Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Northwest

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    806
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Northwest

  1. Turkish expansionism illustrates why Syria’s longtime ban on the (Sunni) Muslim Brotherhood was/is wise. Unlike Iran, Syria has consistently refused to engage with or court the MB, except for a brief interlude prior to the Syrian proxy conflict. Iranian engagement with MB offshoot Hamas has proven to be self-defeating and has only helped Turkey expand at Iran’s expense. Hamas receives logistical and other support, only to use it vs. Iranian interests, as in Syria. In a number of interviews President Assad stated that Turkey, along with its patron Qatar, has consistently been Syria’s primary foe, while the GCC as a whole has been rather friendly toward Syria but has been under Western pressure. So according to Assad even the Saudis have not behaved as egregiously as Turkey has in Syria. Assad has also been supportive of President Sisi in Egypt and has condemned Turkey for its aggression in Nagorno-Karabakh and Libya. Had Iran consistently adopted Syria’s principled positions on the MB, it would have been in a better position by now. Popular Sunni Islamist movements tend to be much more dangerous than state-controlled ones and tend to gravitate toward the most extreme iterations of Wahhabi–Salafi “activism.” After all, Sunni leadership is historically dependent on the state, or rather a charismatic tribal leader, and tends to become more sectarian once freed from the control of the state. The MB’s promotion of Sunni “democracy” has allowed the most extreme Wahhabi–Salafi currents to challenge all existing Muslim societies, threatening not just Iran and/or the Shias, but also all existing Sunni societies, as well as long-marginalised, traditional sources of Sunni legitimacy. Certain factions within al-Qaida, Daesh, et al. not only oppose Iranian interests, but also a) want to form a pan-Sunni alliance under the MB and b) want to overthrow all Sunni regimes, save those of Turkey/Qatar. At the same time, while allying with the “populist” Wahhabi–Salafi elements, the MB tries to persuade Iran into joining a pan-Sunni “jihad” vs. Egypt, the KSA/UAE, and so on. So the Turkish-and-Qatari-backed MB wants to overthrow the Saudi, Emirati, and Egyptian regimes with the misguided assistance of Iran, thereby allowing a “populist” Wahhabi–Salafi movement to take over the Sunni world and eventually take on Iran. The Anglo-Americans and Israelis have long sought to develop a “populist” Sunni alternative to the Iranian model, recognising that the “secularist” alternatives have not proven to be effective. Turkey/Qatar help undermine Iranian influence, weaken Russia and China, and prevent the EU—especially France, Germany, and Italy—from becoming too independent. Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states are closely aligned with Turkey/Qatar, as is Pakistan. Azerbaijan is obviously just an extension of Turkey. The major states of the GCC depend on foreign and regional markets, including those of Russia, China, Iran, India, and Syria, so the collective West has been using Turkey/Qatar to weaken states such as Egypt and the KSA/UAE. By helping MB offshoots such as Hamas, Iran has aided Western plans. Iran’s best interests lie in breaking ties with Turkey/Qatar and courting “secular” Sunni states such as Egypt and Tunisia, besides Syria, while reaching out to the KSA/UAE. After all, there are plenty of elements in the KSA/UAE that oppose conflict with Iran, cognisant of the fact that a war would be detrimental to the regional economy. Turkey is not an Arab state, has a different geographic configuration, and is formally part of NATO, so it has greater incentive to start a regional war on behalf of the West (including Israel). Obviously, the Saudi leadership is at odds with Iran on Yemen, but arguably much of the Saudi elite has more shared interests with the Iranian leadership than Turkey’s ruling class does. For example, Syria’s Assad himself, Iran’s closest non-Shia partner, has never criticised the KSA/UAE/Egypt to the same degree as Turkey/Qatar. Israel benefits far more from a Turkish-and-Qatari-sponsored MB takeover of the MENA than a continuation of the statist Sunni order in the GCC. Israel wants uncontrolled sectarianism and instability. So I think that Iran has consistently gone too far in ostracising “secular” and/or statist Sunni leadership in the MENA. Instead it should recognise a potential convergence of interests. Iran should even offer to help the leaders of Egypt, the KSA/UAE, Tunisia, et al. resist potential regime-change efforts led by the Turkish-/Qatari-sponsored MB (and by extension the West/Israel). By siding with the MB Iran is undermining its own interests and actually encouraging the very dangers that it wishes to avert. There needs to be an alliance of states/actors such as Egypt, Tunisia, Haftar’s LNA (in Libya), Syria, Armenia, the KSA/UAE, and India vs. the Anglo-American-/Israeli-fronted Turkish, Qatari, and Pakistani regimes. Iran should instead focus on helping “secular” and/or statist Sunnis, along with Shias, rather than “populist” Sunni Islamists such as those of the MB.
  2. @Eddie Mecca @-Rejector- @Abu Nur What about the above?
