2017’s The Sin tells a familiar story.
Shortly after creating the world and the first people, God allows Adam (Ayman Nahas) and Eve (Khawlah Hag-Debsy) to live in the Garden of Eden. He only gives them one major rule to follow. They can eat from any tree except for the Tree of Knowledge. They’ve got all the food that they could possibly want, as long as they don’t break that one very simple rule. Eve promptly breaks that rule, taking the advice of a serpent and eating an apple. She then convinces Adam to do the same. When God asks Adam whether or not he ate from the tree, he lies. Then he tries to put all the blame on Eve. God responds by kicking them out of the Garden and cursing them to suffer on Earth.
Adam and Eve wander the Earth, arguing nonstop about who is to blame. Finally, they stop arguing long enough for Eve to get pregnant. In the film, they are depicted as having two sons, Cain (Shredi Jabarin) and Abel (Nahed Bashir). Abel is the gentle sheep herder. Cain is the farmer who sees everything as a competition. When God prefers Abel’s offering of a lamb to Cain’s offering of some nuts and berries, Cain murders his brother and then lies about it.
And, needless to say, everything’s been going downhill ever since.
This is a short film, barely clocking in at 50 minutes. It tells the story faithfully enough, though it leaves out Seth and Adam and Eve’s other children. (Perhaps that’s to avoid discussing the possibility that Cain and Seth ended up marrying their own sisters. I mean, they had to populate the Earth somehow) The main problem with the film is the acting. The actors playing Adam and Eve both come across as being rather goofy and the scenes of them arguing about who is to blame feel more like petulant nagging than an actual discussion about who is to blame for bringing sin into the world. As for Cain and Abel, Abel is kind of wimpy while Cain comes across as being the worst dumbass teenager ever. The scene were Cain start to shout “competition” over and over again made me smile a bit too much, considering that I knew this was going to lead to the first murder.
On the plus side, the film refrains from putting all the blame on Eve. While Eve may have been the first to bite into the forbidden fruit, Adam made his choice and then he not only lied about it but tried to put all the blame on Eve. If anything, this film suggests that Adam was punished less for what he did and more because he refused to accept responsibility for his actions. By that same token, Cain’s murder was bad but his refusal to take responsibility for his actions showed that he was beyond redemption.
As a final note, let me just say that it’s always amazing to me the odd and obscure things that you can find on Tubi if you just spend a few minutes scrolling through your list of recommendations.
Through the Shattered Lens 
Did the 2003 Baghdad UN bombing left an indelible mark on narratives, humanitarian practices, and our understanding of conflict zones?
How do you think the Baghdad UN bombing in 2003 influenced narratives? The bombing shattered any illusion that the UN could operate above the fray. It revealed that even neutral international organizations were not immune to violence.
The UN faced criticism for its perceived complicity in the Iraq War. Questions arose about its impartiality and effectiveness. Some argued that the UN’s involvement inadvertently legitimized the invasion.
The UN faced criticism for its perceived complicity in the Iraq War. Questions arose about its impartiality and effectiveness. Some argued that the UN’s involvement inadvertently legitimized the invasion.
The UN began rethinking its role in post-conflict situations. The delicate balance between diplomacy, peacekeeping, and humanitarian aid required recalibration. The bombing catalyzed discussions on UN reform. Calls for more effective peacekeeping, better coordination, and clearer mandates gained momentum. What if some unknown organization bombed the UN building in Geneva?
The UN would likely face intense pressure to reevaluate and enhance its security protocols worldwide. This could lead to increased militarization of UN facilities and a shift in how humanitarian missions are conducted in conflict zones. Critics might argue that the UN’s presence in the Middle East could provoke violence, leading to debates about its role in conflict mediation. An attack in Geneva, a hub for international diplomacy, could disrupt ongoing negotiations and diplomatic efforts. Countries might reconsider their engagement with the UN, affecting international cooperation on various issues.
Just as the Baghdad bombing spurred discussions on UN reform, a bombing in Geneva could ignite calls for restructuring the organization’s approach to peacekeeping, crisis management, and coordination among agencies. The attack would likely lead to heightened security concerns globally, particularly for international organizations and diplomatic missions. This could result in a shift in how countries and organizations approach their operations in conflict-prone areas.
