It’s refreshing to hear this perspective, Batya, even if my tendency to pessimism injects some skepticism.
What’s clear is that the liberal media would rather see Trump lose (along with the West) than acknowledge a victory which the West would clearly benefit from.
Time will tell how much staying power the IRGC has; how much willingness the Iranian people have to overthrow a weakened regime.
Huge resources of will can always successfully resist mere firepower, bombs and wishful rhetoric.
But at the very least, Trump has set them back many years in their bid to shape the ME to their ends.
This should be acknowledged by all, no matter how much they hate Trump, or the US for that matter.
It "should beacknowledged by al.." for sure Steve---but people who suffer from TDS will never come to reasonable, fact-based conclusions. They would rather wallow in their (ramped up by MSM) hatred for Trump.
I read the NYTimes article and then the comments. While the article was completely slanted, the gist of it was: Israel made a presentation, we agreed with half of it, there wasn’t really any heated disagreement on our side and the Commander in Chief gave the order to launch.
The comments, however, were mostly complaining that no one in the administration stopped this “madman” and that they all agreed with him…. I really couldn’t understand why the bulk of the commenters thought that someone in the administration was supposed to stop the President from taking an action.
The response to our current efforts in Iran are dumbfounding to me. What is there about a rogue country with nuclear warheads that fails to impress upon all peoples the need to respond and keep such weaponry out of their hands? It seems as though they hate Israel so much that they want them to be the victim of Iran’s efforts to build and set off nuclear bombs.
I get that The majority of demokkkrat plantation slave's have the reading comprehension of a kindergarten dropout, but to be obtuse and to fucking stupid to understand a subject so clearly explained is indicative of severe and terminal TDS !!!%
The screeching blue haired gorgons are laughably retarded !!!%
It honestly amazes me that roughly 25–35% of American Jews don’t want to be called “Zionists.” That’s not a guess — it’s the consensus estimate scholars derive from the most recent Pew data. And when you pair that with the fact that overall Democratic support for Israel has now dropped below 50%, the shift becomes even more striking. Identification with Israel shouldn’t rise or fall based on who the prime minister happens to be. Just like being proud of the United States shouldn’t depend on whether the person in the White House is our preferred choice. National identity and political leadership aren’t the same thing.
I can fault the more radical voices on both the right and the left for aligning against Israel in different ways, but what stands out to me is how much Democratic attitudes seem to track whether “their” person is in office. The emotional swing shows up in the polling, and it’s part of why the numbers around Zionist identity have shifted so dramatically.
The attention Jews are getting right now is sobering. Antisemites feel freer to surface openly, but none of this is new. Borat exposed that raw ugliness twenty years ago, and universities have been cultivating anti‑Israel narratives through certain endowed chairs and academic frameworks for even longer. The environment didn’t appear overnight — it’s been building.
What genuinely surprises and saddens me is watching someone like Megyn Kelly drift into the Tucker‑style narrative. I don’t know exactly what pushed her there, but it seems like she felt unfairly attacked — as if any criticism of Israel automatically branded her antisemitic. That dynamic can make people defensive and push them into strange alliances.
Batya, I really hope you’re able to keep your relationship with her intact. Once the emotional temperature cools, maybe there’s room for a rational conversation again — one that separates disagreement over policy from accusations about identity.
Why should non-Muslims try to understand Islam? Does it matter?
