Silas

Trump says lots of things but like I said, if he gets into office, he isn't going to want a massive ME conflict. Behind closed-doors he will tell Netanyahu to pull back, and if Bibi refuses, Trump will then go public with threats make no mistake: both Kamala and Trump are horrible when it comes to ME policy, but Harris is much worse imho.

Trump claims he is very pro-Israel, and some of his actions as president reflected this, such as moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. But Trump dislikes war and chaotic foreign policy. He does not like disrupted international trade, uprisings, terrorism, etc. All of that is: 1. bad for business (Trump is a business man) 2. bad for Trump's reputation if he is president I highly suspect that if he becomes president again, he will tell Netanyahu to immediately stop the attacks, incursions into Lebanon, etc. Unlike Biden's weak, half-hearted pleas to Netanyahu, Trump's demands will come with threats to cut off aid and military supplies. And Trump will be public about this it sounds very counter-intuitive, but Trump's affection for Israel is outweighed by his desire for popularity, and a stable middle-east. Trump admired Ronald Reagan, and Reagan demanded Israel to stop bombing Lebanon back in 1982 (the president phoned Begin directly, and expressed outrage. He even threatened him) Now I could be wrong here, but I think I know Trump pretty well Kamala Harris will simply ignore the Palestinian issue altogether, and allow Israel to do whatever it wants in regards to Lebanon, or even Iran. She will conclude that she must not appear as a "weak woman", so she will allow the bombings to continue, and the tanks to roll. The American press will be instructed by the administration to stop reporting on the ME issues, or to bury the stories. A full-blown genocide could result, and it won't be reported, because it might make Harris look bad. Kamala doesn't care about people in Dearborn Michigan, she cares about her financial supporters

When we are young, we feel deeply about things and are filled with fire and conviction. And we are tempted to make bad decisions because we didn't think things through (and you are still young) The Palestinian issue isn't going to get solved in Israel or Gaza: it will be solved overseas. When Americans abandon Israel (and they are) completely, and the political environment changes, pressure will be put on Israel. When the EU loses patience with Netanyahu (and they are), the Jewish state will become a pariah. We have to win the hearts and minds --trust me, things are changing dramatically in the west in regards to Israel don't let this issue become a justification for not getting married and doing the things Allah wants you to do. Running away into martyrdom isn't the answer in this scenario I hated my 30s. Too young to have money, wisdom, and stability, but too old to have the idealism of youth, and the freedom of action Pray and find meaning and purpose there, and stop worrying about this "anteroom of life"

The main problem with Kamala Harris is that she combines the worst qualities of both political parties in the US: the bad stuff from the Republicans: 1. Neoconservative warmongering and adventurism 2. Complete deference to Israel, and Zionist-supporting policies (don't be fooled by her criticisms of Israel lately: she is supported by AIPAC, and wealthy Jews) bad stuff from Democrats: 1. Crazy social policy: transgenderism, identity politics, race-baiting 2. Foolish fiscal policies: price controls, forgiving the student loans of doctors and lawyers using taxpayer money, wealth taxes, tariffs, etc. 3. Open borders she is a complete train-wreck of a candidate. She won't get any kind of deal with Iran done (she doesn't even know where Iran is on a map), and will flounder as president Now Trump is bad too, but for other reasons. But Harris is the nightmare candidate

One interesting thing that has been going on here in the states is the sudden disinterest in the Palestinian cause and the plight of those in Gaza since Kamala Harris was installed as the presidential nominee for the Democrats, there have been no protests against what is going on in Gaza, no demonstrations, or outrage. Our media outlets have memory-holed the conflict in Palestine, and no one on the political left is talking about it. Cenk Uyger, a Turkish liberal, who has complained about the situation in Gaza for months has fallen totally silent and he endorsed a hardcore Zionist politician (Tim Walz) as Kamala Harris' running-mate. A guy who has taken millions in donations from AIPAC, has spoken at their events, met with Netanyahu. and is endorsed by J street. His is literally the most pro-Israel politician in the US so you see what is happening here. Muslims in this country are used until they are no longer useful, and then cast aside. the *only* reason Democrats (political left) in this country supports Muslim refugees and immigrants is to get these people registered as Democrats, and to vote Republicans out-of-office. And once that is done, these leftists will turn their rage against socially conservative Muslims. These are Marxists now the Republicans have their own issues, but they are more transparent about their intentions ... not a good situation, and a third way is needed