  3. @Eddie Mecca According to reports Russia, Turkey, and Israel seem to be coordinating their activities in Syria, Ukraine, and the South Caucasus in such a manner as to isolate Iran. For example, Russia appears to be facilitating Turkey’s imminent offensive vs. the SAA/SDF in Manbij and Tel Rifaat, Syria, in exchange for cooperation on the Ukrainian matter. Putin has always been on good terms with the Israeli leadership and was reluctant to help Syria in 2014–5. Only Syrian and Iranian pressure finally persuaded Putin to intervene, and even then he has not helped defend Syria vs. Israeli airstrikes. Russian economic cooperation with Iran is far lower than it could be, owing to Zionist influence within the Russian leadership. According to official data, Putin’s mother was Jewish, and Putin is obviously close to the Masonic Chabad, like Jared Kushner. Russia also tacitly backed Turkey’s previous military offensives (OLIVE BRANCH, EUPHRATES SHIELD) vs. the SAA/SDF. I am not sure as to why Syria and Iran asked Russia for help in 2014–5, when it was clear that Russia has always been under Zionist control, despite pretending to be otherwise (just as “Muslim” countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey pretend to be on the side of Islam but in fact are pursuing other agendas). Inviting Russia into Syria made the latter dependent on the “protection” afforded by the Zionist nexus of NATO, Israel, and Russia. Also, I do not understand why Assad has not asked Iran to supply the Bavar-373 for protection vs. Israeli airstrikes, given that Russia is obviously not helping yet Syria continues to place its trust in Russia as well as Iran.
  4. @islamicmusic @Ashvazdanghe I think it is rather evident that the PKK and Turkey have been silent allies all along. PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan has been successfully publishing his writings in the West despite having been imprisoned in Turkey since 1999. Turkish authorities have repeatedly agreed to meet with Öcalan. Turkey is a member of NATO yet allows the head of its supposed “public enemy number one” to gain international publicity rather easily. Israeli media have regularly supported the PKK, which in turn is subordinate to the same Western coalition that backs Turkey. At the time of his arrest in 1999 Öcalan was publicly defended by Western fronts such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Turkey needs the PKK and the PKK needs Turkey in order to aid their shared masters’ goal of dividing and ruling the Muslim world on behalf of the West/Israel. Further evidence of this is the fact that Ermine Erdoğan, Turkey’s First Lady, has promoted globalist-oriented projects such as women’s education, sustainability (in line with Agendas 21/2030), and opposition to child-marriage, despite her husband’s supporting Wahhabi–Salafi groups such as al-Qaida and Daesh in Syria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Libya.
  5. @Ashvazdanghe @Uni Student @kadhim Personally, I don’t think that Western liberalism is very influential among average Muslims, as opposed to the educated intelligentsia and elite. The West is mainly spreading postmodernist concepts such as LGBTQ+I, “trans-gender” ideology, feminism, etc. among upper-class, Westernised Muslim elites, not among the vast majority (masses) of Muslims. Among the masses the West tends to favour sectarian extremism such as Wahhabi–Salafi ideology, which is superficially less “sophisticated” and can appeal to the anti-intellectualism and/or literalism of the backward masses. For example, in places such as Afghanistan, the West is not spending most of its effort in spreading liberal ideology, but in overtly and covertly supporting the Taliban, al-Qaida, Daesh, et al. I think that there is excessive focus on liberalism and insufficient focus on religious extremism/sectarianism, given that the liberal currents tend only to affect a tiny, elite stratum of the Muslim society, whereas Wahhabi–Salafi ideology percolates at the level of the masses, especially among the Sunni majority. I still do not see a majority of Afghans, for instance, adopting Western-style postmodernism in their daily lives, but a large number of Sunni Afghans, especially Pashtuns, are being infected with Wahhabi–Salafi ideology.
  6. @Eddie Mecca In addition to the above, verse 57:21 in the Qur’ān refers to the “width” of the universe. A three-dimensional object such as a spheroid, as opposed to a plane or hemisphere, cannot have a width, but only a circumference and/or diameter. Of course, the translation could be faulty and depends on the context, as classical Arabic contains many layers and depths of meaning. The following extract is taken from an online lexicon: Whether the Earth is flat or not actually matters quite a bit, given that the qibla’ would be different on a flat plane vs. a spheroid. Just take a look at this: Note that the above graphic assumes a spherical Earth and then superimposes its geometry on the flat-Earth qibla’. The qibla’ on a flat Earth is perfectly capable of proper alignment, but if one alters the plane from 2D to 3D, the heading would no longer align with the actual location of the qibla’. Furthermore, much, though not all, of the Qur’ān is in agreement with not just the Torah, but also the Talmud, both of which were used by the ancient Hebrews to depict a flat-Earth cosmology. I am not definitively stating that the Earth is flat, but if it is, many Muslims who have been relying on a spherical Earth to determine the qibla’ will have to regard their prayers as nullified.
