this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2023
44 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10168 readers
2 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jeena@jemmy.jeena.net 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

My guess is the logic goes like this:

  1. Start WW3
  2. while fighting destroy the al-Aqsa mosque
  3. Rebuild the temple for the 3rd time
  4. Await the messiah and thus end of the world anyway
[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm really not understanding this whole "start WWIII" bit. This is, at best, a proxy war. None of the other countries are going to risk that kind of political or economical power to fight over this tiny strip of land, that has already been in its own private little war for six decades, anyway. Especially not for middle-eastern territories. The old white guys in the Western world care as much for that region as they do for African countries, which is to say not fucking much. And the last major war that was fought there that even involved the Western countries was called the "Six-Day War" for a reason.

WWII started because Hitler actually took over entire first-world countries. This is no comparison.

[–] PotentiallyAnApricot@beehaw.org 9 points 11 months ago

I think it is a reference to what certain extremist Christians believe will/should happen in the region according to their scriptures, not actually what would be politically pragmatic for any of the nations involved. (Correct me if I’m wrong?)

[–] agressivelyPassive@feddit.de 1 points 11 months ago

Man, I would really like point 4 to happen.