I agree with much of that you write Islamic extremism is generally seen among the more privileged and educated people, but these individuals do employ lower-class individuals to do their bidding when the opportunity arrives think of the situation in Northern Ireland decades ago, where educated Marxists who were involved in the IRA, stoked the flames of religious discord and national resentment, and got poor Irish teenagers to go out into the streets to commit violent acts. I think we have a couple groups in the UK doing something similar: 1. Educated, politically-connected, Salafist radicals (or other radicals) who stoke the flames of ethnic and religious discord for their own gain. Similar to the BLM activists here in the states who jump on every injustice (or perceived injustice) to get people to go out into the streets and riot. These people in the UK want open borders, a political and religious takeover, etc. 2. Right-wing, ethno-centirc whites who do something very similar, and are also seeking personal gain and political advantage: painting every Muslim in the country as an invader or criminal And you are correct that the "melting pot" idea doesn't typically lead to good results. Very diverse areas tend to be low-trust and have problems. I am not sure what the solution is in regards to this, because mass immigration isn't going to stop But isn't Islam inherently "high-trust" (as Christianity certainly purports to be)? Deceit, lying, theft, etc. are strongly frowned-upon, and neither Muslims nor Christians are commanded to be hostile and prejudiced towards others --even if they are of a different faith

I think it is important to point out that what is happening in the UK has far less to do with Islam than class issues and crime. I live in one of the most Muslim areas of the US. We have big Muslim festivals in my area 3-4 times per year, and the mosques open to the public for outreach. Mostly Sunni here, but we do have a sizable Shia population as well, and it is extremely ethnically diverse the people who came here from overseas were middle class, or upper-middle class. Most are educated, want to start businesses, etc. Some are doctors there is absolutely no ethnic or religious violence here between Muslims and anyone else, and I never once worried about extremism. It is a peaceful community. I go to the festivals. In parts of the UK, economic migrants have come in, and many have minimal education and work experience. They are typically lower-class, and some have criminal records in their home countries. When faced with minimal prospects in the UK, some resort to crime. Others have been radicalized. none of that has anything to do with Islam (save for the radicals) but when some criminal does something and there is blowback from locals, certain people (on both sides) capitalize on the situation and try to turn it into a religious issue. The UK police are inept and the government is schizophrenic, and this leads to more problems there is a huge difference between the Muslims living in the UK, and the ones living in the US --we don't have these types of problems here, because we have very different policies, culture, and government

I have two primary theories on this--let me know what you all think THEORY ONE: Shooter was hired to kill Trump by the Ukrainians (Zelensky). that might sound a bit crazy, but here is the evidence: 1. The shooter, Thomas Crooks, was said to be politically moderate or conservative. His classmates at his high-school said he leaned conservative, and was relatively open about it. So the idea that Crooks was motivated by far-left ideology, or hatred for Trump, seems far-fetched. 2. The shooter has almost no social media profile or digital signature whatsoever. The only evidence of him interacting online with people is on a Discord server devoted to gun enthusiasts. 3. The shooter was young, naive, impressionable, and a good marksman 4. The shooter was also very low on funds 5. There was no manifesto, letters, or evidence of the shooters motives or beliefs. If he had been seeking fame or attention, we would have seen this. Instead, he completely covered his tracks. 6. The one person in the world who has the most to lost from a Trump victory in November is Zelensky. Trump will not provide new monetary or military support to Ukraine--and that country could then get steam-rolled by the Russians. Another person who will suffer is Hunter Biden, who could be thrown in jail if Trump becomes president. Hunter has contacts with the Ukrainian underworld ... 7. Because Trump has not named a running-mate (VP), if he had been killed, all the campaign contributions (hundreds of millions of dollars) would not be accessible to the new candidate. It would be a disaster for the GOP. So it is highly possible that a Ukrainian operative sought out a shooter in various Discord servers and then started private messaging. The shooter could have ended up with $200,000 in BTC and an encrypted phone in which instructions were sent to him. Crooks would have been given a map of the site, and strict instructions to cover all his tracks. The phone and BTC wallet is probably in a safety-deposit box somewhere. THEORY TWO: The Shooter was radicalized at community college between 2022-2024. As a lonely guy who had trouble fitting in, he could have fallen in with a far-left militant group like ANTIFA, or "Redneck Revolt" (an armed, militant leftist group). He would have been given instructions by the group to keep his contacts and motives a secret, and operate under-the-radar.