Let me start by saying: "Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level, that is rarely discussed plainly." it contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it. What i mean by that is: That those who follow Islam [The house of Islam] are required to govern those who never chose to follow Islam [the non-believers or house of war]. This is not an interpretation from the fringes. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence. Ibn Kathir, Al-Suyuti, Al-Shafi'i. These are not extremists. They are the tradition's own most respected voices, and they say it plainly.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. [Islam does that too]. But Islam also contains a legal architecture that is derived directly from its foundational texts, which divides the world into the house of Islam and the house of war. Islamic doctrine imposes perpetual conflict between Islam and those who do not embrace Islam, until the house of Islam prevails against the non believers. ALL of the Islamic branches and sects across the various Islamic theological and legal schools have codified this. And it has been established by its greatest classical jurists. Mandating ongoing conflict until Islam absorbs the kafirs, and specifies legal conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue to live, under Islamic authority. And subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation. This is why Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
There is a second thing non-Muslims need to understand, which is abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses do not coexist as equal options. The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism called naskh. In English we say abrogation. Abrogation is a fancy way of saying that the most recent instructions over ride the older instructions. Like a software update. But it can also help to think of it in a historical seance when looking at the Quran, where later revelations override earlier ones. Because the Quran was not written down all at once, but piecemeal, as it became convenient for Muhammad to receive words from his pet Angel. Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse. The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences is from the earlier verses. Because the Quran is entirely out of chronological order in an effort to impress the critics by placing the bigger and more impressive chapters at the front of the book and the smaller ones tucked away at the back. This is when Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
And then there is taqiyya. The doctrine that grants permission, under subjectively convenient conditions, to be deceptive. To an enemy, to your wife, or to further the goals of Islamic domination. According to the judgment of the deceiver. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars. And agreed upon by the top schools of Islamic studies. This is precisely how shariah law creeps into our institutions and law codes.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It means that understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
Why should non-Muslims try to understand Islam? Does it matter?
Let me start by saying: "Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level, that is rarely discussed plainly." it contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it. What i mean by that is: That those who follow Islam [The house of Islam] are required to govern those who never chose to follow Islam [the non-believers or house of war]. This is not an interpretation from the fringes. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence. Ibn Kathir, Al-Suyuti, Al-Shafi'i. These are not extremists. They are the tradition's own most respected voices, and they say it plainly.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. [Islam does that too]. But Islam also contains a legal architecture that is derived directly from its foundational texts, which divides the world into the house of Islam and the house of war. Islamic doctrine imposes perpetual conflict between Islam and those who do not embrace Islam, until the house of Islam prevails against the non believers. ALL of the Islamic branches and sects across the various Islamic theological and legal schools have codified this. And it has been established by its greatest classical jurists. Mandating ongoing conflict until Islam absorbs the kafirs, and specifies legal conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue to live, under Islamic authority. And subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation. This is why Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
There is a second thing non-Muslims need to understand, which is abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses do not coexist as equal options. The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism called naskh. In English we say abrogation. Abrogation is a fancy way of saying that the most recent instructions over ride the older instructions. Like a software update. But it can also help to think of it in a historical seance when looking at the Quran, where later revelations override earlier ones. Because the Quran was not written down all at once, but piecemeal, as it became convenient for Muhammad to receive words from his pet Angel. Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse. The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences is from the earlier verses. Because the Quran is entirely out of chronological order in an effort to impress the critics by placing the bigger and more impressive chapters at the front of the book and the smaller ones tucked away at the back. This is when Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
And then there is taqiyya. The doctrine that grants permission, under subjectively convenient conditions, to be deceptive. To an enemy, to your wife, or to further the goals of Islamic domination. According to the judgment of the deceiver. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars. And agreed upon by the top schools of Islamic studies. This is precisely how shariah law creeps into our institutions and law codes.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It means that understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
as per the statement from a military strategist, war with Iran is a losing decision. the world is suffering because of Israel. Iran has been preparing and hold the perverbial high ground
And we've bankrupted the Ayatollahs: at the end of March Iran President Pezeshkian warned that the Iranian economy would collapse if the war continued for another month.
Iran will come out of this in much worse economic shape than it was in January, when millions of Iranians came out to demonstrate against economic conditions.
We have also revealed NATO as the feckless losers that they are
As a Brit I am sadly forced to agree with you
It’s refreshing to hear this perspective, Batya, even if my tendency to pessimism injects some skepticism.
What’s clear is that the liberal media would rather see Trump lose (along with the West) than acknowledge a victory which the West would clearly benefit from.
Time will tell how much staying power the IRGC has; how much willingness the Iranian people have to overthrow a weakened regime.
Huge resources of will can always successfully resist mere firepower, bombs and wishful rhetoric.
But at the very least, Trump has set them back many years in their bid to shape the ME to their ends.
This should be acknowledged by all, no matter how much they hate Trump, or the US for that matter.
It "should beacknowledged by al.." for sure Steve---but people who suffer from TDS will never come to reasonable, fact-based conclusions. They would rather wallow in their (ramped up by MSM) hatred for Trump.
I read the NYTimes article and then the comments. While the article was completely slanted, the gist of it was: Israel made a presentation, we agreed with half of it, there wasn’t really any heated disagreement on our side and the Commander in Chief gave the order to launch.
