Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Triggernometry"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Royal.Grand.Majesty "You think Palestinians are fighting because of their ego?"
I think the Palestinians are fighting because of the mandates of their religion reinforced by the ambitions and propaganda of their despotic leaders. As for a place in the Koran or the hadith that once mentions that you can become a martyr by killing people. for specifically that, we have:
Koran 4:74 "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. The word martyr is not used in this passage, but a death richly rewarded by God is pretty much the definition of martyrdom.
Similarly,
Sahih Bukhari 55:44 A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed."
As for injunctions to violence toward kaffir, apostates, and hypocrites, pretty much throughout:
Koran 2:191-193
2:216
3:151
4:76
4:89
4:95 Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle)
This is one of the references of the "fighting with money" escape clauses for the rich which I referenced in my earlier post.
4:104
8:12
8:39
8:67
8:59-60
9:5
9:14
9:20 Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war.
9:29
9:38-39
9:41
9:73
9:88
9:111
9:123
33:60-62
47:3-4
47:35
48:17
48:29
61:4
66:9
Sahih Bukhari 52:117
52:220
52:256
Abu Dawud 14:2526, 2527
And many more.
"Israel's only 'claim' to the land from thousands of years ago, comes from their 'Holy Texts'."
This is blatantly false. It is common knowledge and could be established from Roman records alone that the Jews were dwelling in Judea when the Romans came, which was before year 1 CE, and continuous Jewish presence in the area ever since is a matter of historical record. Archaeological finds show Hebrew language inscriptions, Jewish religious symbols, and signs of kosher dietary practices centuries before the Babylonian exile. Moreover, there is no reason to first order to doubt the testimony of the Hebrew scriptures on the question.
"scholars world-wide who've studied and researched these 'Holy Texts' have concluded in various reports that these 'Holy Texts' were modified and iterated upon, throughout the ages, where-by the original words of God, is in fact long lost."
Citation required. I have studied this matter in college and I doubt you would find a single professor in a major university in a relevant field, religious or secular, who would endorse your statement as you wrote it.
"Don't forget the same 'Holy Texts' also mentioned the 'Philistines', surely it couldn't possibly be referring to the Natives of the land, right?"
Yes, the Philistines were in the land before the Israelites. But they aren't around today to press a claim. What few that weren't wiped out by Israel during the conquests of Joshua, and David, and many skirmishes in between were dispersed and assimilated by the Assyrians with the exception of the holdouts in Tyre, who were destroyed by Alexander the Great. The inhabitants of Gaza are ethnic Egyptians and the "Palestinians of the West Bank" are Idumeans, with some intermingling with their Bedouin conquerors. (New Testament Idumans, Old Testament Edomites from beyond the Jordan).
"the world isn't run based on Religion, but on Laws, Rules and Regulations."
First of all, the most just nations are nations of laws, not of men. But the international order is run by realpolitic and force. The UN and the international courts are dominated by despots with no regard for justice.
The original British "Mandate for Palestine" was an international agreement for the UK to establish a homeland for the Jews, originally in all of what is now Israel and Jordan. The UK changed the deal unilaterally to divide it between an "Arab" state, Jordan, and a Jewish state. The Jews agreed to the division, the Arabs did not. The UK was dragging their feet on the completion of the Mandate, because they found it strategically advantageous to militarily invest and administer the Levant. So they brought in and established a radical Nazi sympathizer "Grand Mufti" in Jerusalem, who rejected the establishment of a Jewish state. For some time, Jews had been immigrating and buying land in the Mandate area, and creating economic opportunities which drew in Arab immigration. The British Mandate authority further reduced the size of the projected Jewish state to a fraction of the Jewish portion. The Jews agreed to the partition, the Arabs did not.
When the British left in 1948 the Jews declared the establishment of the State of Israel on the basis of the Mandate Charter and the agreement with the British who administered the Mandate, and to provide for self defense against hostile neighbors, namely all the surrounding Arab states, which immediately attacked the fledgling state. The invading nations warned the Arab population in Israel to leave so they could kill the Jews without killing Arabs. Many did.
To almost everyone's surprise, Israel won. They had overrun the West Bank in pursuit, but gave it back in peace negotiations. It was later annexed in a subsequent war. Ever since, Jews have found living in Arab countries increasingly dangerous and impossible and have been forced to leave with only what they could carry.
There is no Israeli in Israel living on land which was expropriated from it's private owner by Israel. They are living on land they BOUGHT. Israel upholds private property rights and the rule of law, just the same as other nations in the Western civilizational tradition. For centuries in Islamic ruled lands, property "rights" of "dhimis" (Jews and Christians) were subject to arbitrary abbrogation. Muslims think this is their right. That is part of the program, to seize the purchased property of non-Muslims along with improvements without compensation.
In the US and most Western nations the fount of sovereign legitimacy is the "consent of the governed". Unlike any other polity in the region, the government of Israel is democratically elected. Arab, Muslim, Christian, and atheist citizens in Israel have full rights including the vote, which is unique in the region. Foreigners traveling in Israel have full protection of Israeli law which is not afforded to natives in neighboring nations.
The "Palestinian problem" is an artifact of a colonial power trying to hold on to control. The Mandate administration brought in and cultivated a criminal element to serve their private interest and subvert the Mandate. The Jews aren't squatters, the Palestinians are. There is no consistent standard whereby the Palestinians are entitled to sovereignty, and the Israelis are not, and the Palestinians won't negotiate to form a compromise which allows for the existence of Israel.
At the end of WW2, disputed and other territories part of Germany and Japan before the war. were transferred to other polities. It is an established principle that the aggressor who tries to seize territory can be punished by losing territory instead when he loses.
In every sense and category, the anti-Israel zealots apply an unequal standard against her. By priority, by international law, by natural law principle, by conquest, by democratic vote, by every standard which has ever historically been recognized to convey title, Israel's current borders are legitimate. The counter-narrative is a construct of leftist enmity for the West which entails an alliance with the enemies of the West. The left has been an enemy of Israel ever since the 1960s when the Soviet Union sided with Israel's enemies. Israel's sovereignty is legitimate, Israel's survival is legitimate, and there cannot be a two state solution until Palestinians are willing to accept a two-state solution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@5StarHeneral Bulverism is the fallacy they teach in schools nowadays instead of critical thinking. You posit an irrational or ignoble CAUSE for the opponent's position, by which you seek to excuse yourself and your reader for dismissing the opponent's arguments without thought:
Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
1
-
1
-
@wifatsabitah9738 "The arguments when you cant answer with facts"
He cites sources, you respond with Bulverism. Bulverism is the fallacy they teach in schools nowadays instead of critical thinking. You posit an irrational or ignoble CAUSE for the opponent's position, by which you seek to excuse yourself and your reader for dismissing the opponent's arguments without thought:
Quote from Bulverism by C. S. Lewis:
You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.
In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the natural dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.
Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is "wishful thinking." You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant — but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must first find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1