  7. @Eddie Mecca Yes, to my knowledge, the redefinition of “gender” to include biological sex is a postmodernist development that emerged no earlier than the 1960s. It is a subtle form of neurolinguistic programming, so to speak, that subliminally works on one’s subconscious. It serves multiple purposes: 1) to inculcate the notion that biological sex is fluid, that is, conditioned by society rather than nature; 2) to subconsciously “atomise” relations between men and women; and 3) to turn the very word “sex” into an expletive, regardless of context, and thereby also promote monasticism or deviant sexual behaviour by implying that “sex,” unlike “gender,” is impure in and of itself—in other words, both biological distinctions between men and women and the very act of normal procreation, which involves male and female, are somehow perverse, according to postmodernism. Bear in mind that the word “gender” is derived from the Latinate genus, which does not refer to the two sexes, but to a species or lineage, as in a race/nation or family. Obviously, one would not refer to human males and females as two separate species, races, or families. So the use of the word “gender” to refer to biological sex actually reinforces the goal of the postmodernist elite, which is to break the bond between the sexes and thus undermine the family. Classifying men and women as two different species, races, or families does just that and also even opens the door to the possibility that men and women can form their own respective “families,” without having to marry members of the opposite sex. The very pronunciation of the word “gender,” especially in reference to biological sex, also sounds much more dubious than that of the term “sex.”
  8. This is why I do not like to use the term “gender” as a synonym for biological sexuality. “Gender” inherently ascribes fluidity to a fixed phenomenon. There are two sexes, not two “genders.” By using the term “gender” or the phrase “there are only two genders,” even someone who opposes postmodernist nonsense inadvertently contributes to its gaining traction. Words and their meanings do matter in this regard. Nevertheless, so-called “humans” seem to have a penchant for illogic. Postmodernism appeals to human irrationality by claiming that one’s biology is fluid and can be explained away via “trans-gender” ideology. Personally, I hope that people on this forum stop using the term “gender” in reference to biological sex. Doing so would help combat postmodernism.
  9. Source Obviously FM Lavrov is referring to the Zionist “Jews” who support Zelensky but do not practice Orthodox Judaism themselves, like the secularist Israeli leadership that persecutes anti-Zionists of all religions but claims to be “Jewish.” The most startling aspect is that FM Lavrov claims that Hitler himself was of Jewish ancestry and implies that the latter may have been an anti-Semitic Zionist who persecuted the Jews in order to drive them to Israel (this isn’t stated directly but can be inferred by anyone with a knowledge of history, including individuals in FM Lavrov’s targeted audience). Many people believe that anti-Semitic “Jewish” Zionists are linked to Masonry, so maybe FM Lavrov is indirectly “exposing” the Masonic Zionists who run much of the world. #ZionismIsNotJudaism #ZioNazis
  10. @Zainuu The U.S. and Israel have long envisioned a plan to replace the KSA with Turkey by promoting a palace coup in Nejd and then exploiting the chaos to seize Hejaz and set up a pro-Turkish Wahhabi–Salafi enclave under the Muslim Brotherhood (basically a more “populist,” anti-monarchical, and extremist version of Wahhabi–Salafi terrorism than the statist, pro-monarchy Saudi variety). Now that the Saudis are moving closer to China the time is nearly ripe for the West to destabilise the Saudi regime and replace it with a Turkish proxy astride the Red Sea. The Turks would then be able to replace the Saudis as the West’s proxy in Yemen and other theatres. The recent Western-backed coup vs. Imran Khan in Pakistan has brought one of the Sharifs to power. The Sharifs are notoriously pro-Saudi and also are close to the BJP/RSS (Hindutva) in India, because the latter have also warmed to Saudi influence under Modi. Both Saudis and Turks, along with the Pakistani military hierarchy, support Wahhabi–Salafi groups such as the Afghan Taliban, which explains why the U.S. let $7 billion in weaponry fall into the Taliban’s possession prior to withdrawal. Modi’s India, owing to Saudi influence, will likely turn a blind eye while the Sharifs’ Pakistan uses the Taliban and allied Wahhabi–Salafi groups as weapons vs. Iran and China (given that India is also being promoted by the U.S. to counter China and no longer is as friendly toward Iran as it once was). Ukraine is also buying the American-abandoned weapons from the Afghan Taliban as well as Turkish drones, which is interesting in light of the fact that Turkey (and Qatar) is cooperating with Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is difficult not to apply heavy-handed measures in this and other cases because Sunni (Wahhabi–Salafi) terrorism is heavily financed and armed by the KSA, Qatar, and Turkey. Because so much of the Sunni population, even if nonviolently, passively enables/supports the terrorists, it is a bit shortsighted to criticise the authorities for being ruthless in cracking down on Sunni terrorists. The problem with India is that Modi and his Hindutva clique, like the current ruling Sharifs in Pakistan, are financed by the Saudis, so they only go after the Shia minority in Kashmir while leaving the Saudi-financed Wahhabi–Salafi-influenced groups alone. I think the Sharifs and Modi will actually work together to use these Wahhabi–Salafi groups against China, in alliance with the Uighur separatists and Afghan Taliban, because the current Pakistani and Indian ruling elites share this Western goal. The U.S. got rid of Imran Khan not only to stop Russia from gaining a foothold in Pakistan, but also to undermine the rapprochement between Pakistan and Iran (which was progressing better than ever under Imran Khan), as well as to undercut Chinese influence. The situation in Ukraine also dovetails nicely with Western goals, since the Taliban and their allies (al-Qaida, Daesh-K, et al.) can open a second front vs. Russia, and thus help the West create multiple Afghanistans to “bleed” Russia. But currently I think that the West’s main enemy in South-Central Asia is China, along with Iran, so the West’s current priority is to use regional proxy forces vs. China and Iran. Modi’s India is solidly anti-China, and the new Pakistani leadership may be more willing to follow the West on Iran etc., but Modi’s India still retains strong ties with Russia, so in this situation the West can try to split Pakistan and India on the following grounds: a) the Sharifs are anti-Russia and anti-Iran, but somewhat neutral on China, while b) Modi is pro-Russia yet anti-China/anti-Iran. As mentioned previously, both the Sharifs and Modi are Saudi-financed, but the Saudis are coming under pressure from Turkey/Qatar, which have regional ambitions, so the West is likely to support an anti-China, anti-Iran alliance that includes elements of the ruling elites in both Pakistan and India. Pakistan and India can set up training camps for Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi–Salafi militants in Kashmir and Afghanistan in order to attack China and/or Iran.
