Northwest

A personal observation of mine, whether correct or not, is that religiously motivated violence seems to be more visceral and “personalised” than secularly driven rancour. For example, atheistic violence tends to be more general on the sociological level, pettier and/or narrowly targeted, whereas religious violence leads to mass murder and/or genocide of an entire civilisation, as in the successive efforts of Sunni regimes, from the Umayyads onward, to suppress Shiism. Saddam Hussein is often considered a secularist but was really a Sunni supremacist who used Baathism as cover (Iraqi Baathism,

Hamas and its allies in the the PIJ keep insisting that they have not yet unveiled their inventory of weaponry, but aside from statements over the years I have seen little evidence that their “hidden” defences actually exist. Had they existed up till the present, I suspect that the “Resistance” would have already deployed them in combat, rather than as pure PR (psychological warfare, bargaining chips...). I do not wish to accuse either Hamas or the PIJ of lying, but there have been many similar altercations involving the IDF and these groups prior to the latest one, and in neither case did the

Of course it is disgusting, but as mentioned, the settlers are merely drawing literally on Jewish oral tradition and the OT. These texts, in their view, stipulate the extermination of non-Jews and non-Zionists, following the multi-generational lex talionis described in various OT scriptures (that is, the Tanakh).

In legal terms this is correct. Legally one is not absolved of responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions. But would an abused person even have the capacity for a conscience? He would have only known abuse and the teachings of the abuser. I think there are some flaws with the legal approach. Of course “extenuating circumstances” can be subjective and lead to a kind of relativism, but I am not so sure as to whether, say, the abuser would have had the capacity to judge a situation objectively. Ideological brainwashing can be somewhat analogous to the influence of illicit drugs, if the

Yes, this is the “gut reaction” to the Zionist atrocities, but it is not really helpful in terms of understanding the Zionists. Their propaganda basically forces them to kill non-Jews and those who oppose Zionism. They are not allowed to talk to non-Jews and non-Zionists, nor seek alternative sources about their opponents. Do you expect a hardcore anti-Shia Sunni zealot to suddenly exhibit second doubts about his sources and authorities? I have met hardcore evangelical Zionists. They live in their own cocoon. Their communities are insular echo-chambers. In a religiously or ideologically motiva

It is rather easy to condemn the oppressors to Hell, but it is harder to understand why they behave as they do. To better understand the dilemma: imagine growing up in a family of Nazi SS officers or Daesh militants. Many Zionists in Israel, including the religious settlers, are immersed in Zionist propaganda from “cradle to grave,” so to speak. Moreover, the religious elements are told that their opponents are descendants of Amalek and that killing them is divinely commanded, equivalent to physical jihad or crusade. Additionally, one is threatened with excommunication, being declared an apost

(Warning: some language in the video, but the point needs to be made...)

On a related and timely note: Source Furthermore, the above source continues: So there is a historical symbiosis between white nationalism and Zionism.

If a “bigger thing” (i.e., World War III) is truly being schemed, then Israel was never truly weak to begin with. Had Israel been truly weak, it would not even have dared to contemplate a wider war in the MENA. As I continue to emphasise, using illustrative examples, the West and Israel only respect results: Source The West and Israel only respect the successful application of countervailing force. Nothing else. Until the West and Israel are humbled, they will point to their success as divine favour/blessing.

This may very well be true, but I would like more concrete evidence, i.e., forensics. These are valid points and I concede these. But for the moment my argument stands. Well, Democracy Now! is itself a front for the USG and its military-industrial complex, so it is controlled opposition: Democracy Now! and its guests are trying to paint Iron Dome as ineffective so as to present Israel as helpless. The Zionists, being hardcore aggressors, have been killing civilians for more than seventy years, yet their military-industrial complex remains intact. The U.S. milita

Any full-scale war will be initiated by the West, not Iran, but the results would still include “hundreds of thousands” of fatalities on all sides. So even if Iran is reluctant to engage in a conflict now, the repercussions will still be unchanged in the event of war. Currently Hamas and Co. are failing to impose meaningful costs on the Israeli regime, and the Iraqi “Resistance” has proven similarly impotent in expelling Western forces from Iraqi territory. So far only a handful of Israelis have died and the Iron Dome has intercepted practically every missile, while hundreds of Palestinians ha

Meanwhile, the USG and its agents/assets are distracting global attention from Palestine by focussing on China: Of course, all the claims in this tweet are patently untrue, as China only targets Wahhabi–Salafi terrorists.

@Ali_Hussain Do you have a link to that video? Who is the cleric?

Oh, I do understand. Being willing to die for one’s cause is essential, and is a core component of the Islamic Deen. However, one must plan strategically for earthly victory, lest one develop a suicidal—that is, fatalistic—complex. I am sure that the pro-Iranian side knows this and acts accordingly, but it is constrained by the absence of support from the outside, as well as the overt hostility of the Western-dominated world.

If the Israeli regime is weak, why would it take on Lebanese Hezbollah as well as the resistance in Gaza? Warring simultaneously would only hasten the demise of a weak regime. If the regime is weak, then it can only fight on one front at a time. On the other hand, if the regime is not weak, then it will feel emboldened to embark on riskier endeavours. So if Israel is truly about to attack Hezbollah, then it is not a weak regime.