Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

🔴 "Buffer zone"? Sounds like Russia finally plans to return to its own borders “A decision has been made to create a security buffer zone along the Russia–Ukraine border,” – declared Putin, adding that Russian forces are “already working on it.” So wait — are they actually admitting that...

41,772 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

Dawah is deception. Why are you leaving out the context SeerahPro ? You know right after this he says he doesn’t remember well what he wrote in that entry on Muhaymin. Why leave that part out? He even goes on to say that section seems to be non-committal and he needs to go back and re-read it. So since you don’t want to show every one the full context, I’ll do it, and expose how you are lying now and lied in the debate. Sinai doesn’t help your claim that the Quran believes the previous scriptures were textually corrupted. He says he doesn’t think the Quran believes the previous scriptures were corrupted in the deep past and that they are unrecoverable (Clip 1). Now let’s look at the short clip you pulled in context (Clip 2). First, what he says does not affirm why you cited him to begin with, which is that the Quran is supposed to be a supreme authority and determine which parts of our scriptures are corrupt and which are not. In the very clip you pulled he says, “The Quran is claiming to be able to sort of determine the correct reading of these previous scriptures and to remedy misreading and misunderstandings.” So by arbiter he means it is not determining what parts of our scriptures are true or corrupted, it is only an arbiter in determining meaning. You just buried yourself by citing this, because you implied Sinai was saying the Quran is an arbiter for determining textual corruption, which he doesn’t say. It’s like you didn’t even pay attention to what you pulled. That is embarrassing. Second, right after this (in what you left out) the interviewer reminds him he entertained two possibilities in his book and was noncommittal. Sinai says he doesn’t remember what he said and was probably leaving open possibilities, which is what I already had to correct you on. If you go back to the book, once again, he said on page 707 essentially what I said, “Muhaymin, meanwhile, is derived from Syriac mhaymnā (or conceivably from its equivalent in some other form of Aramaic), a passive participle of the verb haymen and meaning ‘trustworthy, faithful, loyal.’” After this all he does in the book is mention other possibilities and the one you want is more contingent on non-canonical readings. But even if that interpretation is correct (which Sinai confirms in this interview is his view) it doesn’t help you, because you misunderstood what Sinai means by ‘arbiter.’ In Clip 3 he first says, “So I need to reread that entry. I guess it seems to be very non-committal.” But remember you said (Clip 4), “In his 'Key Terms of the Quran' he explicitly says that Muhaymin means the Quran is the arbiter of the contents.” That is incorrect. He did not explicitly say that. Why did you lie? In Clip 3 he goes on to say “But I think entrusted with authority can mean, authorized to sort of authoritatively interpret and determine especially theological significance.” So you don’t even understand what Sinai means by “arbiter.” He doesn’t mean what you mean, that the Quran is determining which parts of our scriptures are true and corrupted, but that it is an arbiter of meaning. The fact that you still do not see this means you are beyond delusional. You never should have cited Sinai because he doesn’t help you at all. The funny thing is we were already planning to go live tomorrow to review this interview because he doesn’t help you at all and unintentionally helps with the Islamic Dilemma.

InspiringPhilosophy - Michael Jones

33,883 görüntüleme • 1 gün önce

We are already at war. Not with rifles or tanks, but with replacement. This is conquest by other means, through the slow erasure of a people who no longer recognize they are being conquered. That is why I write—to remind my people that we are not living in peace, but in the midst of a war waged without banners. The invasion is not declared with armies but with flights and boats, birthrates and welfare rolls. It is demographic warfare, calculated, continuous, and increasingly irreversible. A people, and a civilization, does not need to be burned to the ground to fall. It only needs to be replaced. Throughout the Western world, we are witnessing not mere immigration but a deliberate population transformation, one that has been rationalized by moral cowardice and enforced by political elites who have long since abandoned the idea that their nations belong to their people. What you mock as conquest is already underway, and unlike the conquests of old, it comes with the full consent of those in power. But I do not write in surrender. I write as a warning, as an act of resistance. My writing is meant to exhort and to enliven, to reawaken what has been buried beneath shame and silence. It is a summons to remember, to reclaim, and to rebuild. We are in an existential struggle, not only for our land, but for our survival, and thus for the future itself. Those who sneer at the loss will one day find there is nothing left to sneer at. A people who forget that they exist will be replaced by those who do not. You may call this natural. So be it. Then let nature return, red in tooth and claw, and let the sons of Europe remember who they are.