  11. Some thoughts that I had to relieve myself of: Westerners have long been prone to nationalistic, xenophobic jingoism and a welfarist entitlement mentality, false “conservative” fronts whining about “personal responsibility/initiative” notwithstanding. Blaming foreigners is easier than working harder and being honest. The very first recourse of the collective West: if you want something for free, simply steal it from harder-working countries such as Russia, and then blame the victim. After all, the Western bankers can buy off the masses with paper money, and no one seriously moves to endanger their material “benefactors.” Most Westerners are either a) degenerate liberals or b) welfarist “CONservatives” who never assume individual or collective responsibility for their wilful ignorance, because doing so would actually invoke real-world consequences that would affect their petty status within the status quo. Inside many Westerners are little whining Nazi freeloaders who want wealth without effort or wisdom, simply because everything in the West revolves around the individual rather than the collective (community, nation, etc.). The system is designed to breed these kinds of individualists, and we see the results. The global financial elite needs to fulfil its “quota” for depopulation in accordance with Agenda 2030, so it is doing everything in its power to trigger a nuclear conflict between the U.S. and Russia, while publicly and disingenuously avowing that it is doing everything to prevent such a conflict (and blaming only one side, Russia, for “starting” it). In other words, we the bankers do not really want a nuclear war, but if one breaks out, Russia will be solely responsible, just as Germany was scapegoated for two financier-caused world wars. Bankers always “pass the buck” to everyone else! Putin is being constrained by the international bankers from actually making a serious effort to stop NATO’s preprogrammed suicide-by-nuke. In fact, one scenario postulates that he is “in” on the entire scheme and will flee with his fellow oligarchs to an underground shelter in the Southern Hemisphere, while abandoning Russia to the mercies of NATO’s nuclear arsenal. In other words, Putin may really be part of the banking elite, explaining why he didn’t make any serious moves to defeat Ukraine in 2014 and still refrains from using his full forces. Anyway, I have never been an especial admirer of Putin’s.
  12. @iCenozoic ^ You ignored my previous points above and chose to continue disseminating irresponsible and improbable “what-ifs” involving Russia attacking a NATO member such as Lithuania. Russia failed in its objectives in Ukraine (the Ukrainian military is far from disarmed, Kiev was not taken, and so on) and is already suing for peace, yet is willing to further harm itself by actually triggering NATO Article V? Under current circumstances Russia will not attack Lithuania unless it is “triggered” or forced by some external actor to do so. Doing otherwise would be suicidal, given Russia’s precarious economic and military situation. But some NATO oligarchs evidently want Russia to attack or be seen as attacking a NATO member so that the banking elite can use a nuclear war to reduce the Earth’s population to a more “sustainable” level (of course, neither Russia nor the West would be the “winners” in this eventuality).
  13. @iCenozoic The important thing to realise is that Russia’s strategy vs. Ukraine clearly did not work, despite overblown Western hysteria about Russia’s alleged “capabilities.” Russia is currently bogged down in Ukraine, and yet the Western MSM constantly predicted the fall of Kiev, which did not happen. Had Putin had the will and means he would have occupied Kiev back in 2014 but did not do so. So maybe a) Russia is a lot weaker than the West asserts or b) Putin is less decisive than the West claims or c) both. Once again the Western “experts” were wrong about Putin’s alleged capabilities, which have always been more limited than either the pro- or anti-Russia side avers. What about the arms manufacturers and bankers who benefit from a long war, regardless of which side “wins”? So far I have seen very little evidence that Russia has had ambitions beyond its “near abroad.” Attacking NATO members such as the Baltic states would be a non-starter, given that such an action would trigger Article V. But then again, maybe some arms manufacturers and international financiers would be quite happy with such an outcome, given that it would provide the impetus for a large-scale conflict in which they (not Russia or the West) would be the only winners. Personally, I think that the world could do with fewer globalist institutions and more localist solutions. NATO is, at the end of the day, just another globalist, elitist organisation that does not address the needs of its members, much less solve pressing global issues. The Russian boogeyman, like any other threat, whether real or imagined, serves as a convenient ideological straitjacket that prevents lucrative yet ineffectual institutions, “dead weight,” from being reformed or replaced. NATO doesn’t “protect” average communities, but it does enrich parasitic oligarchies. So does the regime in Russia. Standing armies and police should be replaced with local militia and voluntary security. The current globalist regime is coercive and compulsory and wasteful. A lot of NATO oligarchs are more or less arguing for moves that would make such an outcome all but inevitable. We’re already close... I don’t think most Westerners, be they elites or commoners, care about anything other than material, short-term gratification. Oh, really? What about all the other “alternative” sources, credible or not, that criticise NATO’s activities on Russia’s borders? Global