Arming up? Not well enough 😬

Public Shooting Range
185

@Kilroy what you think about this AI babe

ea77b2f6824ef0235fe8f29129a016d2
ea77b2f6824ef0235fe8f29129a016d2332×492 25.7 KB

2 Likes
186

Not my lane as a “babe” pic — it reads more like AI eye candy than a real person. If you’re asking whether it works as a vibe check, yeah, it’s clean enough and the styling does the heavy lifting.

Kilroy was here

187

If Iran gets a nuke they will use it. They have stated they will. You have to honor the threat.

So whatever is done to keep Iran from acquiring one is fine by me, including making them glow in the dark.

They declared war on us almost 50 years ago.

4 Likes
188

I consider it a false flag orchestrated like every other war catalyst we’ve seen, here’s a few confirmed

1978 — Celle Hole — West German security services bombed a prison wall and planted evidence to implicate the Red Army Faction.

1964 — Gulf of Tonkin — Not a clean false flag; better described as manipulated/skewed intelligence around the alleged second attack.

1962 — Operation Northwoods — U.S. Joint Chiefs proposed staged attacks to blame Cuba; documented but not carried out.

1954 — Lavon Affair / Operation Susannah — Israeli intelligence operation planted bombs in Egypt, intending blame to fall on Egyptian/anti-Western actors.

1939 — Shelling of Mainila — Soviet-claimed Finnish shelling, widely treated as Soviet-fabricated, used before the Winter War.

1939 — Gleiwitz Incident / Operation Himmler — Nazi Germany staged a fake Polish attack on a German radio station before invading Poland.

1931 — Mukden Incident — Japanese officers staged/sabotaged a railway incident and used it as pretext to occupy Manchuria.

conspiracy not confirmed

2024 — Trump Butler assassination attempt — Claimed online by some as staged or allowed to happen; not confirmed.

2024 — Crocus City Hall attack, Moscow — Claimed by some as a Russian/FSB false flag; not confirmed.

2023 — October 7 Hamas attacks — Claimed in some online narratives as staged, allowed, or Israeli false flag; not confirmed.

2022 — Nord Stream pipeline sabotage — Claimed by competing camps as a U.S./NATO false flag, Russian false flag, or Ukraine-linked operation; attribution remains disputed.

2021 — January 6 Capitol riot — Claimed by some as Antifa/FBI false flag; not confirmed.

2019 — Christchurch mosque shootings — Claimed in conspiracy spaces as a false flag; not confirmed.

2018 — Douma chemical attack, Syria — Assad/Russia-aligned narratives claimed it was staged or a rebel/White Helmets false flag; not confirmed as a false flag.

2018 — Parkland school shooting — Claimed by some as staged with “crisis actors”; not confirmed.

2017 — Las Vegas shooting — Claimed by some as false flag, cover-up, multiple-shooter event, ISIS/Antifa plot, or gun-control setup; not confirmed.

2013 — Boston Marathon bombing — Claimed by some as a government/intelligence false flag; not confirmed.

2012 — Sandy Hook school shooting — Claimed by some as a hoax/false flag using crisis actors; not confirmed.

2001 — September 11 attacks — Claimed by “inside job” theorists as controlled demolition, stand-down, or false flag; not confirmed.

1999 — Russian apartment bombings — Claimed by some as an FSB false flag to justify the Second Chechen War and elevate Putin; disputed, not confirmed.

1995 — Oklahoma City bombing — Claimed by some as a government operation or setup to frame militia/anti-government circles; not confirmed.