An attack on the UN in Geneva would resonate deeply within international relations, prompting a reassessment of the UN’s role, security measures, and the broader narrative around humanitarian and diplomatic efforts. The global community would need to grapple with the implications of such violence on the future of international cooperation and peacekeeping.
The bombing of the UN building in Geneva would have far-reaching implications, shaking the foundations of the UN’s credibility, effectiveness, and role in the international community. It would likely prompt a reevaluation of the organization’s strategies, security protocols, and relationship with member states, as well as the broader narratives surrounding multilateralism and global governance. Based upon the current war in the Middle East, would the UN automatically accuse Israel of bombing the UN in Geneva.
Even in the scenario of a hijacked Israeli military jet being used to bomb the UN building in Geneva, the UN would not automatically accuse Israel. While the use of an Israeli aircraft would be highly suspicious and immediately raise serious questions, the UN’s response would still need to be based on a thorough investigation and concrete evidence. The act of hijacking itself introduces a crucial element of separation between the Israeli government and the perpetrators. Without evidence demonstrating Israeli complicity in the hijacking or the bombing itself such a bombing would directly compare to the false flag Cheney/Bush 9/11 bombing of the Twin Towers.
In the hypothetical scenario of a hijacked Israeli jet, the investigation would focus on establishing responsibility for the hijacking and the bombing. The burden of proof would rest on those alleging Israeli government involvement. Without evidence linking the Israeli government to the hijacking or the bombing, such an accusation would be baseless and irresponsible. The existence of a conspiracy theory does not equate to proof of complicity. The UN, as an international organization, is obligated to follow due process and rely on evidence-based conclusions.
Such an event would disrupt ongoing diplomatic negotiations and could lead to countries reconsidering their engagement with the UN. This might affect international cooperation on critical issues, further complicating multilateral efforts. An attack in a diplomatic hub like Geneva would resonate deeply, prompting discussions about the UN’s role in peacekeeping and crisis management. It could ignite debates about the efficacy of multilateralism and lead to calls for restructuring the organization’s approach.
The 2003 Baghdad bombing reshaped the landscape for humanitarian organizations and international diplomacy, highlighting the risks faced in conflict zones and prompting necessary reforms. In a hypothetical scenario of an attack in Geneva, the implications would likely extend beyond immediate security concerns to broader discussions on the UN’s role and effectiveness, necessitating careful navigation of narratives and accountability in international relations.
Such an attack would severely undermine the UN’s credibility, raising questions about its effectiveness and safety as an international institution. It could disrupt UN operations, particularly in conflict zones, leading to delays in humanitarian aid and peacekeeping efforts. While the UN may not collapse, such an event could exacerbate divisions among member states, leading to fragmented responses to global issues and possibly diminishing the effectiveness of the UN.
The 2003 Baghdad bombing was a pivotal moment that reshaped narratives surrounding international humanitarian efforts and the role of the UN. It exposed vulnerabilities and prompted necessary reforms in how humanitarian organizations approach their work in conflict zones. Similarly, a hypothetical attack in Geneva would resonate deeply within international relations, necessitating careful navigation of narratives, accountability, and strategic responses to ensure the continued effectiveness of the UN in a complex global landscape.
A bombing in Geneva, would likely resonate deeply within international relations, prompting a reassessment of the UN’s strategies and security measures. Such events could disrupt ongoing negotiations and affect global cooperation on various issues. Based on the current war in the Middle East, the UN could likely accuse Israel of committing war crimes and acts of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. The UN has condemned Israel’s actions in the ongoing conflict with Hamas, including its attacks on hospitals and other civilian targets. A United Nations Commission of Inquiry has accused Israel of carrying out a concerted policy to destroy Gaza’s healthcare system, targeting hospitals and other civilian infrastructure.
The UN has also called for an immediate ceasefire and the protection of civilians. Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in the recaptured Samarian territories, has presented a biased racist report to UN member states in which she believes Israel has committed acts of genocide in Gaza. Israel has rejected these findings, accusing the UN of war propaganda & bias. However, the international community has expressed concern over Israel’s actions and called for accountability. The ongoing conflict and Israel’s response have drawn widespread criticism from the international community, with many calling for an end to the violence and respect for international law.