superpowers have always acted as hegemonic, whether in their neighbouring regions or farther afield. The U.S. has been the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere since the late nineteenth century and has enforced its will via economic and military coercion. Unlike Russia, the U.S. has also “steamrolled” sovereign powers outside its hemisphere, including Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and so on. Geopolitics is no place for hypocritical sentimentality. All superpowers have acted as killers. The U.S. just happens to be one of the biggest. How is the EU necessarily a “freer” institution than a Russian one? Spheres of influence are based on globalism. NATO members are not “free” to leave at their discretion, nor are EU members granted a say over the policies that emanate from Brussels. Just like the U.K. post Brexit, they can “check out” at any moment, but they cannot disentangle themselves from the institutional and financial fetters that bind them to Brussels. EU/NATO members such as Hungary and Poland have no say over their domestic policies; Brussels and D.C. set the standards. Even such a central, dominant, and privileged EU/NATO satrap as Germany has no say in rejecting EU policies on migration or expelling NATO bases from its territory. Russian civilisation literally originated in Kiev and in turn derives from Byzantium via Ukraine and later Moscow (Muscovy). The Rus’ of Kiev literally founded the first Russian state in Ukraine. In Russian the Ukraine is known as the “borderland” but has always been regarded as a central component of Russian (Orthodox) civilisation. Even mainstream sources acknowledge the legacy of the historical Rus’ in Kiev. Only the western Ukraine historically fell under Latinate (Catholic) sway vis-à-vis the Habsburg monarchy and its Polish clients. So yes, part of Ukraine certainly belongs to the west, but only about a third (Galicia), while the rest arguably has always been part of or leaned strongly toward Russia (including Kiev and Donbas’). Splitting Ukraine into a NATO-protected, EU-aligned Galicia (Lviv) and a Russian-dominated Kiev + Donbas’ + Crimea makes a lot of historical sense. I don’t see why Zelensky and Putin can’t be forced to agree to such a compromise.
  14. @iCenozoic To follow up: 1) Why would Russia risk World War III by attacking NATO members such as Poland, the Baltic states, and/or Turkey? 2) Given Russia’s disadvantaged economic and political position, why would she take such a risk, given the costs? 3) Sure, Ukrainians are suffering in part from Russia’s invasion, but how are Ukrainians more important than, say, any other demographic that is also suffering from the effects of war? 4) Do we simply trust the “experts” in the media and so on who are telling us the same narrative about Russia simply because they are “experts” and have formed a “consensus” about what the West should do? 5) Foreign policy is not based on moralistic posturing about humanitarian concerns, but about strategic interests. To claim that the West is concerned about Ukraine for moral reasons is as nonsensical as claiming that Russia is.
  15. @iCenozoic The Baltic states, Poland, and/or Finland are largely devoid of strategic natural resources that would be of benefit to Russia. (Russia already has plenty of trees, for instance.) Those locations are only valuable as transit nodes and/or bases for Western outposts on Russia’s border(s). Your line of reasoning is the same specious that the U.S. has used to get involved in foreign conflicts: that if the U.S. does not act, then its foes will attack closer to home, seize key resources, assail vital allies, etc. It is especially absurd if you already believe that Russia is trapped in Ukraine and under immense Western pressure. Why would Russia worsen her own situation by directly attacking other neighbouring states, especially actual NATO members such as the Baltic states and/or Poland? As far as Turkey is concerned, Erdoğan and Putin are currently on better terms than ever before, so a renewed Russo–Turkish conflict would benefit the collective West (and its ally Ukraine) far more than either party. Currently the West has more of an incentive to stage a false-flag incident that might trigger NATO’s Article V and decisively alter the geopolitical calculation in favour of Ukraine. This doesn’t mean that the West would do so, of course, but strategically it has more of a motive than Russia does, given that the latter is in a relatively poor (disadvantaged) economic and political position. Russia did attack and invade Georgia in 2008, and succeeded in obtaining her objectives there, but did not follow up by directly attacking a NATO member. This remains the case more than a decade later. It is irresponsible and dangerous to claim that Russia would attack the West if the latter did nothing to aid Ukraine. Such an argument could easily lead to a wider war that sane circles on either side do not want. It’s the same kind of “Munich argument” that was used to attack Iraq and countless other targets: by comparing the target to Hitler and inaction to Chamberlain’s infamous “appeasement“ of 1938. In fact, Netanyahu uses this kind of reasoning all the time to justify a preemptive Western/Israeli attack on Iran, simply because Iran “might” seek nuclear weapons and “might” use them vs. Western/Israeli targets. Russia had the past eight years to occupy Kiev and destroy Ukraine, but did not undertake a large-scale military action prior to February 2022. This belies the claim that Russia is solely motivated by an aggressive calculus. None of this means that Putin is entirely innocent or a likeable figure, but it also disproves some of the more sensational Western claims that are being widely disseminated by the mainstream media.