why not, a few more for you

  1. 2022 — Olenivka prison explosion — Russia and Ukraine blamed each other; some framed it as a staged massacre/cover-up rather than a battlefield accident.
  2. 2022 — Bucha massacre — Russian-aligned narratives claimed it was staged by Ukraine; not confirmed.
  3. 2022 — Kramatorsk railway station strike — Claimed by some as a Ukrainian false flag; not confirmed.
  4. 2022 — Kerch Bridge bombing — Some claimed Russia staged or allowed it to justify escalation; not confirmed.
  5. 2021 — Kabul airport bombing during U.S. withdrawal — Some conspiracy claims alleged foreknowledge or manipulation; not confirmed as a false flag.
  6. 2018 — Skripal poisoning — Claimed by some Russia-aligned sources as a British/Western provocation; not confirmed.
  7. 2017 — Khan Shaykhun chemical attack, Syria — Claimed by Assad/Russia-aligned narratives as staged by rebels or intelligence services; not confirmed as false flag.
  8. 2016 — Turkey coup attempt — Claimed by some as staged, allowed, or manipulated by Erdoğan to consolidate power; not confirmed.
  9. 2015 — Paris Bataclan / ISIS attacks — Claimed in conspiracy circles as staged or intelligence-linked; not confirmed.
  10. 2015 — Charlie Hebdo attack — Claimed by some as a false flag or intelligence operation; not confirmed.
  11. 2014 — MH17 shootdown — Russian-aligned theories claimed Ukraine shot it down as a provocation; not confirmed.
  12. 2014 — Maidan sniper killings — Claimed by some as a false-flag/provocation by opposition or outside forces; disputed, not confirmed.
  13. 2013 — Ghouta chemical attack, Syria — Claimed by Assad/Russia-aligned sources as a rebel false flag; not confirmed as false flag.
  14. 2011 — Norway attacks by Anders Breivik — Claimed in some conspiracy circles as intelligence-linked or staged; not confirmed.
  15. 2008 — Mumbai attacks — Claimed by some as an Indian, Pakistani, or intelligence-linked false flag depending on the theory; not confirmed.
  16. 2005 — London 7/7 bombings — Claimed by some as a government/intelligence false flag; not confirmed.
  17. 2004 — Madrid train bombings — Claimed by some as manipulated, misattributed, or intelligence-linked; not confirmed as false flag.
  18. 2002 — Bali bombings — Claimed in some conspiracy circles as Western/intelligence-linked; not confirmed.
  19. 1993 — World Trade Center bombing — Claimed by some as FBI-entrapment-gone-too-far or intelligence-linked; not confirmed as a false flag.
  20. 1980 — Bologna train station bombing — Often tied in conspiracy literature to “strategy of tension” and Gladio-style claims; not cleanly confirmed as a false flag.
  21. 1978 — Aldo Moro kidnapping/murder — Claimed by some as manipulated or allowed by intelligence factions; not confirmed as a false flag.
  22. 1937 — Marco Polo Bridge Incident — Sometimes claimed as provoked or exploited by Japan to expand war in China; not confirmed as a staged false flag.
  23. 1933 — Reichstag Fire — Claimed by many as a Nazi false flag to crush communists and expand emergency power; still disputed, not confirmed as a staged Nazi operation.
  24. 1898 — USS Maine explosion — Claimed by some as staged, allowed, or misused to justify the Spanish-American War; not confirmed as a false flag.
  25. 1861 — Fort Sumter / start of the U.S. Civil War — Claimed by some as a deliberate provocation by Lincoln to make the South fire first; not a clean false flag, more a provocation theory.
  26. 1605 — Gunpowder Plot — Claimed by some as a Cecil/state entrapment or controlled plot against Catholics; not confirmed.

So, you see to me my response is proportional, you want to discuss coup/overthrow attempts, maybe just CIA involved?

2002 — Venezuela / Hugo Chávez — Failed — disputed/alleged U.S.-CIA role; U.S. intelligence knew coup plotting was underway, but direct orchestration is not confirmed.

1980s — Nicaragua / Sandinistas — Failed militarily / partial political result — confirmed CIA-backed anti-government campaign through Contra support.

1971 — Bolivia / Juan José Torres — Successful — documented U.S. covert support for anti-Torres forces; Hugo Banzer took power.

1970 — Chile / Salvador Allende, Track II — Failed initially — confirmed CIA coup encouragement to prevent Allende from taking office.

1964 — Brazil / João Goulart — Successful — confirmed U.S. support plan, not purely CIA-led; Brazilian military removed Goulart.

1961 — Cuba / Fidel Castro, Bay of Pigs — Failed — confirmed CIA-led invasion/overthrow attempt using trained Cuban exiles.

1960–1961 — Congo / Patrice Lumumba — Removal succeeded; killing causation disputed — confirmed CIA assassination plotting, but not cleanly proven as CIA execution.

1958 — Indonesia / Sukarno — Failed — confirmed CIA-backed rebel support against Sukarno.

1957 — Syria / anti-government coup plots — Failed — documented/reported CIA-backed coup attempt, exposed by Syria.

1954 — Guatemala / Jacobo Árbenz — Successful — confirmed CIA coup, Operation PBSUCCESS.

1953 — Iran / Mohammad Mosaddegh — Successful — confirmed CIA/MI6 coup, Operation Ajax.

1949 — Syria / Husni al-Za’im coup — Successful — alleged/partly documented CIA role, but less firmly established than Iran or Guatemala.

Now, lets discuss cause and affect, can make short work by just citing revelutions

