I could care less being called a racist, bigot or "Islamaphobe". I call as I see it. I do have Muslim friends who are fairly secular and who respect my religion. There is no effort to convert me or threaten me. But the "Islamists", so we can draw a distinction, are a different story. Anyone who insists in forcibly following Sharia Law is an Islamist. When they say: but Jews have rabbis who are the legal authorities, the comeback is: that is cultural law only, like marriage or divorce. It does not include civil or criminal law in America (acknowledging that 150 years ago in Russia rabbis did practice civil law). Islamists are dedicated to upholding Quranic commands to "kill the Infidel" if they cannot be converted. In the Haddath, the writings of Muhammed is this: "The tradition states that the final hour will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, and stones or trees will call out; "O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
Lot in there but it is sort of confused. There is a large body of Christian just war theory. The founding thinker was St. Augustine though he was drawing on a large body of pre-Christian thinkers. Then the theory was elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas. These two established the core of the theory which is still influential. I am no Biblical scholar but those who are tend to agree that "Though shall not kill" is a mistranslation of "Thou shall not murder" from the Jewish tradition. The mistranslation is in the King James Bible which tends to be the one cited in the Anglosphere. Given that the Stuarts were all around bad actors, perhaps the mistranslation was deliberate. But anyway kill and murder are different concepts. In just war theory, absolutely anything the Israelis could have done in response to October 7, including nukes, would have been justified. The standard is not body counts but in what is necessary to accomplish a just goal. The just goal was to keep Hamas from continuing their terrorism and to keep Iran from funding and arming them. So far, this goal has yet to be accomplished so perhaps a different approach might be better tactically. But anything would be justified under Christian theory. Christians saying otherwise are just channeling ancient hatred of Jews.
Not just "Christian Theory" by just about any Human theory. It is international law that a country is allowed to strike back violently against another country which kills first. That is what established the right of America to enter the 2nd World War, after Pearl Harbor. Until America was struck, it was iffy, though America had lost transports across the Atlantic to German subs. It might be theologically possible that Buddhists and Hindus would refuse to strike back. But, in practicality, China is mostly Buddhist and it would defend itself. India is mostly Hindu and has in fact defended itself. Japan and most of south Asia are also Buddhist and there has been plenty of warfare in that sphere. I think retaliatory war does not require a very difficult religious argument.
And in some cases, preemptive war can be justified. Self defense law has a lot of similarities to just war theory and was probably derived from it. You are not required to let the attacker fire the first shot.
Sasha, this was an interesting discussion but I would take issue with your description of it as the "history of Christianity, Islam and Judaism". There were small snippets in there of how both Islam and Judaism came about (from Abraham's sons Ishmael and Isaac, etc.) but Jerm frequently pointed out that he is not a historian, and although you suggested he include a link to Ben Shapiro's video about the history of the region now known as Israel, he didn't post the link. Ben probably knows a lot more about it from the Jewish perspective. Jerm is clearly a devout Christian and so his perspective on Christianity and the involvement of Jews in Jesus' death was entirely based on what is written in the Bible, but there are many different ways to look at this. I just finished reading the book The Birth of Christianity" by John Dominic Crossan, which is 600+ pages of very dense, thoroughly referenced, scholarly analysis of the history of Palestine during Roman times and how people lived then and what they understood about their Jewish faith as it was impacted by Roman rule. I think it is important to study such works rather than rely on what was written about Jesus after he died (Jesus himself never wrote anything down). There is a big difference between what the original Jesus followers understood and what was written later, largely influenced by St. Paul (who never met Jesus in person and disagreed with those who were closest to Jesus, such as his brother James). I personally think people should be free to believe whatever they like about their God as long as they don't go around massacring those whom they disagree with, or forcing their beliefs on others. But please study the history of Christianity in the context of Roman rule (and yes, the Romans, not the Jews, killed Jesus). Another important work is Tom Holland's 2019 book "Dominion" which goes into enormous detail about how Christianity became the dominant world religion. Very detailed and very insightful, again written by a historian with deep knowledge about the Romans and Greeks and the influences on world history starting from those times. We shouldn't be taking wild stabs at what was going on at the time when religions were influencing world events without understanding the real history, not just the perspective of religious scholars. Just my 2 cents! Thanks for all you do, Sasha.
14) Qatar’s prime minister said Hamas agreed on the first day of the war on Gaza to “release all civilian hostages,” asking only for a ceasefire window to get them out, and Israel refused to even “entertain the idea.” https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/2105049212148695243?s=20
This is such an important discussion.
One of the first things we can do is stop being afraid that people call us names, like Islamophobe:
https://lizlasorte.substack.com/p/stop-calling-us-islamophobes?r=76q58
I could care less being called a racist, bigot or "Islamaphobe". I call as I see it. I do have Muslim friends who are fairly secular and who respect my religion. There is no effort to convert me or threaten me. But the "Islamists", so we can draw a distinction, are a different story. Anyone who insists in forcibly following Sharia Law is an Islamist. When they say: but Jews have rabbis who are the legal authorities, the comeback is: that is cultural law only, like marriage or divorce. It does not include civil or criminal law in America (acknowledging that 150 years ago in Russia rabbis did practice civil law). Islamists are dedicated to upholding Quranic commands to "kill the Infidel" if they cannot be converted. In the Haddath, the writings of Muhammed is this: "The tradition states that the final hour will not come until Muslims fight the Jews, and stones or trees will call out; "O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."
