Ask JTF for February 2, 2014 is ready, baruch Hashem

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

בס''ד

The program is 54 minutes this week:



For those who would like to download the file for their MP3 players or iPods, the link is provided below:
http://www.jtf.org/ask/2014-02-02.mp3

Please "like" and join our great new English JTF Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Jewish-Task-Force-JTF/460701807304711

And please "like" and join our Hebrew Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/HayaminORG

[TruthSpreader]

Great video. I agree. We don't need another Bush in the White House.

[GreenLightToGo]

Chaim, I agree with you about Jeb Bush & think he's terrible, but are you sure that the war in Iraq was completely unnecessary? Yes, there weren't weapons of mass destruction & the intelligence turned out to be wrong, but what if the intelligence said that there was a 25% chance that Sadam had them? Where's the cut off point where we should allow the risk of someone who puts people through paper shredders having WMDs?

I don't totally agree with how we fight our wars, but I think Sadam was a threat to us to some serious extent. People say "well, why would he use them against us?" For the same reason Adam Lanza shot a bunch of elementary school kids despite having been 20 years old & having no connection to them (he's nuts). Muslims hate the West, & I don't really trust them with anything.

Also, I don't think Christie was ever a serious candidate. Fox describes him as a "potential 2016 presidential candidate", but he consistently has denied having any interest in running. Fox just hates Ted Cruz & other conservative politicians that might actually run so much that they'll try to rally the base around any RINO candidate (even one with no intention of running). Maybe the establishment could convince him to run, but they've been trying to do that for a while and Christie still doesn't show any interest.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

Even if Saddam Hussein had weapons, bombing from the air would be the answer. Why send ground troops into a Muslim country? Regime change doesn't work in Muslim countries. JTF warned back in 2003 that it wouldn't work. I remember seeing how the Iraqis celebrated when Saddam Hussein was overthrown and I thought JTF was wrong but then as the war progressed, I saw JTF was right about it. I guess they were using taqiyya at first to pretend to be happy about the Americans invading. Or maybe they were happy so they could start a civil war which is what happens in all Arab countries without a strong dictator.

JTF foresaw the more distant future. Bush won the war but he lost what was called the "insurgencies". The insurgencies was just normal Arab activity. Look at Syria and Egypt. If Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they should have gone in, killed him, and left. The result would have been the same in the end but instead of having only Arabs killing each other, Arabs also killed American soldiers.

[GreenLightToGo]

Even if Saddam Hussein had weapons, bombing from the air would be the answer. Why send ground troops into a Muslim country? Regime change doesn't work in Muslim countries. JTF warned back in 2003 that it wouldn't work. I remember seeing how the Iraqis celebrated when Saddam Hussein was overthrown and I thought JTF was wrong but then as the war progressed, I saw JTF was right about it. I guess they were using taqiyya at first to pretend to be happy about the Americans invading. Or maybe they were happy so they could start a civil war which is what happens in all Arab countries without a strong dictator.

JTF foresaw the more distant future. Bush won the war but he lost what was called the "insurgencies". The insurgencies was just normal Arab activity. Look at Syria and Egypt. If Bush wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein, they should have gone in, killed him, and left. The result would have been the same in the end but instead of having only Arabs killing each other, Arabs also killed American soldiers.

I support bombing from the air too, and generally not fighting wars with our hands tied behind our backs, but I just don't agree that it was a mistake to do anything at all (not to put words in Chaim's mouth, but that's what it sounded like he was saying to me). I agree with Chaim that Iran is a threat, but I'm not convinced that Sadam wasn't one as well. I think even left-wing Hillary Clinton supported the effort at first, but Obama who hides his college records just knew through his instinctive brilliance that Sadam didn't have WMDs & he opposed the war from the start.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

Saudi Arabia is the biggest threat. That is where Islam was created and the Saudis are even move extreme than Iran. In Saudi Arabia, a woman can't even show her face in public. In Iran they just have to cover their hair. All Arab countries are a threat but if you attack them, then another Arab will take power so what's the difference? Destroying strategic targets is good but otherwise, let them kill each other. American soldiers shouldn't have to favor one terrorist over the other.

[GreenLightToGo]

Saudi Arabia is the biggest threat. That is where Islam was created and the Saudis are even move extreme than Iran. In Saudi Arabia, a woman can't even show her face in public. In Iran they just have to cover their hair. All Arab countries are a threat but if you attack them, then another Arab will take power so what's the difference? Destroying strategic targets is good but otherwise, let them kill each other. American soldiers shouldn't have to favor one terrorist from the other.

In my initial post I asked Chaim if he thought the war in Iraq was completely unnecessary. It sounded like he was suggesting we shouldn't have done anything at all because the intelligence turned out to be wrong. I support attacking from the air, destroying strategic targets, and not using ground troops if it's not necessary.

I also said in my initial post that I don't totally agree with how our wars are fought. Other Arab leaders will come to power eventually if we attack a country and don't keep land. We should keep land when we fight wars in the ME and threaten to take more if they don't shape up (and they won't). Israel in particular also could benefit from taking land. Without our hands tied, there are all kinds of things we could do to damage Muslim morale & scare them.

We favored the terrorist Anwar Al-Awlaki, and got him killed (by a drone attack though & not by ground troops, which I support). He was a terrorist planner & recruiter.

Our wars don't work correctly because we don't take anything when we win. When we win, we should take land, and in addition to that we should just take their oil instead of paying them for it. People can't accuse us of doing something morally wrong because the only reason we can't do business with them is because they use the money to buy/build weapons to kill us. There isn't any comparable business situation for leftists to make a moral equivalence. And if you get rid of there oil money, you get rid of the terrorism.

