Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

🔴 "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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

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

36,857 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

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 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Elon Musk gave the entire entertainment industry its expiration date, and he is the one building the thing that kills it. Musk: “My guess is that we see the first compelling half hour, pure AI show next year.” Next year. A complete show generated entirely by AI. No writers. No actors. No cameras. No sets. No crew. No studio. Just a prompt and enough compute to render a reality that never physically existed. And shows are the easy part. Musk: “I say probably we’re maybe three years away from AI does the whole video game.” A show plays the same way every time. A game has to generate a living world that reacts to every decision in real time across every single frame. That is a fundamentally harder class of problem. And Musk put three years on it. Right now a single AAA title takes seven years and half a billion dollars across thousands of engineers and artists just to ship it. Musk is describing a world where one person types a paragraph and gets something comparable. The entire value proposition of a multi-billion dollar industry lives inside that gap. And it closes in thirty-six months. But the prediction is not the story. The person making it is. This is not an analyst speculating from the sidelines. This is the man building the largest AI compute clusters on the planet. The man who built xAI from zero in under two years. The man stacking hundreds of thousands of GPUs into facilities designed to do exactly what he is describing. When Musk says three years, he is not guessing about what someone else might eventually ship. He is reading you a delivery date off his own roadmap. Every media company on Earth is valued on a single assumption. That quality content is expensive and difficult to produce at scale. That one assumption is the structural foundation underneath every studio, every network, and every publisher in existence. Musk is dismantling it with raw compute. The studios still parading thousand-person production teams are not demonstrating strength. They are advertising the exact cost structure that one person with a prompt and a GPU allocation is about to make irrelevant. And it does not stop at entertainment. If AI can generate an interactive world that responds to human input in real time, it can generate anything. Advertising. Architecture. Training simulations. Product design. Every industry built on humans manually constructing visual experiences frame by frame is sitting on the same countdown Musk just read out loud. Now zoom out. Because this is not just an industry story. For the entire history of human civilization, the distance between imagining a world and actually creating one required thousands of people, millions of hours, and billions of dollars. That distance built Hollywood. That distance built the gaming industry. That distance made content scarce and studios powerful. Musk is collapsing that distance to zero. When the gap between imagining something and it existing disappears, every business model built on the difficulty of creation disappears with it. That is not disruption. That is a full inversion of how human beings create. Musk did not make a casual prediction on that podcast. He told you what he is building. He told you the timeline. And he told you which industries do not survive it. The entertainment industry is still debating whether this future is real. Musk is not part of that debate. He is building. And he just told you the delivery date.

Dustin

22,458 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat