Mid East Israel declare war after Hamas attack III

[Johnny Bananas]

You feel for the 40% of Israelis who want peace whilst their moronic counterparts are hungry for war and keep putting a bigger target on their country.

Yes, although I feel much more for Palestinians.

 

[Saint]

God the place is a mess isn't it ?

It's been a messy area forever and Western powers pretending to be peacekeepers but actually taking sides hasn't helped.

If the west actually tried to keep some peace, it would be a lot better.

Blinken's comments after the last Israeli terrror attacks about "doing everything we can for a ceasefire" is pretty hollow considering how many arms and the extent of political cover the US provides the genocidal Israeli regime.

He can't even pretend that it's about hostages in Lebanon. It's just about continuation of the oppression of Shia in the region since the 70's including the US bombing Beirut in partnership with the IDF and Maronite militias in the 80's. Locals don't forget that stuff that westerners don't even get taught in school.

They just like to say "Muslims hate us for our freedom" and don't even know how many times the US bas bombed Lebanon to deny them their freedom.

 

[Saint]

Plumbing the depths of Russia now, Israel. Allowing immigration-seekers the chance of citizenship if they just agree to be human shields for the IDF. "Most moral army in the world"?

Israel is recruiting African asylum seekers for Gaza war effort, promising legal status

***

www.haaretz.com

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Australia, the US and Israel are definitely on the side of Genocide. It's indisputable. You might as well throw everyone's Holocaust memorials and "never again"s in the bin for all the good that was worth. As soon as push came to shove, the West has supported genocide again.

I've seen several Israeli fascists claim that "never again" was just for Jews and nobody else. According to them it's Jews good, Arabs bad, here endeth the lesson.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Just because we're more conservative with respect to how we dress, interact with the opposite sex and our sexual practices doesn't make our women oppressed. Most men also cover their bodies in the Muslim world and adhere to modest standards in those metrics too.

They're not equal in how much they're expected to cover I suppose, but neither is the West in its acceptance of toplessness in men compared to women.

My major bones to pick with Islam in how it treats the sexes is the number of spouses one can have and how much weight one's testimony has in court. I realise that not all Muslim countries have the same laws in that regard, and it certainly doesn't make Muslims lesser people, but I struggle to respect any philosophy with such inequalities.

 

[QuietB]

I hope the pager thing doesn't give "other" terrorists ideas.
Imagine if the wrong organisation intercepted a shipment of mobile phones to Australia, destined for random users.

This whole thing is a massive problem.

Cookers all over the world are going to lose their minds over standard consumer items.

And Israel just killed their entire tech industry. No one is buying for them anymore.

 

[Saint]

They're not equal in how much they're expected to cover I suppose, but neither is the West in its acceptance of toplessness in men compared to women.

My major bones to pick with Islam in how it treats the sexes is the number of spouses one can have and how much weight one's testimony has in court. I realise that not all Muslim countries have the same laws in that regard, and it certainly doesn't make Muslims lesser people, but I struggle to respect any philosophy with such inequalities.

So, you mean just like Jewish religious law in Israel where women's testimony is only accepted if no men were around (same for deaf people), or where a woman needs her husband's approval for a divorce?

Israel also has Sharia courts for Muslims (can't exactly go to the Chief Rabbi for a divorce if you're a Muslim). But you're suggesting you're on Israel's side because they're fighting against the existence of Sharia courts?

 

[Saint]

This whole thing is a massive problem.

Cookers all over the world are going to lose their minds over standard consumer items.

And Israel just killed their entire tech industry. No one is buying for them anymore.

Japanese walkie-talkie company the latest to be able to sue the Israeli Govt.

Or the Israeli Govt continues to pretend it wasn't them?

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

What's next for Netanyahu? Is he going to start poisoning water supplies?

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

 

[JayJ20]

They're not equal in how much they're expected to cover I suppose, but neither is the West in its acceptance of toplessness in men compared to women.

My major bones to pick with Islam in how it treats the sexes is the number of spouses one can have and how much weight one's testimony has in court. I realise that not all Muslim countries have the same laws in that regard, and it certainly doesn't make Muslims lesser people, but I struggle to respect any philosophy with such inequalities.

This is not the thread to discuss this but I'll summarise my response and I'm only responding to you Johnny Bananas to stop this thread from derailing. I won't respond to anyone else on this topic. This will be an essay so buckle up.

In short, inequality between the sexes is not always wrong and I'll clarify more examples at the end of my post. Addressing the concept you raised directly, a man with multiple female partners biologically doesn't function the same as a woman with multiple male partners. If a woman has 4 husbands and becomes pregnant, how are people without access to very recent technology going to determine who fathered that child? How are the rules of inheritance going to be applied? How will the wife be able to treat every husband equally when it takes 9 months to birth a child? This would be very difficult on the woman. There are many different social factors behind the permission of this rule for men and prohibition for women. The man must treat his wives equally and that is something the woman conceivably cannot achieve or will find it very difficult to achieve.

The world was (and still is) a very different place in times of war and though women were allowed to work, they used to tend to the house and raise their children while the men engaged in physical labour and served in war. War means more men die than women and eventually there'll be an imbalance between the sexes especially within small communities. It's not like it is now where one country has over a billion people.

It meant that there would be a lot of orphans and widows needing to be cared for and it is easier for them to be financially and emotionally secure through marriage. Sure you can open an orphanage and a group home for widows, but it was more emotionally stable for them to have a family home with someone who can provide for them. Even if it's not for the woman, at least for the orphan. The permission of a man marrying multiple wives eases the burden on the widows and orphans. As we're more conservative in how we interact with the opposite gender, it would restrict the widow or orphan's access to resources and emotional stability if the man was restricted.

This was also a rule used to mend between tribes when an important figure married women from different tribes to stop them from fighting with each other. The problem with western culture is that it is very hypersexualised and this makes them objectify the Muslim women that are married to husbands with multiple wives and reduces them to sexual objects that only function to serve the sexual needs of their husband which isn't the case at all. Our societies aren't hyper focused on sexuality like that and the structure of our ideal society is community based and not individualistic.

Nowadays it is very uncommon to see a man with multiple wives because of the significant financial and emotional responsibility that is required of a man. The married woman has zero financial responsibilities over the man or her children even if she is a billionaire. That responsibility is on the man only. He's just going to increase his obligations and runs the significant risk of not meeting his minimum obligations towards his wife/wives, which may be grounds for a divorce.

As for testimonies, there are details to that and it's a lot for me to go through everything so I won't.

It's always the same tired talking points of pointing out supposed inequalities that don't conform to western standards without any nuance. No one ever mentions what the women don't have to do that the man is obligated to do because it doesn't fit the oppression narrative.

There are many things that the man has to do that the woman doesn't. The man is fully financially responsible for the woman and the child. She has no responsibility to feed, clothe and shelter her husband and her child and she has the right to request a private residence for which she resides in. Any income she earns is hers entirely.

For the children, the mother comes first before the father. It is said that if the mother requests of the child something permissible and the father requests something permissible, then the child goes with what the mother requests.

A man once he reaches the age of accountability is required to pray 5 times a day every day for the rest of his life. Every Friday, men need to pray the Friday prayer in congregation so we run the risk of an employer that isn't accommodating with that. Muslim women aren't obligated to pray the Friday prayer.

Every Ramadan, the man is obligated to fast the whole month unless he has an excuse (health or travel-wise for example). A woman however doesn't pray at all when she is menstruating (up to 15 days at a time) every month, doesn't pray at all up to 60 days after child birth, doesn't fast when she is menstruating during Ramadan (up 15 days) which she can pay back at any point over the next year before the next Ramadan comes in. She can just wait for the shortest winter day and make it up then if she wants.

With the Zakah payment, the man typically pays for his wife and his dependent children.

The rules are not the same for the sexes here in the above cases, but it's definitely not wrong. We focus on equity over equality in many cases (though equality in some aspects is present), but it doesn't stop us from achieving our ultimate goal of piety. The Islamic rules also focus on the betterment of the community over living an individualistic and hedonistic lifestyle. There are some communal obligations for example over personal obligations.

It makes us laugh when people think Muslim women are oppressed or that somehow the inequality is not respectable because we:
1. Know how good Muslim women have it
2. Know that the community functions better with the rules that are in place

I'm not talking about country or culture-specific practices that have no basis in Islam, but I'm talking about the Islamic rules.

Anyway that's my essay done. I really don't want to have a back and forth about this on here, but I wanted to ensure I responded to your post.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

So, you mean just like Jewish religious law in Israel where women's testimony is only accepted if no men were around (same for deaf people), or where a woman needs her husband's approval for a divorce?

Yes, exactly like that. All religions are sexist (with the possible exception of Sikhism, but I need to read more on that) and that's why I don't respect any of them as philosophies for life. I bear no ill will towards adherents of those religions unless they're attempting to push their morals on me, but Christianity is a far greater threat than any other religion on that score.

Israel also has Sharia courts for Muslims (can't exactly go to the Chief Rabbi for a divorce if you're a Muslim). But you're suggesting you're on Israel's side because they're fighting against the existence of Sharia courts?

Easy, tiger. I've been pro-Palestine since I was in high school, and you're welcome to check my posting history in this thread if you want to verify that. Israel is a fascist, supremacist state and I do not support them. Nor is the Palestinian cause equivalent with Islam when there are plenty of Christian Palestinians and plenty of non-Palestinian, non-Arab Muslims.

I only brought up the issue since that's where the conversation was.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

This is not the thread to discuss this but I'll summarise my response and I'm only responding to you Johnny Bananas to stop this thread from derailing. I won't respond to anyone else on this topic. This will be an essay so buckle up.

Look, fair enough, I shouldn't have replied to your post to begin with, because you're not the spokesperson for Islam and I shouldn't treat you that way. I apologise. Happy to discuss further by PM but if you don't want to go to the effort, I understand that too. Have a good day.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Japanese walkie-talkie company the latest to be able to sue the Israeli Govt.

Or the Israeli Govt continues to pretend it wasn't them?

Looks like that will be tricky.
The penalties in Australia are around $100 000 for supplying "knock offs", and international law is totally wishy washy.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

What's next for Netanyahu? Is he going to start poisoning water supplies?

I'm sure he would if he could find a way to isolate the supply to Hezbollah members.

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

This is not the thread to discuss this but I'll summarise my response and I'm only responding to you Johnny Bananas to stop this thread from derailing. I won't respond to anyone else on this topic. This will be an essay so buckle up.

In short, inequality between the sexes is not always wrong and I'll clarify more examples at the end of my post. Addressing the concept you raised directly, a man with multiple female partners biologically doesn't function the same as a woman with multiple male partners. If a woman has 4 husbands and becomes pregnant, how are people without access to very recent technology going to determine who fathered that child? How are the rules of inheritance going to be applied? How will the wife be able to treat every husband equally when it takes 9 months to birth a child? This would be very difficult on the woman. There are many different social factors behind the permission of this rule for men and prohibition for women. The man must treat his wives equally and that is something the woman conceivably cannot achieve or will find it very difficult to achieve.

The world was (and still is) a very different place in times of war and though women were allowed to work, they used to tend to the house and raise their children while the men engaged in physical labour and served in war. War means more men die than women and eventually there'll be an imbalance between the sexes especially within small communities. It's not like it is now where one country has over a billion people.

It meant that there would be a lot of orphans and widows needing to be cared for and it is easier for them to be financially and emotionally secure through marriage. Sure you can open an orphanage and a group home for widows, but it was more emotionally stable for them to have a family home with someone who can provide for them. Even if it's not for the woman, at least for the orphan. The permission of a man marrying multiple wives eases the burden on the widows and orphans. As we're more conservative in how we interact with the opposite gender, it would restrict the widow or orphan's access to resources and emotional stability if the man was restricted.

This was also a rule used to mend between tribes when an important figure married women from different tribes to stop them from fighting with each other. The problem with western culture is that it is very hypersexualised and this makes them objectify the Muslim women that are married to husbands with multiple wives and reduces them to sexual objects that only function to serve the sexual needs of their husband which isn't the case at all. Our societies aren't hyper focused on sexuality like that and the structure of our ideal society is community based and not individualistic.

Nowadays it is very uncommon to see a man with multiple wives because of the significant financial and emotional responsibility that is required of a man. The married woman has zero financial responsibilities over the man or her children even if she is a billionaire. That responsibility is on the man only. He's just going to increase his obligations and runs the significant risk of not meeting his minimum obligations towards his wife/wives, which may be grounds for a divorce.

As for testimonies, there are details to that and it's a lot for me to go through everything so I won't.

It's always the same tired talking points of pointing out supposed inequalities that don't conform to western standards without any nuance. No one ever mentions what the women don't have to do that the man is obligated to do because it doesn't fit the oppression narrative.

There are many things that the man has to do that the woman doesn't. The man is fully financially responsible for the woman and the child. She has no responsibility to feed, clothe and shelter her husband and her child and she has the right to request a private residence for which she resides in. Any income she earns is hers entirely.

For the children, the mother comes first before the father. It is said that if the mother requests of the child something permissible and the father requests something permissible, then the child goes with what the mother requests.

A man once he reaches the age of accountability is required to pray 5 times a day every day for the rest of his life. Every Friday, men need to pray the Friday prayer in congregation so we run the risk of an employer that isn't accommodating with that. Muslim women aren't obligated to pray the Friday prayer.

Every Ramadan, the man is obligated to fast the whole month unless he has an excuse (health or travel-wise for example). A woman however doesn't pray at all when she is menstruating (up to 15 days at a time) every month, doesn't pray at all up to 60 days after child birth, doesn't fast when she is menstruating during Ramadan (up 15 days) which she can pay back at any point over the next year before the next Ramadan comes in. She can just wait for the shortest winter day and make it up then if she wants.

With the Zakah payment, the man typically pays for his wife and his dependent children.

The rules are not the same for the sexes here in the above cases, but it's definitely not wrong. We focus on equity over equality in many cases (though equality in some aspects is present), but it doesn't stop us from achieving our ultimate goal of piety. The Islamic rules also focus on the betterment of the community over living an individualistic and hedonistic lifestyle. There are some communal obligations for example over personal obligations.

It makes us laugh when people think Muslim women are oppressed or that somehow the inequality is not respectable because we:
1. Know how good Muslim women have it
2. Know that the community functions better with the rules that are in place

I'm not talking about country or culture-specific practices that have no basis in Islam, but I'm talking about the Islamic rules.

Anyway that's my essay done. I really don't want to have a back and forth about this on here, but I wanted to ensure I responded to your post.

lol. ‘Don’t respond to me’

estimates in 2008 just in the USA were 50-100k people.
Much more prevalent in traditional Muslim countries let alone other shared faith… More than 1000 Muslim men per year apply for it in Malaysia.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Netanyahu sure loves killing Arab children.

 

[JayJ20]

What's next for Netanyahu? Is he going to start poisoning water supplies?

If people didn't have any reservations about the current state of the world, then the last 11 months should do it. How this guy was even allowed in the US with the crimes he is responsible for let alone having the ability to address Congress is baffling.

What will it take for the west to stop supporting him and supplying the IDF with weapons used to commit a genocide? How has there not been a weapons embargo placed onto the Israeli government? What more could they possibly do to force the hands of western countries? What's the purpose of International Law if not for this?

They've done everything from committing a genocide, to torturing civilians, killing tens of thousands of children, use of sexual violence and abuse, blocking aid etc. They've committed acts of terror on foreign soil. They've been taken to the ICJ by other nations. Netanyahu and other Israeli officials will soon have arrest warrants issued.

How is Israeli support among western governments still receiving bipartisan approval even now ahead of the US election?

We're on the brink of WWIII because Zionists cannot help themselves but be violent genocidal maniacs. This is a rogue state that would have long been a Pariah State if not for the US. The only country standing in the way of them being a full blown Pariah State.

 

[Johnny_Dogg4]

 

[Ballarat Bob]

Hardly a surprise that Hezbollah would respond. Israel is obviously going into Lebanon , whether it is just to push Hezbollah back beyond the Littani river to stop attacks on northern Israel or go further and seriously try and take down Hezbollah into the suburbs of Beirut and the Bekka valley. Netinhayu hasnt shown any restraint so far so might just see how far he can go without any serious international condemnation.
Hezbollah , Hamas and Iran have been found out they can throw lots of dumb missiles and drones against Israel but are seriously compromised by Israeli security forces and cant mount serious tit for tat operations and take out senior Israeli ambassadors / politicians / generals etc or any serious military targets. Hezbollah fighting on their own territory in southern Lebanon might be different and they may be able to inflict serious casualties on Israel even without any secure communications. Depends just how hard Israel wants to push this now and how many casualties they will accept.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Looks like this is now officially a regional war provoked by Netanyahu.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I know the exclusionary Zionist Cancer wields a powerful military force and they will take more than just 'some' beating but I'm hoping Hezbollah can at the very least make a good account of themselves against enemy military and security targets and leave Israeli civilians to flee south to designated safe zones.

 

[Aristotle Pickett]

Looks like this is now officially a regional war provoked by Netanyahu.

Why would be post a laughing emoji to this post Demons09 ?
And why would you post over 20 laughing emojis every day on this thread?
Are you a bit of a troll and are you a bit afraid to join the discussion?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I won't feel I properly 'belong' in this thread until Demons09 laughs at me!