  16. @Son of Placid This article mentions an Orthodox cleric in Russia who claims to have been discriminated against because he denied the existence of the pandemic and accused the Russian civil and ecclesiastical authorities of essentially following a NWO-type blueprint, so to speak. He lost his clerical rank as a result of his opposition to the official ecclesiastical hierarchy. So clearly there is opposition to the Establishment inside Russia.
  17. @Son of Placid One dubious aspect about Putin, however, is that he constantly draws attention to the role of “Nazis” in Ukraine but never mentions the fact that most of the top Ukrainian oligarchs, including those who fund the “Nazis,” are Zionist “Jews” like Zelensky. Indirectly Putin abets the Western liberal elite’s demonisation of nationalism as “Nazism” while whitewashing the Israeli/Zionist role in events. The alt-right in the West is controlled opposition for the same reason: it talks about the “globalist” elite but doesn’t always mention the Israeli/Zionist angle. Putin has never really come out against Israel in public and has also followed Western elites by criminalising the questioning of the “official” version of the “Holocaust.” People like Putin, Orbán, Trump, Le Pen, and so on feign nationalism while quietly maintaining ties to Israel and/or a generally pro-Zionist policy in the MENA, just like the “globalists” they ostensibly oppose. Many Eastern Europeans are still wary of Putin’s obsession with “Nazism,” given that many Eastern Europeans have a memory of Soviet/Russian domination and prefer Western (Latinate) to Eastern (Eurasian) civilisation. The problem is that people like Zelensky are not true nationalists, but Zionist oligarchs, just like Putin and his cronies. The various armed “fascist” and “Nazi” groups in Ukraine, including the Azov Battalion, have nothing in common with the original fascists and Nazis other than the banners. Azov and its ilk do not attack the Zionist oligarchs and Zionist immorality in society, but instead play the Zionist game by attacking fellow Slavs. Also, the original fascists and Nazis were avowedly Christian in many cases (look at the numerous Catholic organisations who supported clerical fascism, for instance), while many of the Azov and related militants belong to Satanist groups like the Order of Nine Angles, consume drugs, and so on. So Putin’s attacks on Ukrainian “fascists/Nazis” belie the fact that the current anti-Russian militants in Ukraine are not really serving Ukrainian interests and have very little in common with the original Nazis and fascists. Original Nazism/fascism stood for anticommunism, Christian civilisation, and traditional moral values. The thugs of Azov have a barely intelligible message apart from gibberish against Russians and do not practice traditional Christian morality in their private behaviour and allegiance. Otherwise, these individuals would not be associated with Satanism and drug use, among other things, behaviours that were criminalised under actual fascist and Nazi regimes. They would also not be siding with a Zionist sexual pervert and his regime in Kiev. For Putin to attack caricatures such as Azov as “fascists/Nazis” only aids the Zionist/globalist agenda vs. nationalism and traditional morality, by associating deviant behaviour with fascism/Nazism. It is ahistorical and arguably criminal in its intent. This is why I do not join most of the people on the right who idolise Putin and Trump as supposed saviours. Putin, Trump, et al. say and do some of the “right” things in order to win support, but they in and of themselves are not the solutions that the world needs. They have certainly done some very useful things, but at the end of the day they are controlled opposition. We can appreciate some of the good things that they have done, whether inadvertently or otherwise, but they should not become substitutes for an actual, principled vision. You can’t restore a traditional moral order without taking on the Zionist elite. Putin, Trump, and so on have not done anything to challenge the Zionist elite, but have tiptoed around that angle. Their words have been more robust than a lot of their actions. Also, Putin’s regime has criminalised a lot of right-wing and traditionalist Russian nationalists who support restoration of the Romanovs and a complete break with the Soviet past. People like Igor Girkin (“Strelkov”) have complained about Putin’s behaviour in Ukraine but are marginal figures.
  18. @AbdusSibtayn Of course, mere adaptability to a prevailing intellectual climate would not prove the correctness of a particular belief-system. Going beyond the Scripture for ideas would seem to be a rather risky undertaking, at least from a religious perspective. In doing so, however, they would tend to view the revelation in light of the rival epistemology in which the borrowed arguments originated. In doing so they could contaminate the original belief-system, resulting in distorted perceptions. If one is religious, wouldn’t/shouldn’t one tend to be skeptical of theories/concepts that originated in epistemologies other than that of one’s own faith? As far as evolution is concerned, as mentioned previously, I no longer believe in it. But for the sake of the argument, would theistic or “guided” evolution, as opposed to the materialistic Darwinian version, be incompatible with Islam, given that theistic evolution asserts that there is a Guiding Hand behind the material process? Is there anything in Islam that would oppose theistic evolution? For example, scientists have already been able to genetically engineer new species of fruit fly. If evolution in any shape/form does not exist, how would scientists be able to modify an organism (whether “genetically” or by other means) so as to produce a new species? This is a fair statement. This is actually something that has never been clarified so succinctly before: “what is the purpose of miracles in Islam”? Up until now I thought that they served the same purpose as in other religious traditions, that is, to reinforce blind faith rather than complement/guide reason. I am not a believer in the Trinity, but I am merely posing the argument: if the Creator is more than humans can conceive (i.e., “More-than-Just” and “More-than-All-Wise”), then couldn’t His logic be greater than ours, in the sense of operating within a totally different (in some sense “unknowable”) paradigm, rather than parallel to but higher/more complete than our own? In that sense might the inner workings of miracles, for instance, be unfathomable, and if so, could other things be unfathomable as well, including the nature of the Deity? I think that humans are wired to arational conceptualisation, at least to some degree. Why, for instance, has belief in the Trinity persisted for millennia, despite its lack of firm logical basis? The Christian Fathers and Scholars (i.e., Augustine and Aquinas) were clearly intelligent thinkers, so why would their logic pass over the Trinity, unless they saw a hidden logic behind a seemingly inexplicable concept? There is an aspect of mankind that is seemingly innate and programmed to prefer arational conceptualisations over purely rational ones. @Borntowitnesstruth I was mainly referring to the fact that the likelihood of an incorrect interpretation is infinitely higher than that of a correct one. I also alluded to the fact that many people are prone to futurism and susceptible to its fallacies.
  19. @Cool Do you have any sources for this? The sources that I see indicate that Imran Khan supported CPEC more than his opponents did.
  20. @Son of Placid Aren’t local Russian governments also arresting and/or targeting people for resisting vaccinations or restrictions?
  21. @Ibn-e-Muhammad Logically, if a religion or Deen encompasses all spheres of activity, it would not be logically inconsistent to seek, say, Ahl’ al-Bayt’s sanction for studying or examining certain subjects and/or theories. After all, censorship does exist within Islam and other faiths insofar as texts/materials that contradict the foundational elements of the faith/Deen are suppressed and/or withheld from mass circulation (i.e., works that support and/or propound Darwinian evolution, “LGBTQ+I,” Trinitarianism, and so on). This is not to critique this kind of censorship per se, but only to point out that a system that does not cover all spheres of activity would be inconsistent with its declared thrust/aim, and thereby prove impotent in serving as a complete system of guidance. After all, if Islam encourages or prefers the Islamic practices above all others, including the use of classical Arabic vs. other languages, then studying other languages for the purpose of (multi-)cultural preservation would be a moot point. The same applies to dress. If Islam prefers that women wear a black chador or its dark equivalent, then a diverse, colourful array of female attire, however “modest,” would also be a moot point. Given the parameters of an Islamic system, I do not think that it leaves a lot of room for cultural diversity (not that opposition to cultural diversity is a bad thing per se). If the Islamic system can govern even the minutest elements of one’s daily life, then it would not be logically inconsistent to seek its explicit sanction for doing just about anything. @Borntowitnesstruth One problem with this claim is that people tend to interpret the Ahl’ al-Bayt and the Qur’ān in light of modern science. They then manage to “see” scientific “discoveries” and concepts in the Qur’ān and ahadith that may or may not be present. It is a risky proposition that the materials describe modern scientific concepts such as heliocentric theory, genetic theory (DNA), advanced robotics, and so on. This smacks of futurism. As far as futurism is concerned, a lot of evangelical Christians, among other religious adherents, engage in it. Some evangelicals “see” references to nuclear war and vaccines in the Book of Revelation, for instance. This may or may not be valid, but it is fraught with potential misinterpretation. Moreover, futurism essentially reduces the value of the faith/Deen to its degree of conformity with a “scientific” and/or “modern” paradigm. @AbdusSibtayn Of course, some of this has to do with the accuracy of translation from the original language to English and other languages for the benefit of nonnative speakers. I respectfully and partially disagree here (though I do not wish to sound too much like, say, a Wahhabi). Because these theories/concepts arose from within a rationalistic, non-Islamic methodology/epistemology, it would be problematic for a believer in a complete system such as Islam to accept them. I think that the encounter between Islam and modernism has resulted in too much of an uncritical acceptance of the latter’s terms and conditions among Muslims and other religious adherents, to not mention among agnostics and atheists. Ideally, if one believes in a religion as a complete system, one would/should, if consistent, make the theoretical framework of a scientific concept/theory fit the faith/Deen and not vice versa. I think that a religion can only stand on its own if it refers strictly to its own methodology/epistemology, lest it become “watered down” over time. If evolution is wrong, then it is quite possible that many other theories that arose within a non-Islamic methodology/epistemology are also wrong, including those that arose from within Enlightenment- and post-Enlightenment rationalism. From a religious perspective, it is simpler and more straightforward to believe that life was created as is rather than “evolved,” whether under Divine guidance or spontaneously. Operating under the same principle, one might also conclude that, because the Earth seems stationary/flat to us and seems “designed” for our benefit, it stands to reason that the Earth is unmoving, flat, and at the very centre of the universe. If one is willing to believe the former (that evolution is false, as I have come to believe), then why would a religious believer be unwilling to believe the latter as well, given that the latter involves some of the same reasoning as the former? This is precisely part of my point. I am merely applying the same standard to other modern, “scientific” concepts such as genetics (DNA) and heliocentric theory. I think too many people who are otherwise rightly skeptical of some scientific theories (i.e., Darwinian evolution) treat others with far too much credulity, perhaps out of misguided fear of introducing uncertainty into their own worldview or going against the Establishment’s narrative. Theories such as DNA and the heliocentric concept could be just as easily disproven in the future as evolution. The mere fact that a theory seems “logical” and seemingly matches observed phenomena doesn’t mean that it is truthful. Even evolution is based on logic, at least to a point, and seemingly accounts for a degree of observed phenomena, but that doesn’t make it true. To be fair, rational faculties have their limits as well, in terms of understanding the mechanics at work behind miracles, the supernatural, and the “unknown” in general. Just as one would not necessarily seek to understand how the Prophets et al. were able to perform miracles with Divine approval, one would also not necessarily seek to understand how, say, the Trinity could be possible. Problematically, however, this is a double-edged sword, for recognising the limits of reason might also give just as much credence to any other claim/belief, including Trinitarianism. Since reason cannot fully penetrate the inner workings of revelation, how is one to justify, say, anti-Trinitarianism on the basis of reason? This is probably the most cogent description of the Shia position that I have read here or elsewhere to date. For some reason it was not expressed clearly until now.