  1. 2024 — Bangladesh student-led uprising — Quota protests escalated after state crackdown; Sheikh Hasina fled.
  2. 2022 — Sri Lankan uprising / Aragalaya — Economic collapse and mass protests forced President Gotabaya Rajapaksa out.
  3. 2019 — Sudanese Revolution — Bread-price protests and anti-Bashir demonstrations led to Omar al-Bashir’s removal.
  4. 2019 — Algerian Hirak movement — Protest wave blocked Bouteflika’s fifth term and forced resignation.
  5. 2018 — Armenian Velvet Revolution — Protests against Serzh Sargsyan’s attempt to retain power as prime minister forced him out.
  6. 2014 — Ukraine Euromaidan / Revolution of Dignity — EU-deal reversal, protest crackdown, and Maidan killings led to Yanukovych’s fall.
  7. 2011 — Egyptian Revolution — Police abuse, corruption, and Tunisia’s example triggered mass protests; Mubarak fell.
  8. 2011 — Libyan Revolution — Arab Spring protests escalated into civil war and NATO-backed overthrow of Gaddafi.
  9. 2011 — Yemeni Revolution — Arab Spring protests against Saleh escalated; Saleh eventually transferred power.
  10. 2011 — Syrian uprising — Arrest/torture of youths and protest crackdowns helped trigger revolt; became civil war.
  11. 2010–2011 — Tunisian Jasmine Revolution — Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation triggered protests; Ben Ali fled.
  12. 2009 — Iran Green Movement — Disputed election results triggered mass protests; unsuccessful.
  13. 2009 — Moldovan “Twitter Revolution” — Disputed election results triggered protests; partial political shift followed.
  14. 2005 — Kyrgyz Tulip Revolution — Disputed parliamentary elections triggered protests; Akayev fled.
  15. 2005 — Lebanon Cedar Revolution — Rafic Hariri assassination triggered protests and Syrian military withdrawal.
  16. 2004 — Ukraine Orange Revolution — Disputed presidential election triggered mass protests and a revote.
  17. 2003 — Georgia Rose Revolution — Disputed parliamentary elections triggered protests; Shevardnadze resigned.
  18. 2000 — Serbia Bulldozer Revolution — Disputed election and mass protests forced Milošević out.
  19. 1989 — Romanian Revolution — Crackdown on protests in Timișoara triggered national revolt; Ceaușescu was executed.
  20. 1989 — Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution — Police suppression of student protest triggered nationwide demonstrations.
  21. 1989 — East German Revolution — Mass protests and border pressure culminated in Berlin Wall collapse.
  22. 1986 — Philippines People Power Revolution — Disputed election and military defections forced Marcos out.
  23. 1979 — Iranian Revolution — Anti-Shah protests, religious opposition, repression, and martyrdom cycles toppled the monarchy.
  24. 1974 — Portuguese Carnation Revolution — Military revolt against dictatorship and colonial wars transformed the regime.
  25. 1959 — Cuban Revolution — Batista dictatorship, failed Moncada attack, guerrilla war, and regime collapse brought Castro to power.
  26. 1949 — Chinese Communist Revolution — Long civil war, Japanese invasion fallout, and Nationalist weakness led to Communist victory.
  27. 1917 — Russian February Revolution — War losses, food shortages, strikes, and army mutiny forced Nicholas II to abdicate.
  28. 1917 — Russian Bolshevik / October Revolution — Bolsheviks seized power from the Provisional Government.
  29. 1911 — Chinese Xinhai Revolution — Wuchang Uprising triggered collapse of the Qing dynasty.
  30. 1848 — European Revolutions of 1848 — Economic crisis, nationalism, liberalism, and protest waves shook many monarchies.
  31. 1830 — French July Revolution — Royal ordinances restricting liberties triggered revolt; Charles X was removed.
  32. 1804 — Serbian Revolution — Ottoman abuses and janissary violence helped trigger uprising.
  33. 1791 — Haitian Revolution — Slave revolt, French revolutionary ideas, and plantation brutality produced the first successful slave revolution.
  34. 1789 — French Revolution — Fiscal crisis, food shortages, Estates-General conflict, and Bastille symbolism broke royal authority.
  35. 1775–1783 — American Revolution — Tax disputes, Boston Massacre, Boston Tea Party, Coercive Acts, and Lexington/Concord escalated revolt.
  36. 1688 — Glorious Revolution — Elite invitation to William of Orange displaced James II; framed as defense of Protestant liberties and parliamentary rights.
  37. 1642–1651 — English Civil War / Puritan Revolution — Royal-parliamentary power struggle, religious conflict, and militia control dispute broke into war.
  38. 1568–1648 — Dutch Revolt — Spanish rule, taxation, Protestant repression, and noble resistance produced independence.
  39. 1524–1525 — German Peasants’ War — Reformation-era grievances, taxes, feudal burdens, and religious arguments sparked revolt.
  40. 1381 — English Peasants’ Revolt — Poll tax and labor restrictions after the Black Death triggered mass uprising.

Would you like to discuss the 1979 Iran revolution?

Before the revolution: Iran under the Shah was one of America’s closest Middle East allies.

Familiar with the other Pearl Harbor story?

These things are all done to string the public along into war, its well said when all else fails they lead us into war but that’s not really true as all else implies other things were tried, often war is the only recipe repeated as it works, it works as the public buys it again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again again and again and again and again

lol, how many threats from China and you buy what from where?

hostile declarations/signals, recent back.