The comments, however, were mostly complaining that no one in the administration stopped this “madman” and that they all agreed with him…. I really couldn’t understand why the bulk of the commenters thought that someone in the administration was supposed to stop the President from taking an action.
The response to our current efforts in Iran are dumbfounding to me. What is there about a rogue country with nuclear warheads that fails to impress upon all peoples the need to respond and keep such weaponry out of their hands? It seems as though they hate Israel so much that they want them to be the victim of Iran’s efforts to build and set off nuclear bombs.
Simple Colenel X.... TDS has knocked out all ability to think rationally and base opinions on fact, not hatred.
Objectively, TDS has been more damaging to the United States than Covid. Is there a vaccine for stupid?
Absolutely! TDS has stripped the ability to think rationally and done greater and longer lasting damage to America.
I blame MSM and our declining education system here. If only there were a vaccine for stupid!
Amein, Batya!
lol. Right. This is for people who are ignorant and know nothing.
It doesn’t even make sense.
ROTFLMFAO say's the sparklefairy Cunt !!!%
I get that The majority of demokkkrat plantation slave's have the reading comprehension of a kindergarten dropout, but to be obtuse and to fucking stupid to understand a subject so clearly explained is indicative of severe and terminal TDS !!!%
The screeching blue haired gorgons are laughably retarded !!!%
It honestly amazes me that roughly 25–35% of American Jews don’t want to be called “Zionists.” That’s not a guess — it’s the consensus estimate scholars derive from the most recent Pew data. And when you pair that with the fact that overall Democratic support for Israel has now dropped below 50%, the shift becomes even more striking. Identification with Israel shouldn’t rise or fall based on who the prime minister happens to be. Just like being proud of the United States shouldn’t depend on whether the person in the White House is our preferred choice. National identity and political leadership aren’t the same thing.
I can fault the more radical voices on both the right and the left for aligning against Israel in different ways, but what stands out to me is how much Democratic attitudes seem to track whether “their” person is in office. The emotional swing shows up in the polling, and it’s part of why the numbers around Zionist identity have shifted so dramatically.
The attention Jews are getting right now is sobering. Antisemites feel freer to surface openly, but none of this is new. Borat exposed that raw ugliness twenty years ago, and universities have been cultivating anti‑Israel narratives through certain endowed chairs and academic frameworks for even longer. The environment didn’t appear overnight — it’s been building.
What genuinely surprises and saddens me is watching someone like Megyn Kelly drift into the Tucker‑style narrative. I don’t know exactly what pushed her there, but it seems like she felt unfairly attacked — as if any criticism of Israel automatically branded her antisemitic. That dynamic can make people defensive and push them into strange alliances.
Batya, I really hope you’re able to keep your relationship with her intact. Once the emotional temperature cools, maybe there’s room for a rational conversation again — one that separates disagreement over policy from accusations about identity.
I wouldn't go so far as to call our NATO allies "traitors", but they are certainly freeloading poseurs.
“No Jews, no news!” 😂
Very clever
If no one won then President Trump is the least losing person. The economist is totally wrong.
https://ombreolivier.substack.com/p/who-won-trump-or-iran?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=7yrqz
"No Jews, no news" that is spittake material.
Why should non-Muslims try to understand Islam? Does it matter?
Let me start by saying: "Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level, that is rarely discussed plainly." it contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it. What i mean by that is: That those who follow Islam [The house of Islam] are required to govern those who never chose to follow Islam [the non-believers or house of war]. This is not an interpretation from the fringes. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence. Ibn Kathir, Al-Suyuti, Al-Shafi'i. These are not extremists. They are the tradition's own most respected voices, and they say it plainly.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. [Islam does that too]. But Islam also contains a legal architecture that is derived directly from its foundational texts, which divides the world into the house of Islam and the house of war. Islamic doctrine imposes perpetual conflict between Islam and those who do not embrace Islam, until the house of Islam prevails against the non believers. ALL of the Islamic branches and sects across the various Islamic theological and legal schools have codified this. And it has been established by its greatest classical jurists. Mandating ongoing conflict until Islam absorbs the kafirs, and specifies legal conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue to live, under Islamic authority. And subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation. This is why Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
There is a second thing non-Muslims need to understand, which is abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses do not coexist as equal options. The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism called naskh. In English we say abrogation. Abrogation is a fancy way of saying that the most recent instructions over ride the older instructions. Like a software update. But it can also help to think of it in a historical seance when looking at the Quran, where later revelations override earlier ones. Because the Quran was not written down all at once, but piecemeal, as it became convenient for Muhammad to receive words from his pet Angel. Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse. The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences is from the earlier verses. Because the Quran is entirely out of chronological order in an effort to impress the critics by placing the bigger and more impressive chapters at the front of the book and the smaller ones tucked away at the back. This is when Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
And then there is taqiyya. The doctrine that grants permission, under subjectively convenient conditions, to be deceptive. To an enemy, to your wife, or to further the goals of Islamic domination. According to the judgment of the deceiver. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars. And agreed upon by the top schools of Islamic studies. This is precisely how shariah law creeps into our institutions and law codes.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It means that understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
That is what my work is about.