[Binyamin Yisrael]

The US is not Israel. The US can't have colonies in the Middle East. Israel on the other hand should keep all land it liberates from the occupation of its next door neighbors in war. That includes but not Iran. Iran isn't even in the Greater Land of Israel. If Israel liberated up to the Euphrates River, perhaps then it would be logical to conquer Iran but only for self-defense purposes. The only Land we have a claim to is from the Nile to the Euphrates.

[GreenLightToGo]

The US is not Israel. The US can't have colonies in the Middle East. Israel on the other hand should keep all land it liberates from the occupation of its next door neighbors in war. That includes but not Iran. Iran isn't even in the Greater Land of Israel. If Israel liberated up to the Euphrates River, perhaps then it would be logical to conquer Iran but only for self-defense purposes. The only Land we have a claim to is from the Nile to the Euphrates.

The ME and the Muslim world in general is larger than Greater Israel's borders. The Nile to the Euphrates is only half of Iraq and part of Syria, and none of Iran as you mentioned (as well as part of some other countries). America couldn't take land outside of Greater Israel's borders? Why shouldn't it? Do the rest of the Muslim countries not harbor terrorism? America shouldn't take land in Muslim countries after wars to discourage them from fighting us again?

[Rubystars]

Thanks for the great program!

[Binyamin Yisrael]

The ME and the Muslim world in general is larger than Greater Israel's borders. The Nile to the Euphrates is only half of Iraq and part of Syria, and none of Iran as you mentioned (as well as part of some other countries). America couldn't take land outside of Greater Israel's borders? Why shouldn't it? Do the rest of the Muslim countries not harbor terrorism? America shouldn't take land in Muslim countries after wars to discourage them from fighting us again?

Then you would see suicide bombings all over to kill American soldiers. If America takes land from the Arabs, it would only be worthwhile to keep the land if the Arab are expelled. But where are you going to expel them to? If all Arab countries are taken over by the US, there won't be any Arab countries them to. Then they might try to flood Western countries which they already do anyway but it would be even worse. Or you could drop them off in the middle of Africa. Then they would have terrorist training camps all over Africa.

The US and other Righteous Gentile countries can only take over the Arab countries in the Next World because there will be no evil and evil people won't exist anymore. The Arab countries will be severely depopulated. Righteous Gentiles will then be able to move in there.

[TruthSpreader]

Then you would see suicide bombings all over to kill American soldiers. If America takes land from the Arabs, it would only be worthwhile to keep the land if the Arab are expelled. But where are you going to expel them to? If all Arab countries are taken over by the US, there won't be any Arab countries them to. Then they might try to flood Western countries which they already do anyway but it would be even worse. Or you could drop them off in the middle of Africa. Then they would have terrorist training camps all over Africa.

The US and other Righteous Gentile countries can only take over the Arab countries in the Next World because there will be no evil and evil people won't exist anymore. The Arab countries will be severely depopulated. Righteous Gentiles will then be able to move in there.

I like your plan but how would this work exactly?

[Binyamin Yisrael]

It will only work in the Next World. G-d will eliminate evil from the World and Islam would no longer exist. There would only be Jews and Righteous Gentiles who would follow the Noahide Laws.

It is supernatural and there won't be free will to choose between good or evil. Everyone will only do good things. This will only be in the Next World. You can't go and kill all the Muslims. Only G-d can eliminate the evil people. People would say it's Nazism to go and kill whole nations. It doesn't make sense and would detract from what he need to do. We need the Arabs to have a place of their own in This World so they will stay out of our countries. We don't have to go down to their level and conquer the whole World the way they do.

[GreenLightToGo]

Post 1:

Then you would see suicide bombings all over to kill American soldiers. If America takes land from the Arabs, it would only be worthwhile to keep the land if the Arab are expelled. But where are you going to expel them to? If all Arab countries are taken over by the US, there won't be any Arab countries them to. Then they might try to flood Western countries which they already do anyway but it would be even worse. Or you could drop them off in the middle of Africa. Then they would have terrorist training camps all over Africa.

The US and other Righteous Gentile countries can only take over the Arab countries in the Next World because there will be no evil and evil people won't exist anymore. The Arab countries will be severely depopulated. Righteous Gentiles will then be able to move in there.

Post 2:

It will only work in the Next World. G-d will eliminate evil from the World and Islam would no longer exist. There would only be Jews and Righteous Gentiles who would follow the Noahide Laws.

It is supernatural and there won't be free will to choose between good or evil. Everyone will only do good things. This will only be in the Next World. You can't go and kill all the Muslims. Only G-d can eliminate the evil people. People would say it's Nazism to go and kill whole nations. It doesn't make sense and would detract from what he need to do. We need the Arabs to have a place of their own in This World so they will stay out of our countries. We don't have to go down to their level and conquer the whole World the way they do.

There'll always be suicide bombings & terrorism from the Muslims, unless you show them strength because that's the only language they speak. They're provocateurs, and the only chance that they'll stop is if you give them more of a rise then they're looking for.

Does not taking land stop terrorism with regard to Israel? Israel gets war despite that they offer land.

Binyamin, like I said above, Israel gives up land and Israel is compared to the Nazis. I personally don't care if the world's left-wingers call us Nazis for taking Muslim land. Are they going to threaten to shutdown & defund the United Nations that America pays for if we take Muslim land? Muslims claim the entire world belongs to Islam; they don't respect anybody's borders, so why should we respect theirs? We'd be conquering parts of the Muslim world, not the whole world. Only the Muslims want that.