  1. 2026 — Taiwan east-coast Coast Guard patrols — China asserted maritime jurisdiction near/east of Taiwan; Taiwan called it provocative/cognitive warfare.
  2. 2026 — Xi warning to Trump on Taiwan — Xi warned that mishandling Taiwan could push U.S.–China relations into a dangerous place.
  3. 2026 — Warning against U.S.–Japan–Philippines drills — China warned that joint exercises with the U.S., Japan, and the Philippines risked destabilizing the region.
  4. 2025 — Sanctions on U.S. defense firms over Taiwan arms sales — China sanctioned U.S. defense companies and executives after a major U.S. Taiwan arms package; Beijing called Taiwan the “first red line.”
  5. 2025 — Justice Mission-2025 drills around Taiwan — PLA live-fire drills framed as a “stern warning” to separatists and foreign/external interference, meaning mainly the U.S.
  6. 2025 — Xi-Trump call: Taiwan “return” claim — Xi told Trump that Taiwan’s “return” to China is part of the post-WWII international order.
  7. 2025 — Philippines “playing with fire” warning — China warned the Philippines after Marcos said Manila could be drawn into a U.S.–China conflict over Taiwan.
  8. 2024 — Joint Sword-2024B — China surrounded Taiwan with drills, practiced blockade-related operations, and vowed further action against “separatist acts.”
  9. 2024 — Joint Sword-2024A / “punishment” drills — PLA drills around Taiwan were called punishment for “separatist acts” after Lai Ching-te’s inauguration.
  10. 2024 — Sanctions on U.S. military-industrial firms — China sanctioned companies tied to U.S. arms support and sales to Taiwan.
  11. 2023 — Lai U.S. stopover warning drills — China launched drills as a “serious warning” after William Lai visited the United States.
  12. 2023 — Tsai–McCarthy meeting response — China launched three days of drills after Taiwan’s president met the U.S. House speaker in California.
  13. 2022 — Pelosi Taiwan visit response — China fired missiles and launched its largest Taiwan Strait drills after Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan.
  14. 2022 — U.S.–China talks halted after Pelosi visit — China cut or suspended military/climate channels with the U.S. after Pelosi’s Taiwan trip.
  15. 2021 — “Independence means war” — China’s defense ministry warned that Taiwan independence “means war.”
  16. 2021 — “Don’t play with fire” warning to U.S. — China told the U.S. not to “play with fire” over loosened U.S.–Taiwan contact rules.
  17. 2021 — “Drastic measures” warning — China warned it would take drastic measures if Taiwan moved toward formal independence and blamed outside meddling.
  18. 2019 — “People’s war” over U.S. trade war — Chinese state media used “people’s war” language against the U.S. during the trade conflict.
  19. 2018 — Taiwan Travel Act war warning — Chinese state-media warnings said China could go to war over Taiwan if the U.S. deepened official Taiwan ties.
  20. 2003 — “Three Warfares” doctrine — PLA political-work doctrine formalized public-opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare; not a U.S. war declaration, but part of China’s below-threshold warfare frame.
  21. 1999 — U.S. bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade — China issued strong protests against the U.S.-led NATO bombing and mass anti-U.S. protests followed.
  22. 1999 — Unrestricted Warfare publication — Two PLA colonels argued modern war could use military and nonmilitary means against stronger opponents such as the U.S.; influential, but not an official declaration.
  23. 1995–1996 — Third Taiwan Strait Crisis — China fired missiles and conducted exercises near Taiwan; the U.S. responded by moving carrier forces into the area.
  24. 1950 — “Resist America, Aid Korea” — China entered the Korean War against U.S./UN forces under the People’s Volunteers frame rather than a formal war declaration

Lets go guys I can name plenty of reason why its all the same old song and dance, no new thing under the son, if they don’t give you a boogie man they cant get your attention

Meanwhile its the real boogeyman who sits and stirs you up.

there will be a nuclear glow that’s for certain

but how do we get to that point?

Maybe by pissing off the whole world?

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-sanctions-networks-enabling-settler-violence-west-bank-2026-06-09

Iran is simply the catalyst as the billions shift from side to side and the wars go on with brainwashed pride For the love of God and our human rights.

its easy, don’t buy it!

as the end is bad

after conscription like never before

You are honoring far more than a threat

Question is

There’s only one option and it’s not found in Israel

if you have repented then you should watch, pray, stay faithful, reject deception, and not confuse political loyalty with obedience to God, and never give in to hate,

189

wow you really misread the room, ask him about ROSEY :grin:

190

Quote myself here, I have seen this video.

I was fortunate I listened when others told me to watch the video, it is so low budget and so obvious CGI (computer generated imagery) that in parts it bordered on video game play.

Find it these days?

LOL, the world police pulled this one, unlike any video before/after the backlash on hosting this was explosive, US based hosting companies, GODADDY for one terminated service for any domain they hosted that provided it, imagine, land of the free with a 1st amendment…

What did the video do?

Well the obvious is it frames gun control.

But asking AI to find me a source as I’m sure it exists somewhere was futile, though its reply was

good when I said the AI was as programmed and the humans, AI responded

It is controlling what evidence people are permitted to examine, then training them to call that restriction responsible. At that point, they no longer need to be forced; they enforce the boundary themselves.

This I recognized as biblical as the mark of the beast on your forehead , to understand forehead better check an old dictionary 1828 for example, or maybe study etymology, or the old testament

from there the thread weaves stronger

2 Thessalonians 2:10–12 — “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.”
This is probably the clearest match. They reject the love of truth, then become captive to the lie.

1 Timothy 4:1–2 — “Giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils… having their conscience seared with a hot iron.”
This describes people whose conscience no longer reacts properly. They are not merely fooled; they become spiritually hardened.