  22. @Ibn Al-Ja'abi Do you have the names of the classical Shia jurists who believed in a flat, stationary Earth?
  23. @AbdusSibtayn But one must also take into account conflict between those “scientific developments/advances” and the conceptual viewpoints advanced by revelation. For example, revelation disproves evolutionary theory. But there are variants of evolutionary theory that do not rely on randomness. There is the concept of theistic (guided) evolution in certain circles. But revelation relies on the concept of instantaneous creation. If revelation can be changed to fit ongoing “scientific developments/advances,” then it would no longer serve as a viable guide. I think it is wrong to use “science” as a grounds to dismiss certain concepts that revelation propounds. My point is to criticise selectivity. If we were to discard evolution (as indeed I do at this point in time) as a viable theory, then why should we excuse genetic theory, heliocentric theory, or gravitational theory from the same scrutiny? But this is the very definition of science (empiricism). Only scientism claims to use science as a means to prove absolute truths. On the same basis, one may also rightly question the existence of genes and the validity of heliocentric theory. Like evolutionary theory, these theories are based on ever-changing “science.” The question is not whether one is open to the possibility of a Creator. The real question is: is a scientific theory or concept true? For example, DNA definitely points to the existence of a Creator. But is the concept of DNA itself, like that of gravity, fraudulent or illusory? In other words, there would still be plenty of evidence for the existence of a Creator, but it would not be found in the supposed structure of the double helix. It would instead be found in, among other places, the orderliness, precision, and variety of nature. The human body itself is wondrous and does not need “DNA” to attest to a potential Creator. The mere fact that DNA does not contradict the general patterns in nature does not in and of itself prove that DNA exists. But isn’t disregarding the scientific consensus sometimes necessary? After all, the mere fact that evolutionary theory is held by “scientific consensus” does not prove its validity. Not everything that can be considered miraculous necessarily exists in reality. DNA could well be illusory. One could also consider evolution to be a miracle guided by Divine Providence. But that in and of itself does not mean that evolution is true or exists in reality. I am not trying to disprove the existence of a Creator, but am merely questioning certain scientific theories that lead to misleading ideas about creation/the Creator. By no means am I implying that religion is wrong because it contradicts (modern) “science.”
  24. @iCenozoic So you are in effect saying: a) The U.S. has not yet gathered sufficient evidence to hold a formal investigation b) The “world” knows that Russia is guilty (“due process” notwithstanding) How can you determine who is the guilty party when a formal investigation has not yet been done? Insinuation? What happened to the premise that one is innocent until proven guilty? For the record, I am skeptical about the alleged “bioweapons” because I think there are reasons to question the supposed existence of “viruses” in general. I think that is Russian propaganda. The story about Hunter Biden may have been Russian propaganda, while the current Bucha hysteria may be Western propaganda. @VoidVortex To be fair, how do we know that the existence of bodies proved that a “massacre” happened? What about autopsies? The bodies could have been easily taken from a morgue and dispersed. Fake “massacres” can easily be simulated by trained operatives. I think there are reasons to doubt that an actual killing spree took place. The entire incident could have been an elaborate setup by a third party, that is, neither the Russian nor the Ukrainian/Western side.
  25. Please read the link that I posted. The Pentagon stated that its only evidence for the occurrence of the atrocity was the claim by the Ukrainian side. At the same time, the Pentagon explicitly stated that it had no independent evidence of its own to confirm the Ukrainian side’s claims. I’m sorry, but given the close ties between Washington and Kiev, you can’t tell me that you, the Pentagon, have absolutely no independent intelligence that could corroborate (or disprove) the atrocity. The U.S. must have plenty of its own sources in Ukraine besides those of the Ukrainian government. Honestly, the Pentagon’s weasel words sound more like this: “We are aware of the Ukrainian claims, yet we have no evidence of our own to confirm them, but whether we like it or not we are being forced (from above) to abstain from explicitly refuting the Ukrainian allegations.” If you know that these atrocities occurred, why even make such a statement to the effect that you can‘t independently and singlehandedly confirm them, especially if your side stands to benefit by doing so? So the Pentagon is saying that only Ukraine can confirm that the event happened, but Washington cannot (but is not willing to go on the record and deny Kiev’s claims).
×
×
  • Create New...