soviet Union.
Therefore Putin is unable to grasp the concept of post Cold War Russia grasping its share of post-industrial prosperity, in Russia's case taking Russian software talent (Russia
has some of the best cyber-criminals in the world), and convert their black hat ops to white hat. I suspect that's where the $money is anyway.

Putin is a 2nd millennium knuckle-dragger. He thinks a national leader's path to greatness in military conquest. It is soooo last Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Your definition of infidel says, " from Latin īnfidēlis, disloyal : in-, not; see IN-1 + fidēlis, faithful".
So it originally has nothing to do with religion.
Fidelity means being faithful, so infidelity means being unfaithful.
I do not know what the actual Quran says in Arabic, but the translation is very clear it meant those who are in violation of treaties, in the 9th surah.

And no, "homeland" has NEVER meant sovereignty.
Look at the tribal "homelands" the Dutch South Africans made.
They most certainly were NOT sovereign.
A homeland is always just a historic nod to facilitated immigration.
And that was verified by Churchill's 1922 Whitepaper on the Balfour Declaration.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/brwh1922.asp

I hate to get into a Cold War discussion, but really the US is the bad guy when it comes to the Cold War.
Russia had been more than decimated by WWII, with about half the male population killed.
And it was the US that took advantage of that to go wholesale on colonial imperialism.
Like it was wrong to support a dictator like Chang Kai Shek in China, when he was extremely unpopular.
The same in Korea, where we forced the installation of Syngman Rhee, who have previously fled Korea on embezzlement charges.
Then we bribed Diem to violate the international treaty in Vietnam as well.
Our consistent support for evil dictators pretty much condemns us, not the Russians.
We backed Batista, Samosa, Pinochet, the Shah, etc.

And whether Putin is a bad guy or not, the Ukraine is not up for grabs, since it is not only on the border of Russia, but INSIDE their defensive grid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top