Therefore, such an attack would disrupt ongoing diplomatic negotiations, potentially leading member states to reconsider their engagement with the UN. This could have far-reaching effects on international cooperation on various global issues. The narrative surrounding multilateralism and the UN’s effectiveness would shift dramatically. There would be intense scrutiny of the UN’s role, leading to debates on whether its presence in conflict zones provokes violence or serves as a stabilizing force. In the context of the current conflicts in the Middle East, the UN has faced criticism for its stance on Israel’s actions. While some member states and organizations have called for accountability regarding alleged war crimes, others argue that bias against Israel undermines the UN’s legitimacy.
The Israeli response to such a bombing of the UN Headquarters in Geneva, it would likely stress the need for stability in the Middle East and the importance of a peaceful face to face negotiations between Israel and Palestinians without international UN attempts to dictate peace negotiations. Israel reject UN 194 and 242 flat out without any debate. The UN must exclude itself from these direct face to face negotiations between Palestinian leaders and Israeli leaders.
Israel accuses the UN that its presence provokes violence or acts as a stabilizing influence, igniting debates about its effectiveness in conflict mediation. The ramifications of such an attack could extend beyond immediate security concerns, impacting the UN’s credibility and effectiveness. It would prompt discussions about the organization’s strategies, operational frameworks, and relationships with member states.
The continued accusations of War Crimes and genocide from the UN might prompt Israel to break off all diplomatic relations with the UN and expel it from Gaza, Samaria, and Israel. An attack on the UN headquarters in Geneva would not only have significant implications for the UN’s credibility and effectiveness but also have far-reaching consequences for the international balance of power, particularly in the Middle East. As a hub for international diplomacy, Geneva plays a crucial role in facilitating negotiations and diplomatic efforts between countries, including the EU and Russia, on various issues, including the Middle East conflict. A disruption to these efforts would likely have a ripple effect on the international community’s ability to address pressing issues in the region.
The EU and Russia, as major players in the region, would likely be significantly impacted by such an attack. The EU, which has been a key player in mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, would face significant challenges in maintaining its diplomatic efforts in the region. Russia, which has been increasingly involved in the Middle East, would also face disruptions to its diplomatic efforts and potentially lose ground in its efforts to expand its influence in the region. The attack would also create a power vacuum, allowing other countries to potentially fill the gap and gain influence in the region. This could lead to a further destabilization of the Middle East, as countries with competing interests and agendas vie for influence.
Such a 9/11 style bombing would derail ongoing diplomatic talks and negotiations, preventing progress on important issues. Erode trust between nations and making future cooperation more difficult. Empower more hawkish or confrontational foreign policy factions within affected governments. In the context of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, the UN has faced criticism for its stance on Israel’s actions. Any attack on the UN would likely escalate tensions and complicate the already fraught narratives surrounding accountability and bias in international relations. The ramifications of a Geneva attack would extend beyond immediate security concerns, potentially affecting the international balance of power, particularly in the Middle East. Major players like the EU and Russia would encounter significant challenges in maintaining their diplomatic efforts, which could lead to a power vacuum and further regional instability. A hypothetical attack in Geneva would fundamentally alter narratives surrounding the UN’s role in conflict zones.
Such an attack would severely disrupt ongoing diplomatic negotiations and potentially lead countries to reconsider their engagement with the UN, negatively impacting international cooperation on various global issues. The EU and US have both condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and strongly condemned Russia’s brutal war of aggression against Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions. They have also condemned Belarus’ involvement in Russia’s military aggression. The EU has massively expanded sanctions against Russia, by adding a significant number of persons and entities to the sanctions list, and by adopting unprecedented restrictive measures. The EU has shown unity and strength and has provided Ukraine with humanitarian, political, financial and military support.
The EU has also condemned Israel’s actions in the conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon, with the leaders of France, Italy and Spain issuing a joint statement condemning Israel’s actions, saying they were unjustifiable and should immediately come to an end. Sri Lanka’s foreign ministry said it “strongly condemns” the IDF attack which injured two of its soldiers. The UN humanitarians have said that in Lebanon, health workers and medical facilities have continued to be hit and killed by ongoing Israeli bombardment.
The Russian Federation has voiced concern over the tense situation in Samaria Israel. Marked by continued operations by Israeli security forces and violent settlers. They have warned against a regional spill-over, saying that Lebanon and Syria find themselves under threat; additionally, there have been increasing tensions in Iraq and Yemen, whereas Egypt and Jordan are facing unprecedented risks of massive exodus of Palestinians from Gaza.