Lot in there but it is sort of confused. There is a large body of Christian just war theory. The founding thinker was St. Augustine though he was drawing on a large body of pre-Christian thinkers. Then the theory was elaborated by St. Thomas Aquinas. These two established the core of the theory which is still influential. I am no Biblical scholar but those who are tend to agree that "Though shall not kill" is a mistranslation of "Thou shall not murder" from the Jewish tradition. The mistranslation is in the King James Bible which tends to be the one cited in the Anglosphere. Given that the Stuarts were all around bad actors, perhaps the mistranslation was deliberate. But anyway kill and murder are different concepts. In just war theory, absolutely anything the Israelis could have done in response to October 7, including nukes, would have been justified. The standard is not body counts but in what is necessary to accomplish a just goal. The just goal was to keep Hamas from continuing their terrorism and to keep Iran from funding and arming them. So far, this goal has yet to be accomplished so perhaps a different approach might be better tactically. But anything would be justified under Christian theory. Christians saying otherwise are just channeling ancient hatred of Jews.
Not just "Christian Theory" by just about any Human theory. It is international law that a country is allowed to strike back violently against another country which kills first. That is what established the right of America to enter the 2nd World War, after Pearl Harbor. Until America was struck, it was iffy, though America had lost transports across the Atlantic to German subs. It might be theologically possible that Buddhists and Hindus would refuse to strike back. But, in practicality, China is mostly Buddhist and it would defend itself. India is mostly Hindu and has in fact defended itself. Japan and most of south Asia are also Buddhist and there has been plenty of warfare in that sphere. I think retaliatory war does not require a very difficult religious argument.
And in some cases, preemptive war can be justified. Self defense law has a lot of similarities to just war theory and was probably derived from it. You are not required to let the attacker fire the first shot.
Sasha, it is a long podcast. Would you mind running it through Chat GPT and distilling a 1000 word or less summary?
Sasha, this was an interesting discussion but I would take issue with your description of it as the "history of Christianity, Islam and Judaism". There were small snippets in there of how both Islam and Judaism came about (from Abraham's sons Ishmael and Isaac, etc.) but Jerm frequently pointed out that he is not a historian, and although you suggested he include a link to Ben Shapiro's video about the history of the region now known as Israel, he didn't post the link. Ben probably knows a lot more about it from the Jewish perspective. Jerm is clearly a devout Christian and so his perspective on Christianity and the involvement of Jews in Jesus' death was entirely based on what is written in the Bible, but there are many different ways to look at this. I just finished reading the book The Birth of Christianity" by John Dominic Crossan, which is 600+ pages of very dense, thoroughly referenced, scholarly analysis of the history of Palestine during Roman times and how people lived then and what they understood about their Jewish faith as it was impacted by Roman rule. I think it is important to study such works rather than rely on what was written about Jesus after he died (Jesus himself never wrote anything down). There is a big difference between what the original Jesus followers understood and what was written later, largely influenced by St. Paul (who never met Jesus in person and disagreed with those who were closest to Jesus, such as his brother James). I personally think people should be free to believe whatever they like about their God as long as they don't go around massacring those whom they disagree with, or forcing their beliefs on others. But please study the history of Christianity in the context of Roman rule (and yes, the Romans, not the Jews, killed Jesus). Another important work is Tom Holland's 2019 book "Dominion" which goes into enormous detail about how Christianity became the dominant world religion. Very detailed and very insightful, again written by a historian with deep knowledge about the Romans and Greeks and the influences on world history starting from those times. We shouldn't be taking wild stabs at what was going on at the time when religions were influencing world events without understanding the real history, not just the perspective of religious scholars. Just my 2 cents! Thanks for all you do, Sasha.
from:
https://truthjihad.com/2026/10/01/ffwn-plumber-saves-flyziodubai-flight-and-netanyahu-with-j-michael-springmann/
--------
10/7 Truth Movement
11) Netanyahu Received an Explicit Warning Days Before Oct. 7. He Didn’t Brief Israel’s Security Chiefs https://archive.ph/dpuc8
12) Netanyahu scurried to Dubai to ask UAE to deny October 7 warning claim https://www.rt.com/news/646357-netanyahu-hamas-attack-warnings/
13) Don’t write off Netanyahu over Oct. 7 warning claims – Trump https://www.rt.com/news/646635-trump-netanyahu-uae-warning/
14) Qatar’s prime minister said Hamas agreed on the first day of the war on Gaza to “release all civilian hostages,” asking only for a ceasefire window to get them out, and Israel refused to even “entertain the idea.” https://x.com/DropSiteNews/status/2105049212148695243?s=20
15) Did Netanyahu Know about the October 7 Attack BEFORE It Happened? Egypt and UAE Warned Him Multiple Times https://needtoknow.news/2026/10/did-netanyahu-know-october-7-attack-before-it-happened-egypt-and-uae-reportedly-warned-him-multiple-times/
Bunk
Haaretz: Netanyahu Was Warned 10 Days Before October 7, 2023 Attack
Israeli newspaper presents evidence of what many observers have long suspected to be the case.
John Leake Sep10'26
https://www.thefocalpoints.com/p/haaretz-netanyahu-was-warned-10-days