Let me help you understand what I'm saying.
When Israel fights, they are not just shooting anyhow. They target specific people. Specific buildings. Places where Iranian officials are actually located.
They are making a point by fighting the leadership they are fighting, not just the general population. They are specific in taking out these people, and they’ve been able to do that.
That tells you their goal is not the destruction of the Iranian people. That is why they look for specific buildings where those officials are.
But the way the Iranian regime fights is different. You will notice they don’t have specific targets. Anywhere. Civilians. Cities. Just to make a point. They carry anything at all they can find and fire it.
And when you talk about the fact that they are hitting civilian targets, hitting civilians, they laugh and say who started it first. Who cares. They just fight with anything they can find.
Like when people are fighting and they grab anything within reach just to hit. That’s the same pattern.
This is not new. History has shown this difference before.
When the United States wanted Osama bin Laden, they didn’t bomb the whole of Pakistan. They tracked one man. One compound. One night. One operation. One target.
When Israel wanted the masterminds behind the Munich Olympic attack, they didn’t bomb entire countries. They tracked individuals across cities and eliminated them one by one.
That is precision. Defined objective. Specific target.
But when groups don’t have precision, they fire rockets into cities. No targeting system. No individual objective. Just volume. Just impact. Just fear. Anywhere is acceptable as long as something is hit.
Same pattern. No precision. Just scattered reaction.
Now look at the same thing in arguments. When I argue, I bring specific facts and figures. I make defined points. I stay on the issue.
But look at the way they argue. If they see anything that looks like something they can use, they use it.
You are talking about the fact that their book has justification for rape, justification for violence. Instead of addressing it, they bring up Epstein out of nowhere. They start mentioning something in Texas. They bring up mass shootings in Philadelphia.
Hello, we are talking about religious justification. Whether your religious text approves of it. We are talking about the fact that a particular crime is common and defended using your religion.
Then you hear them say somebody named Samuel raped someone.
What does that have to do with the discussion? We are asking where in the Bible have you seen justification for rape. There is no place. But we have seen many mallams, many sheikhs, who justified rape.
Some(like Zakir Naik)even said if a girl is raped, both the boy and the girl are at fault. In fact the girl is more at fault. They say both are undergoing a test from God. They say she wore something that made the man excited, so they blame the girl.
But they don’t argue with points. They just carry anything that looks like a counter.
That’s why even when mentioning Bible quotes, any place that looks vague and ambiguous, they catch it and say this is talking about Muhammad.
Muhammad’s name is not mentioned oh. The description doesn’t fit. It doesn’t even look like it.
But because it looks vague, they grab it. They argue with no specific points. If it just looks like something they can use, they hold onto it.
The same thing again. No precision. Just grab anything. And run like APC.
You talk about Muhammad, they don’t answer directly. They run to something else.
You bring historical reports, they change the subject.
You bring texts, they bring politics.
You bring doctrine, they bring crimes.
Scatter everything. Answer nothing.
The same way they fight, the same way they argue, the same way they respond. No defined target. No defined point. Just reaction. Just deflection. Just throw anything.
One moment they ask for evidence. The moment you provide evidence, they try to explain away the evidence. They never admit. Even when they see someone slaughtering another person while quoting his religious text and shouting, they still explain it away.
Even tactically, the same pattern appears. Hide among civilians. Operate from civilian areas. Then when retaliation comes, switch to victim mode. Cry about civilians. Cry about women and children. But they were hiding there.
It's the same thing that happened in Gaza...most of the buildings targeted and destroyed...Hamas were hiding there...and before Israel strike there, they'll tell civilians to evacuate...
Same pattern everywhere.
The way they fight.
The way they argue.
The way they interpret.
The way they respond to evidence.
No precision. No defined target. Just grab anything and throw it.
We know it.
0 Comments