In the last few weeks, the rhetoric against Trump has gotten more violent and alarming the New Republic declared Trump a second Hitler who must be stopped using any and all means Biden has referred to Trump as a "threat to Democracy" and a "Fascist". He said a few days ago that we "need to put Trump in the bullseye" Democratic House of Representatives members have said that Trump wants to arrest his political enemies, enact discriminatory laws against blacks, and create a Christian theocracy (all of this is complete nonsense) hundreds of TikTok and other social media personalities have demanded violence against Trump and here we are: someone tried to kill him I am living in some kind of third-world nation these days

Israel is probably blackmailing the US with this. Saying to the Biden administration "either you support our invasion of Gaza and extermination of the Palestinians, or we will launch an all-out war against Lebanon"

I see all the fighting and arguing here --gentlemen we are on the same side here! This the way I see it (and there is no perfect solution here) 1. There needs to be a two-state solution of some kind 2. Jerusalem should be an international city under some kind of combined, or collective administration. 3. Iran, the US, Israel, and others, need to respect the final agreement, the borders, and the administration 4. The proxy wars, atrocities, and conflict need to end I am obviously partial to the Palestinians, but I am realistic Israel is not only a religious state, but also an ethnic and racial. Netanyahu is a Hitler-like figure, paranoid and unpredictable. Islam and Christianity have no tolerance or room for vicious racism and ethno-states (for those who practice and understand these faiths in the true sense). Judaism is ethnocentric the harder the battle lines, and the more antagonistic things become, the more it strengthens Netanyahu, and the more radical elements within Hamas. I am sure I am pointing out the obvious lol --but we are going down rabbit-holes

Another interesting angle to all of this is: Netanyahu and Biden hate each other. There are a number of reasons for this: 1. Biden's objections to Trump moving the US embassy to Jerusalem (and then reversing this decision when he becomes president) 2. Biden's indulgence of elements within the Democratic Party who side with the Palestinians 3. Biden's refusal to get involved with "antisemitic incidents" on university campuses in the US. 4. Biden's criticism of Israel's response to Oct 7th, and the continuing atrocities the IDF are committing What does this mean for the situation between Israel and Iran? Netanyahu will not listen to Biden, and an escalation will mean regional conflict. That conflict could result in the Strait of Hormuz being shut down. A huge increase in oil prices (to $200+), which will impact the US economy. An already sticky inflation problem will become a crisis. And the American public does not want conflict with Iran. This will be deeply damaging to Biden politically, leading to his defeat in the November elections so Netanyahu gets rid of Biden, and will then work with Trump, who he believes will be decidedly more pro-Israel

I am in the west. media is showing missile and drone attacks no idea if any of it is real, or if it is exaggerated

Western media reporting that hundreds of drones were just launched at Israel from Iran any confirmation? what are you seeing?

The way you phrase the question is limiting, and in a sense, incorrect Pure virtue of being and act is a transcendent principle. That not only has religious meaning, but also a human meaning. If I do something good out of vanity, or self-advancement, it is in bad faith. If I do something good because it pleases Allah, or out of cultural, social, or philosophic principle, it is good in a transcendent sense --simply meaning "out from the self" so do we need "religion" for becoming morally good? I would say we need a transcendent principle to be morally good, and in the context of what we are discussing here, Islam give us that principle. In a wider sense, this gets into the issue of "Fatih vs. acts" that is a frequent controversy in Christianity. In the article above, which touches on the writings of Nasir Al-Din, et. al. we see that the fruits of faith are good works. My faith compels me to act in a virtuous manner and to do good works. It is not through good works that I suddenly realize faith. (In Christianity, the Evangelical tradition says that good works are not enough to earn entrance into Heaven --you must have faith) And someone with faith could do bad things as well--we are humans with free will, and can sin against our brothers and Allah.