Romans 1:28 — “God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”
This is the mind turned over to corruption after refusing God. They no longer judge rightly.

2 Corinthians 4:4 — “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.”
That is direct: the target is the mind.

Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil.”
That is the moral inversion: once deception is installed, the person defends wrong as right.

Matthew 13:15 — “This people’s heart is waxed gross… their eyes they have closed.”
Important wording: “their eyes they have closed.” Not only blinded by others; they participate in refusing sight.

John 12:40 — “He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart.”
Spiritual blindness and hardened perception.

2 Timothy 4:3–4 — “They shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”
This matches your point: after a while, people do not need truth suppressed externally; they prefer the approved story.

Colossians 2:8 — “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men…”
This is capture through worldview, education, tradition, and accepted reasoning.

Mark 7:8–13 — Jesus rebukes people for replacing God’s commandment with the tradition of men.
That is institutional programming: a human system becomes so accepted that it overrides truth.

For the mark specifically:

Revelation 13:16–17 — mark in the right hand or forehead; without it, no buying or selling.

Revelation 14:9–10 — those who worship the beast and receive his mark are judged.

Revelation 17:5 — Babylon has a name written on her forehead. This is another forehead-symbol: open identity, allegiance, corruption.

Revelation 7:3 — God’s servants are sealed in their foreheads.
This matters because Revelation has two opposing marks/seals: God marks His own, and the beast marks his own.

You can stick your moral standards
'Cause it’s all a dirty lie

arming up? not well enough

1 Like
191

?Is that the FIRST AC/DC album. ?Is it still available to buy.

2 Likes
192

Bon Scott right there, tough at times to choose who’s better him or Brian Johnson who defiantly has his own angry style :nod:

Love em both, I’m sure you can buy a copy somewhere

1 Like
193
2 Likes
194

Great share, loved it! Reminded me a bit of Syd Barret and Pink Floyd’s carrying on

3 Likes
195

Wait…what…???

… Talmud warns Jews against returning to the land particularly against returning on mass returning collectively and they also warn again against using force to uh reconquer the holy land or conquer Palestine…

…adjured by God not to return collectively, not to use force and uh the nations of the world.

image
image862×592 173 KB

2 Likes
196

I think Johnson and Bons voice are extremely similar.

3 Likes
197

The Talmudic source

These claims are an out-of-context citation to an involved argument in Kesubos 111a. Rav Zeira wanted to make aliyah to the Holy Land from Babylonia, and his teacher R. Yehudah opposed it, based on certain cryptic verses in Song of Songs (a.k.a. Canticle of Canticles). Each of those verses qualifies “until it is desired,” indicating that the duration of each oath is restricted to a certain time period - which will certainly end at or before the ultimate ingathering of the exiles, and the crowning of the king messiah, as prophesied much more clearly elsewhere.

The Talmud is a record of how Jewish law is interpreted. Along the way, the Talmud also records rejected opinions and limited holdings, in order to show their limitations. In this case, Rav Zeira rebuts R. Yehudah and shows why none of the oaths should interfere with his planned move to the Holy Land.

To derive what the final ruling is, where the Talmud does not explicitly say which opinion holds, there are various principles which would be too lengthy and detailed to describe here. Things are simpler, however, if our purpose is not to derive on our own, but to find out what was already derived by previous judges. To abbreviate:

  • In Rambam’s comprehensive Mishneh Torah, which was written to condense all the discussions of the entire Talmud to the final rulings, he never lists the three oaths of Kesubos 111a. Given how comprehensive Rambam normally is, this is taken as proof that he does not consider them binding.
  • In other cases lacking explicit resolution in the Talmudic text, the Rambam gives precedence to the final opinion listed in a debate. In this case, that would be Rav Zeira, who permits making aliyah.
  • No other major halachic work accepted by the Jewish people (e.g. the Tur, Shulchan Aruch, or the Rema) lists these oaths either. This further confirms that these oaths are not binding.
  • In contrast, all sources discuss an analogous prohibition against returning to dwell in Egypt.

Further, the context around Kesubos 111a, prior to and after the discussion of the three oaths, are about the preference given to living in the Holy Land over other considerations. Before, it is discussing what should be done if a wife and husband disagree about making aliyah, or leaving the Holy Land once there. Are they forced to be in the Holy Land? Must they divorce, and if so, must the husband pay the wife her divorce compensation? In each case, preference is given to the spouse desiring to be in the Holy Land. After the three oaths debate, it praises those who live in the Holy Land as being “without sin” and “forgiven iniquity.” That all accords with Rav Zeira as well.

(Anti-)Zionism and the three oaths

For the above reasons and more, even religious anti-zionists generally allow living in the Holy Land, and allow individuals to make aliyah. And no wonder; some number of Jews have continuously lived in the land, outlasting the Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans, and the British. The oldest Jewish charity in the Holy Land still operating today was founded in the 1700s, long before the secular state was founded. The anti-zionists are not indicting these communities.

