I often get this strange feeling from wars, that they are totally fake.
Staged just to impress and scare everyone.
Especially true in this case since it makes absolutely no sense at all.
The war in Iran (or whose war is it anyways?)
- Thread starter Shiftless2
- Start date
I often get this strange feeling from wars, that they are totally fake.
Staged just to impress and scare everyone.
Especially true in this case since it makes absolutely no sense at all.
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Shiftless2
Well-known member
She had already lost her husband, but then came another question she never expected to ask: if he died serving in combat, why would the government say some of the benefits connected to that service did not apply? Libby Klinner, the widow of U.S. Air Force Maj. John “Alex” Klinner, turned to social media in late August after saying she was told by a military officer assisting her family that certain combat-related benefits were unavailable because the United States had not formally declared war. Alex Klinner, 33, was one of six airmen killed when a KC-135 refueling aircraft crashed in western Iraq on March 12 while supporting U.S. operations against Iran. His death left Libby raising their three young children.
Her post quickly spread, bringing national attention to a painful dispute over military classifications, pay, and what families are entitled to after a service member dies. The benefits in question included combat-related hazard pay and tax treatment. But the story took another turn when Air Force officials contacted Klinner and began reviewing her husband’s pay. The Department of the Air Force later said that all eligible combat-theater benefits had been included in the pay he received, while Klinner said officials acknowledged that she had initially been given inaccurate information and that some of the benefits had been incorrectly itemized. In other words, the viral claim that her family had ultimately been denied those benefits was not the final outcome.
Yet the story left behind something larger than a dispute over a paycheck. For a grieving family, understanding military benefits can already be overwhelming; being told that complicated terminology might determine what they receive only adds another burden. After the review, Klinner said she hoped speaking publicly would make the process clearer for other families who might someday face the same devastating circumstances. Her husband’s final mission ended with his death, but his family’s experience opened a wider conversation about how clearly the military communicates with those left behind.
When a service member gives everything for his country, shouldn’t the family he leaves behind be able to understand exactly what they are entitled to without having to fight for the answer?
The part that bothers me is that anyone in the military would participate in action that is not a legal war.
Seems to me the attacks on Venezuela and Iran were in violation of US law and all involved should be charged with crimes?
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Unfortunately most of those on the right can't do either. 
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Saudi Arabia has few options as it faces mounting threats from Iran and its allies
Saudi Arabia has few options as it faces mounting threats from Iran and its allies
A lightning advance by Houthi rebels threatens a crucial Red Sea shipping route. Drone attacks blamed on Iraqi militias have forced the closure of a major pipeline, and Iran is still disrupting the Strait of Hormuz.
www.pbs.org
My perception of Islam would be substantially less grim if the ostensible majority of Muslims of good conscience worldwide stood up in unity and forcefully, vehemently condemned the lawless violence of the implied malicious minority, al Qaeda, ISIL, the Taliban, etc.
They do not.
Why do they not?
Two plausible explanations:
a) Perhaps they do NOT support any such message of condemnation, tacet approval of the carnage. That would surely explain it. BUT ! It's not the only plausible explanation.
b) Perhaps the more obvious, they are cowed into silence by the violent thugs that make the headlines.
That too would explain it. BUT !!
If there's significant truth to either of these explanations, doesn't it validate the distrust of Islam challenged by meme #425?
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall," By Mother Goose
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46951/humpty-dumpty-sat-on-a-wall
But the irony is too hilarious to not notice.
It was the US CIA who created the Mujahideen in 1979, and that is the source of al Qaeda and the Taliban.
We insisted on allowing Saudis to join the Mujahideen, and that foreign legion is where al Qaeda came from.
They were taught to say al Qaeda in Pashtun because it means "home base" so that they could be instructed how to get to the Mujahideen home base.
We did not create ISIS until around 2005 when we released hundreds of secular Sunni Iraq POWs.
The fact they were a fake US organization seems clear to me since we gave them hundreds of new Toyota trucks and paid them through our CIA annex in Benghazi.
What should make everyone suspicious of ISIS is that they do not have a single cleric supporter.
And they did things like incinerate that Jordanian pilot, when no Moslem would do that since it is forbidden by the Quran.
And in fact, all Moslem clerics do condemn ISIS.
{...
Roughly 1.5 million Muslims signed petitions condemning ISIS after 70,000 Muslim clerics declared that the terrorist group is not an Islamic organization. The India-based clerics also condemned the Taliban and al-Qaeda as non-Islamic.
...}
https://ing.org/resources/answers-t...nd-muslims/global-condemnations-of-isis-isil/
Shiftless2
Well-known member
Can you cite an authoritative source to corroborate this?
Bitter experience over the generations has informed / persuaded me either position can be supported by holy scripture.
Obvious example: "an eye for an eye" vs "turn the other cheek".
The Holy Qur'an?
"...slay the infidels wherever ye find them..." Holy Qur'an: Sura 9 Verse 5
Reportedly Shia justify murdering Sunni, and vice versa, citing this divine guidance as justification.
iirc you've already addressed this in years past. BUT ! The carnage persists.
It hasn't stopped the carnage, so it's not enough.
Standing safely on the sideline and whining ineffectually about it accomplishes little if anything.
The Taliban in Afghanistan is a useful illustration.
If these ruthless tyrants were a minuscule minority, why does not the vast majority stand up and put a stop to this? Allow little girls to attend school openly, etc? [Malala Yousafzai]
The most recent report I've seen of this, within the past month or two, indicates some Afghani female children are being schooled secretly
to avoid the notice of the Taliban.
And it seems the Taliban in Afghanistan thrives, much as it did before the U.S.' longest war there. What did our expenditure of U.S. blood & treasure accomplish there?
I disagree.
The Quran quote about "slay infidels wherever you find them" refers to first trying to make peace treaties, and only after being betrayed TWICE, are they to be killed.
And by the way, "infidel" does not mean one who believes in another religion, but a traitor like an apostate.
Fidelity means being faithful, so infidelity means not being faithful.
The Quran requires women to go to school and get an education.
The case of the Taliban being against women schooling ONLY applied to foreign boarding schools, and not local schools following the Quran.
The CIA armed and bribed the most extreme Islamists for the Mujahideen, so the Taliban is our own creation.
And that means we are the traitors actually.
Last edited:
Even if you're right, it's immaterial.
The issue here is not "original intent" of the Holy Qur'an's authors.
Instead it's whatever misinterpretation today's blood-thirsty charlatans pretend that it means, to facilitate their homicidal agenda, bogus divine imprimatur and all.
And while an objective scholar might recognize the swindle, there are many that accept the misinterpretation, because they support / favor the illicit objectives
however contrary to the teachings of the prophet Muhammad they may be.
* I know this quote is commonly attributed to Seneca, but it is mistakenly attributed to him. How do I know this? In Volume 1 of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", written by Edward Gibbon, he writes, "“The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosopher as equally false; and by the magistrate as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord."
making sense Administrator Rob W. Case https://makingsense.proboards.com/thread/720/young-boys-search-god
Except that Moslems actually are unaggressive and do follow the Quran.
Mohammed only attacked the Byzantine empire because it was an evil colonial imperialist that was harming people.
The spread of Islam was voluntary and not by conquest.
Islam only slightly became more aggressive after the Mongols, Turks, Tatars, and Cossacks invaded around 1200 and took over the religion.
There is no Islamic aggression.
Even with the Crusades, it was the Christians who were invading and murdering, not the Moslems.
And in fact, the Christian churches and Jewish synagogues were untouched by the Moslems in the Mideast.
The Christians did the Inquisitions, Holocaust, etc., and Moslems never did anything like that.
Even Christians burning witches has no parallel by Moslems.