Why should non-Muslims try to understand Islam? Does it matter?
Let me start by saying: "Islam is unique among the world's major religions at the structural level, that is rarely discussed plainly." it contains, within its own authoritative legal tradition, a framework for governing people who never chose it. What i mean by that is: That those who follow Islam [The house of Islam] are required to govern those who never chose to follow Islam [the non-believers or house of war]. This is not an interpretation from the fringes. It is the mainstream position of classical Sunni jurisprudence. Ibn Kathir, Al-Suyuti, Al-Shafi'i. These are not extremists. They are the tradition's own most respected voices, and they say it plainly.
Every other major religion exists to transform the lives of those who voluntarily embrace it. [Islam does that too]. But Islam also contains a legal architecture that is derived directly from its foundational texts, which divides the world into the house of Islam and the house of war. Islamic doctrine imposes perpetual conflict between Islam and those who do not embrace Islam, until the house of Islam prevails against the non believers. ALL of the Islamic branches and sects across the various Islamic theological and legal schools have codified this. And it has been established by its greatest classical jurists. Mandating ongoing conflict until Islam absorbs the kafirs, and specifies legal conditions under which non-Muslims may be permitted to continue to live, under Islamic authority. And subject to specific taxes, restrictions, and formal ritualized humiliation. This is why Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
There is a second thing non-Muslims need to understand, which is abrogation.
The Quran contains verses of patience, coexistence, and tolerance. It also contains verses commanding perpetual warfare against unbelievers until Islam prevails. These two sets of verses do not coexist as equal options. The Islamic legal tradition has a formal mechanism called naskh. In English we say abrogation. Abrogation is a fancy way of saying that the most recent instructions over ride the older instructions. Like a software update. But it can also help to think of it in a historical seance when looking at the Quran, where later revelations override earlier ones. Because the Quran was not written down all at once, but piecemeal, as it became convenient for Muhammad to receive words from his pet Angel. Al-Suyuti counted more than one hundred peaceful verses abrogated by a single later verse. The peaceful Quran that is typically presented to Western audiences is from the earlier verses. Because the Quran is entirely out of chronological order in an effort to impress the critics by placing the bigger and more impressive chapters at the front of the book and the smaller ones tucked away at the back. This is when Shariah law creeps into our law codes.
And then there is taqiyya. The doctrine that grants permission, under subjectively convenient conditions, to be deceptive. To an enemy, to your wife, or to further the goals of Islamic domination. According to the judgment of the deceiver. It is not a conspiracy theory. It is a documented feature of Islamic jurisprudence, debated and defined by the tradition's own scholars. And agreed upon by the top schools of Islamic studies. This is precisely how shariah law creeps into our institutions and law codes.
None of this means every Muslim is your enemy. It means that understanding Islam from its own authoritative sources, not from its most marketable presentations, is not optional for anyone who wants to think clearly about the world they are living in.
That is what my work is about.
as per the statement from a military strategist, war with Iran is a losing decision. the world is suffering because of Israel. Iran has been preparing and hold the perverbial high ground
No it hasn’t. Your nuts
And we've bankrupted the Ayatollahs: at the end of March Iran President Pezeshkian warned that the Iranian economy would collapse if the war continued for another month.
Iran will come out of this in much worse economic shape than it was in January, when millions of Iranians came out to demonstrate against economic conditions.
It is so shameful, the mainstream press coverage.