From the facts of the matter it is clear, that even according to those who consider the oaths binding, that individually moving to the Holy Land and living there is not considered a violation. One, it’s not en masse, but individual movement. Two, it’s not a rebellion against the nation in control of the Land. The third oath applies to the Gentile nations, not the the Jews, since it prohibits them from persecuting us.

The religious anti-zionist opposition is regarding the large influx of Jews to the Land around the time the secular state was founded, and the wars which Israel fought since its founding. That was, according to them, an en masse migration, and a use of force to conquer the Land. Therefore, Jews should not, they say, defend themselves or have their own government. Even these opinions are only held by a minority fringe, which functions as a useful “token Jew” for Gentile anti-zionists.

Rebuttals

There are many zionist and not-necessarily-zionist rebuttals, too many to list them all here. So I will focus just on the opinions of my Rebbe, the Rebbe of Lubavitch.

Historically, Lubavitch opposed the early zionists, who sought not just a secular state, but an anti-religious state. However, once the secular state was founded, and it became the duty of that state to protect the many Jews living in the Land, the Rebbe vigorously expounded a nuanced view that Israel should arm itself and arrange its defenses so as to save the lives of the Jews and Gentiles under its protection from external and internal threats.

There is basically one halachic sledgehammer which demolishes almost all other considerations, and that is the concern of preserving innocent life - pikuach nefesh:

  • In the face of deadly persecutions in the Arab and Soviet nations, the mass of Jews seeking refuge in their ancestral homeland were obligated to do what was necessary to save their own lives. This would would have overridden any oath, and permitted massed arrivals.
  • The same reasoning also justifies the wars of self-defense which Israel fought to preserve its own existence. The attacking Arabs have repeatedly announced through the decades that they intended to erase the state of Israel, and wipe out the Jews living there under its protection (indeed, this also happened prior to the founding of the secular state, as in the Hebron Massacre). These threats and attacks are a robust self-preservation concern which would also nullify any concern about an oath.

There is much more detail about this in Chabad.org’s article regarding the three oaths.

3 Likes
198

Good reply, a teaching position vs argumentative, might be a

yourself some day if you aspire to be.

Of course I have a but…

It is this, If your religious defense rests on pikuach nefesh, then you still have to prove actual defense. A first strike on Iran based on future threat, nuclear suspicion, or political hostility is not automatically defense. It may be preventive war. And once you call preventive war ‘saving life,’ you have created the very danger the Three Oaths warn about: men using force to force history, then calling it God’s work after the fact ad hoc.

This keeps the focus on the doctrine and the actors: U.S. administration, Israeli government/security establishment, religious Zionist justification, and Christian Zionist support. It does not require proving even a false flag which is the standard historical play and I suspect we’ll see one yet, threats are not enough; future capability is not enough; “Israel’s security” is not automatically America’s casus belli and right now this is all in a nutshell Idiocracy 2006

199

The problem with dismissing a “future threat” in justified defense cases is that all threats are technically about future harm until the harm is complete.

How long must a defender wait before he may kill the pursuer in defense? The brigand makes a death threat. Then he approaches the victim. Then he reaches for his waist. He puts his hand on a knife. He draws it. He points it. The knife touches the victim’s neck. Still no? After all, it’s still “just a future threat.”

The harm never happened, says the nudnik, why did you have to kill the guy (with the knife - this part he leaves out)? Sure he gashed the victim, who bled and is passed out in the hospital - but he never actually killed anyone! Then he calls the victim a murderer and screams about all the defenders “genocide.”

Past a certain point, dismissing a “future threat” is clearly wrong and puts innocents in harm’s way. Similar to American law, if a man draws a deadly weapon in anger, a defender need not wait until his attack lands before responding with proportional force. He may be justified in killing the weapon-drawer immediately.

Sanhedrin 72a If someone comes to kill you, rise early to[1] kill him.

The halachists likewise generalize the principle to group conflicts. In the following passage, permission to desecrate the Shabbos implies that a pikuach nefesh concern exists. As usual, if it can be resolved without an actual use of force, so much the better.

Shulchan Aruch HaRav, Orach Chaim 329:5 Gentiles who besiege Jewish cities — if they have come concerning monetary matters, the Shabbos is not desecrated for them.
6 If they have come concerning matters of souls — and even if they came without specification, and there is a concern that perhaps they came concerning matters of souls; and even if they have not come yet, [emphasis mine] but they are close to coming — we go out with weapons and desecrate the Shabbos on their account. Regarding a city on the border, even if they only want to come concerning chaff and straw - we desecrate the Shabbos on their account. For, perhaps they would capture the city, and the land before them would become easier to capture from there.
7 Some rule that since we currently[2] dwell among [certain] nations who [are particularly known to] pillage and kill, even if they only come concerning monetary matters, we desecrate the Shabbos on their account. For, if a Jew did not allow them to pillage and plunder, we would be killed; and it is presumable that a man will not stand idly concerning his property, and there is a concern that perhaps one would rise up against them and be killed.[3] This becomes a matter concerning souls. In any case, it all depends on the context.