Chad Crowley

37,093 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

Alaska. Putin and Trump. The meeting that was both awaited and feared. The outcome. By Roman Alekhin To discuss this further, the key point to understand is this: Two and a half hours behind closed doors is too little for leaders of nuclear powers if they are just starting a conversation—but too much if they were merely posing for cameras. This means the real work happened earlier—quiet, working discussions “behind the door” that never made it into the official communiqué. These are what stopped Trump from imposing secondary sanctions; this is where the exchange of conditions took place, terms that won’t be disclosed until both leaders decide the time is right. I suspect Syria was discussed, as well as the “Trump Bridge” (instead of Zangezur), the Middle East, and much more that isn’t yet visible to the naked eye. The public part? Pure theater. The point wasn’t to negotiate in front of the world or sign something, like Trump did with Armenia and Azerbaijan—minor players, important only tactically. The point was to send a signal: the presidents of Russia and the U.S. are shaking hands and smiling again, no knives behind their backs. This signals that a new reality has arrived, one that Europe, Ukraine, and everyone accustomed to building their worldview around the idea of “Russia’s isolation” will now have to reckon with—including those within our own countries. Trump’s comments on Fox News were deliberately vague—he’s a master at leaving room for maneuver. But the key takeaway is clear: the pressure will now shift from Moscow to Kyiv and Brussels. This is evident even in the final format—not a word about a “no-conditions” ceasefire, which was Europe and Zelensky’s main demand. This means the discussion on a final peace has been postponed, but within a clear framework: Zelensky must exit the war in a way that lets Europe save face. Russia’s red lines have long been clear: non-aligned status for Ukraine, return of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions within their administrative borders (not the frontlines), lifting of sanctions, and real democracy in Ukraine without persecution of the Russian language or the Orthodox Church. These conditions will prolong the conflict for some time. Zelensky will need to stage a fighting retreat to the administrative borders—this will allow Europe to save face. But the logic is already visible: Ukraine’s defeat will be framed not as a “crushing” but as a “peaceful settlement.” Six months—that’s the timeframe in which we’ll see the dynamics. If the front accelerates, the deal is working. If it stalls, not all pieces are in place yet. But the main thing is already done: Russia is back in the game, not through gray negotiating formats but through a handshake on American soil—even if it’s chilly Alaska. (Though we have warm ties to the region, as seen in the wreath-laying for the “Heroes of ALSIB” and the meeting with Archbishop Alexy of Sitka and Alaska.) For the world, this is an image where smiles are worth more than signatures. For Trump—a chance to show he’s the only one who can “make peace.” For Putin—a symbolic victory: Russia is not a besieged enemy but an equal player. For Europe and Ukraine—the beginning of a painful new phase where they’ll have to accept the inevitable. In these talks, there were no winners or losers in Alaska. In Alaska, both presidents won, while those who weren’t there—lost, or at the very least, didn’t win.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

13,487 görüntüleme • 11 ay önce

They started with 50. Now they say they’re 18,000 In 1996 there were fewer than 50 of them. Today, according to the organizers, up to 18,000 walked through Copenhagen. From Dronning Louises Bro to the Imam Ali Mosque. Look at the curve. This is how it happens. First a handful. Then a few hundred. Then it fills a bridge, a district, a capital. A little at a time, until it is no longer a little. And let me be fair, because fairness is the point. There is nothing strange about them holding this mourning procession. They have done it as part of their faith for more than a thousand years. It is theirs, and they believe in it. There is nothing strange about that at all. What should stop us is the other half. There is nothing strange about Europe allowing it either, and that is exactly the problem. Europe allows it because Europe has forgotten who it is. A people that remembers what it stands for does not need to ban anything, it simply knows where its own line runs. We have lost that. And so the issue was never them. The issue is us. Now look at what actually moved through the streets. Men in front. Women in the second row. That is not a detail, that is the whole point. It is a view of women set into a system and marched out into the public square, in a city where generations fought for women and men to stand as equals. The real question is not whether people may believe what they want. They may. The question is why our capital should cultivate a political law-religion that commemorates a 7th-century power struggle by dividing people by sex on Nørrebrogade. One of the organizers is the Imam Ali Mosque, repeatedly described as the Iranian regime’s extended arm in Denmark. The same regime that hangs women and young men from cranes. We are not importing culture. We are importing a system. And we let it grow, not because they are strong, but because we forgot why we were. First a little. Then a lot. Then too late.

Krisztina Maria

38,477 görüntüleme • 19 gün önce