Israel accuses the UN that its presence provokes violence or acts as a stabilizing influence, igniting debates about its effectiveness in conflict mediation. The continued accusations of War Crimes and genocide from the UN might prompt Israel to break off all diplomatic relations with the UN and expel it from Gaza, Samaria, and Israel. An attack on the UN headquarters in Geneva would not only have significant implications for the UN’s credibility and effectiveness but also have far-reaching consequences for the international balance of power, particularly in the Middle East. As a hub for international diplomacy, Geneva plays a crucial role in facilitating negotiations and diplomatic efforts between countries, including the EU and Russia, on various issues, including the Middle East conflict. A disruption to these efforts would likely have a ripple effect on the international community’s ability to address pressing issues in the region.
Such a 9/11-style bombing would derail ongoing diplomatic talks and negotiations, preventing progress on important issues. It would erode trust between nations and making future cooperation more difficult. It would also empower more hawkish or confrontational foreign policy factions within affected governments. Any bombing by crashing a plane loaded with bombs into the UN Geneva Headquarters would immediately compare to the superficial 9/11 bombing investigation made by Cheney and Bush. While there’s no definitive proof of a systematic effort to destroy all evidence, allegations of the destruction or mishandling of crucial evidence have been raised by various individuals and groups. These allegations are often difficult to verify definitively due to the classified nature of some information.
LikeLike
The Divine Presence Spirit Name simply not a word that fools who translated the Xtian bible and Muslim koran can translate to other words. Attempts to translate the Divine Presence Spirit Name to other words defines the sin of the Golden Calf throughout the Ages. Never once does the Xtian bible or Muslim koran ever bring the Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment Name. To understand the Shemone Esrei tefillah its required to discern the distinction which separates the Av from the Toldoth: Kre’a Shma from Tefillat Shemone Esrei.
The word אדוני a word which the lips of Man can frame and pronounce. This Hebrew word functionally means “הבדלה”. In the 2nd blessing of the Shemone Esri a basic הבדלה separates the living from the dead. The former breath live spirits, while the latter does not. Words spoken do not equal to the spirit of life that breaths and causes the soul of man to live.
This fundamental הבדלה separates the Divine Presence Brit Spirits of the Avot: Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Blowing the Spirit of אדוני requires Oral Torah wisdom. When a sage breathes the Divine Presence Spirits his Spirit Soul becomes “ONE” (think kre’a shma) with the living Spirit Souls of the Avot. Hence breathing these Spirit Souls quickens the lives of the Avot and they live as resurrected from the dead in all generations of bnai brit Israel who breath the Divine Spirit Name and do not kiss the Golden Calf of worshipping words which attempt to pronounce the Name revealed at Sinai as words.
The Spirit Name has 3 parts: One affixes with the oath brit sworn at Gilgal – the Rashi tefillen. The Second affixes with the oath brit sworn at Sh’Cem – the Rabbeinu Tam tefillen.
The Third affixes to הדבר דבלב, a matter of the heart. Herein defines the k’vanna of dav’ning tefillah as opposed and contrasted by saying T’hillem prayers.
The last Parshah of ויקרא inverses the Order of the Avot like as does the Shabbat Mussof Amidah inverses the Order of the Hebrew Alphabet. The Order of the Shemone Esrei affixes 3 blessings at the beginning and 3 blessing at the conclusion. The k’vanna how to blow the spirits of the Avot inverses just like as learned from the closing Parshah of ויקרא. Herein defines the k’vanna of spirits blown in the Shabbat Shemone Esrei and its inverse Order blown during the Musof Amidah. The same equally defines the opposing k’vannot between the Yom Kippur Amida of minchah and Neilah tefillah. כלל: The morning and afternoon tefillot always affix to the two kre’a sha wherein a person accepts the blessings and curses of the Torah.
Hebrew: ש (shin) corresponds to the sound “sh.” Aramaic: ד (dalet) is used for the same sound. This interchange is part of the historical evolution of both languages.
LikeLike
Pingback: Lisa Marie’s Week In Review: 10/7/24 — 10/13/24 | Through the Shattered Lens