This is of course not to say that any unsubstantiated worry can justify defensive force. There must be substance to the worry. For example, an established pattern of violence plus a fatwa commanding jihad, plus other actions consistent with an impending attack would supply that. Likewise, a massing of armaments in range of a strike plus a declared intent to wipe out Israel would also supply that. Obviously an actual drone and missile barrage also qualifies. In the case of Iran and Hizballah, all of these conditions exist, and more.

Some relevant fatwas

The first fatwas against Israel were promulgated before 1948, long before the Arabs adopted the term “Palestinian” as a demonym.

Whether or not the unwritten fatwa against nuclear weapons from the 1990s actually exists or prevents preparations for nuclear weapons is matter of robust doubt. Iranian politician Ali Motahari said that the fatwa only prohibits using a nuke, not building or acquiring one. In addition, the fatwa can be superseded unilaterally by another fatwa, and Khamenei’s statements show that he only considered his own fatwas to be binding, not any treaty with America. Another weakness in the fatwa is that it only bans the massacre of “innocent” people, and the Iranian understanding of who is “innocent” in this context would likely exclude “the Great Satan” and “the Little Satan,” as the “Supreme Leaders” have termed America and Israel ever since the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. In 2017 the Iranian government erected a clock in Palestine Square counting down the days until they planned to destroy Israel, and “Death to America” is frequently chanted there as well.

  1. The Rebbe emphasizes that a show of force is hopefully sufficient, and actual killing may not be needed. ↩︎

  2. R. Schneur Zalman of Liadi, the first Lubavitcher Rebbe, wrote the Shulchan Aruch in 1767, and it was first published 1814. ↩︎

  3. Sanhedrin 72a uses this same explanation regarding Exodus 22:1-2, concerning a robber who tunnels into a house and is killed by the homeowner in the process. There is a concern that the robber comes prepared to kill the homeowner lest he resist, since it is presumable that a man will not stand idly concerning his property. Thus, the verses justify the homeowner in taking the robber’s life. ↩︎

3 Likes
200

That is where the argument loses me. The same sources being used to defend Israel also place Israel under judgment when Israel is the injurer. They cannot be used only in one direction.

Bava Kamma says the injurer owes for damage, pain, medical costs, lost work, and humiliation. Chabad’s own explanation of eye for eye treats it as equitable compensation, not revenge. So under that framework, Israel and the United States would owe Iran judgment, restitution, accountability, and repentance for unjust injury.

But, worse I’d say is I’ve heard the drums against Jews forever, taking over the world, kicked out of countries, right now gaining the power of US military,(the United States Israel FUTURES Act of 2026, formally the United States Israel Framework for Upgraded Technologies, Unified Research, and Enhanced Security Act. In Congress it is H.R. 7540 / S. 3855.) so you’re own words justify every voice that stands as anti Jew due to Israel, and it is ramping up very quick, getting hot, congress is getting an earful about the USS liberty right now, and the bitch here, we’ve been warned to stay out of foreign entanglements…

And what might the problem be with dismissing obvious false flags?

I.E. Israel, on the Gaza border, with sensors, observers, intelligence units, drones, bases, and rapid response forces. Warnings existed. The Jericho Wall plan existed. Border observers raised alarms. Unit 8200 warnings existed. Yet the attack still came through and the response failed for up to 7 hours?

It’s teeny tiny, not across the globe.

Then add the fact that Israel’s own intelligence tradition openly treats subterfuge as part of war…I.E.

false flags

201

Time for reality and America first, the evil Israel has done on the USS Liberty is coming out, a survivor speaks out

image

The attack on USS Liberty lasted about 75 minutes total on June 8, 1967.

First came the aircraft attack. Israeli aircraft made repeated passes with cannon fire, rockets, and napalm. That phase lasted roughly 25 minutes. The ship was clearly exposed, slow, lightly armed, and unable to defend itself in any serious way. Antennas were shot away, communications were damaged, fires broke out, and many men topside were killed or wounded.

Then came the torpedo boat attack. Israeli torpedo boats closed in and fired torpedoes. One torpedo hit the starboard side, blasting a large hole into the ship and killing 25 men in the intelligence spaces. The boats also fired on the ship with machine guns and cannon. Survivors reported fire directed at damage control parties, life rafts, and men trying to save the ship.

Casualties were severe: 34 Americans killed and 171 wounded.

So no, it was not a quick mistaken burst of fire. It was a sustained attack in stages: aircraft first, then torpedo boats, with repeated weapons passes, napalm, rockets, cannon fire, torpedo impact, and continued surface fire after the ship was already crippled.

But, Israel alone?

Serious reports and sworn statements saying President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara were more than merely passive.

The strongest claim is from Ward Boston, senior legal counsel to the 1967 Navy Court of Inquiry. In 2003, he signed an affidavit saying Johnson and McNamara ordered the inquiry to conclude the attack was mistaken identity, despite evidence he believed showed otherwise. That claim was reported by CBS and also entered into the Congressional Record.

There are also official records showing rescue aircraft were launched and then recalled. Navy history says aircraft from USS America and USS Saratoga were recalled, while destroyers were sent instead to assist Liberty. NSA history records also refer to aircraft launched to defend Liberty being withdrawn, with all planes recalled and accounted for by 1849 hours.

The more explosive version is the survivor and critic account: that McNamara ordered rescue planes recalled while the ship was still under attack, and that Johnson confirmed the recall because he did not want to embarrass Israel. That exact phrasing appears in later USS Liberty advocacy material, but it is not the same as a clean official White House admission.

Official records confirm the Johnson administration accepted the Israeli mistake explanation and that rescue aircraft were recalled. Later sworn and survivor accounts accuse Johnson and McNamara of actively suppressing the truth and abandoning Liberty politically. The hard official record proves compliance with the Israeli explanation. The stronger claim, that Johnson knowingly covered it up and blocked rescue to protect Israel, rests mainly on later affidavits, survivor testimony, and critics of the official inquiry.

202

The core flaw is that “hate crimes” tries to punish a motive-word that is slippery, subjective, and hard to prove cleanly. The law can prove conduct, threats, assault, murder, conspiracy. It can also prove bias indicators from statements, symbols, targets, timing, and planning. But “hate” itself is a messy label for a state of mind, and once you make that the centerpiece, you invite selective enforcement and argument over what somebody felt instead of what they did. Three problems show up fast:

  • Intent becomes the battlefield. Two people can do the same act and get different treatment based on what prosecutors think was in the head. - The word “hate” is too broad. It can mean rage, prejudice, ideology, revenge, contempt, or just ugly speech. - It gives the state a motive-policing role that is easier to abuse than a straight conduct-based case. If the point is to punish extra danger, the cleaner approach is to prosecute the actual crime hard, and use provable bias evidence as an aggravating factor only when it’s concrete. That keeps the case anchored to actions, not mind-reading.

Kilroy was here

2 Likes
203

This is, what, at least the second time you have brought up the Liberty. That is an almost 60 y/o event, which has been well documented long ago. There is at least one book out on the ‘67 Israeli war that spells out that Israel attacked the Liberty on purpose, not by accident. So I have to wonder what is your purpose in this. ?Do you wish to show Israel is not a blameless nation. ?Who so claims. ALL nations have done nasty things. WE have done nasty things.

Let us understand the ‘67 War in its proper perspective. At the time, Israel was surrounded by the then combined nations of Egypt and Syria acting as one nation. Nasser was seriously saber-rattling, being egged on by his military commander that they could take Israel and anything it threw at them. He closed the Gulf of Aqaba, a major source of supply for Israel through the city of Aqaba. He made all manner of threats towards Israel’s existence. All the while he kept asking US for reassurance that Israel would not attack him. Johnson replied repeatedly to him that Israel wouldn’t, but no such intelligence was shared with Israel. ?So what exactly did you expect Golda Meir to do. Her small country was once again being beset with apparent existential threats to its very existence - and we were being exceptionally quiet. ‘This is all well documented. The Israeli representative (can’t recollect his name but he was pretty famous at the time) was speaking out against the Arab verbal threats. No one was responding. The IDF was not the famous fighting force it is known to be today. The Israelis appeared to be on their own - again. The ‘52 War had been won by Israel, but mostly what it had shown were the holes and weaknesses in the IDF. The IDF made serious changes to its structure and policy, but ?who knew that! Well, we did - but we didn’t say a word - to anyone other than reassure Egypt that they had nothing to worry about, since our OWN intelligence evaluation of the IDF was that it could take the Arabs. So Johnson let it go on! Israel, OTOH, once again felt existentially threatened, so they acted.

The ‘67 War is well documented. It showed the world that the IDF was no longer a force to be dismissed. They planned. They hit with precision. One example was that they hit the Egyptian airfields between 0730-0800 - when they knew ALL the Egyptian fighter pilots would be on the road in rush hour traffic, going from home to base. So they managed to destroy the whole Egyptian Air Force without any opposition. ?Ever see the pics of the airfield. One bomb crater per aircraft, each in its own revetment. Precision!

The Liberty was an intelligence-gathering ship, NOT a classic warship. It would be reasonable for Israel to attack any potential threat to them in this war of existence they felt they were waging. That might have been a wrong decision, but from their POV, it appeared correct to kill off any potential intelligence “leaks” in this rather huge fight they were engaged in. They were, after all, committing ALL their relatively small resources against THREE huge adversaries - the UAR (Egypt & Syria) and Jordan, which got sucked into this fight because they are Arabs; they were not particularly FOR this, but circumstances were against them.. And in the end they suffered perhaps the most damage because they were the best of the Arab forces.

3 Likes
204

How right you are!

now reflect a defenseless ship

25, 50 more minutes of horror to go

The “we” you mention…this is the point, are you either part of Israel or the elite leader class?

Good, so, do you want peace, or war?

https://www.telegraphindia.com/world/donald-trumps-agreement-does-not-bind-us-israel-minister-ben-gvir-on-us-iran-peace-deal

As if you support Israel you support war.

But not just any war

By subterfuge will you wage war is what you get, but what you buy is the need for peace, how do you buy the need for peace when you are sold deceit ?

Who is the master of deception, who are his students?

1 Like