JTF.ORG Forum

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Secularbeliever on September 07, 2009, 04:42:22 PM

Title: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Secularbeliever on September 07, 2009, 04:42:22 PM
I know we had an earlier thread where I was in the minority in not favoring the indiscriminate murder of Arabs such as in the cases of Baruch Goldstein and Ami Popper.  I considered it a good and spirited discussion.  However, now I would like to discuss cases where I feel we need much more force in defense of ourselves and our nation.

If we know of a training camp where suicide bombers are being trained it should be attacked with air power.  Now just to be clear we know they have kids as young as 5 training in such places.  I don't mean to be callous but since they are heading to martyrdom, we can get them their wish (or their parents' wish) early.  In fact I would favor targeted assassinations of anyone who sends their children to such places.  If it discourages others from doing so and keeps these savages from breeding more martyrs so much the better.

If we know of a factory where Kassams or suicide belts are being manufactured they shoudl be hit by the air force and not in the middle of the night when nobody is there.  Hit them during peak activity.  If the word gets out that these are very dangerous places to work, so much the better.

Parades for Hamas, suicide bombers, etc. should be viewed as target rich environments.  Maybe not bombing with killing entire crowds (although I would not rule that out), but certainly snipers where available to take out the leaders of such groups.

No brainer, if terrorists hide behind civilians they do not get a free pass as a result.  Again I do not favor killing innocent civilians and would to some degree bend over backwards to avoid killing them, but if they allow terrorists to hide among them they need to know they are taking on risk and that it is their responsibility to avoid the risk, not ours to risk our children's lives so they can do so.

Stop persecuting Jews for self defense.  A major apology for Daniel Pinner who might have shot an Arab who was coming after him with aggression.  A medal for Avri Ran who lives without a fence or gate among hostile Arabs but beats the snot out of those who endanger him.  That is the model of how Jews should live in Eretz Yisrael, make their enemies afraid, not hide behind gates and guards.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 07, 2009, 04:47:39 PM
I know we had an earlier thread where I was in the minority in not favoring the indiscriminate murder of Arabs such as in the cases of Baruch Goldstein and Ami Popper.
Those were not "indiscriminate murders", and besides, how can you "murder" Amalek? I want you to read Deuteronomy 7:2 to me.

Quote
Now just to be clear we know they have kids as young as 5 training in such places.  I don't mean to be callous but since they are heading to martyrdom, we can get them their wish (or their parents' wish) early.
We need to be more callous with this subhuman sewage. These creatures dance around in the street and throw out candy when Jews are murdered when they are as little as two years old. 

Quote
and not in the middle of the night when nobody is there.  Hit them during peak activity.  If the word gets out that these are very dangerous places to work, so much the better.
The Israeli public right now would not tolerate the killing of large numbers of Arab children, even if they are not intentionally targeted.

Quote
Maybe not bombing with killing entire crowds (although I would not rule that out),
Ahem, I refer you back to Deut 7:2.

Quote
Again I do not favor killing innocent civilians and would to some degree bend over backwards to avoid killing them
Excuse me!?!?! How can any member of Muslim Nazi Amalek be "innocent"? That is a self-hating statement.

Quote
Stop persecuting Jews for self defense.  A major apology for Daniel Pinner who might have shot an Arab who was coming after him with aggression.  A medal for Avri Ran who lives without a fence or gate among hostile Arabs but beats the snot out of those who endanger him.  That is the model of how Jews should live in Eretz Yisrael, make their enemies afraid, not hide behind gates and guards.
Israel's secular majority believes in "the rule of law" and applying the law "impartially".
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Secularbeliever on September 07, 2009, 06:48:33 PM
Excuse me!?!?! How can any member of Muslim Nazi Amalek be "innocent"? That is a self-hating statement.<<

This is where guys like you totally lose me.  Do you not think there are Arabs who don't care about politics, who would rather not just live quietly?  I know for a fact that such Arabs exist because I have a friend of that sort.  I don't know if this represents 5, 10 or 30% of the Arab world.  It is impossible to know since as long as the savages control that world people are afraid to speak out.  I don't have a problem telling them that they have to make a choice and that standing with the savages might get them killed by us but we need to do a better job of projecting strength so they are more afraid of us than they are of the savages.

So you favor total indiscriminate killing of Arabs, men women, and children?  Would you kill a newborn baby in the hospital?  Would you build death camps for them?  Have you really thought this through?

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 07, 2009, 06:56:13 PM
This is where guys like you totally lose me.  Do you not think there are Arabs who don't care about politics, who would rather not just live quietly?
Yes, maybe a couple dozen or hundred at most Druze and (real) Christian Arabs, which Chaim and most of us would have no problem with letting stay in Israel if they would be law-abiding.

Quote
I know for a fact that such Arabs exist because I have a friend of that sort.
Arabs are trained in the fine art of taqqiyah from childhood.

Quote
I don't know if this represents 5, 10 or 30% of the Arab world.
Try maybe 1/1000th of 1%.

Quote
It is impossible to know since as long as the savages control that world people are afraid to speak out.
Why are Arabs ferocious anti-Semites even when they live in free places like America and Europe? 

Quote
I don't have a problem telling them that they have to make a choice and that standing with the savages might get them killed by us but we need to do a better job of projecting strength so they are more afraid of us than they are of the savages.
The only language that savages understand is more brutality than they themselves can dish out.

Quote
So you favor total indiscriminate killing of Arabs, men women, and children?  Would you kill a newborn baby in the hospital?  Would you build death camps for them?  Have you really thought this through?
Did you read that Bible verse that I gave you? I know that you are secular as indicated by your username, but do you really think that G-d would ever order innocent people killed? If G-d gave an order to wipe out Amalek wholesale, don't you think He knew that every last one of them had chosen evil or would choose evil when at the age of accountability? Do you think he would order people who He knew would repent later on killed?
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: The One and Only Mo on September 07, 2009, 07:40:30 PM
 :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :israel: :israel: :israel: :israel: :usa: :usa: :usa: :usa+israel: :usa+israel: :usa+israel: :usa+israel: :fist: :fist: :fist: :fireworks: :fireworks: :fireworks: :fireworks:
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Secularbeliever on September 07, 2009, 08:24:09 PM
Did you read that Bible verse that I gave you? I know that you are secular as indicated by your username, but do you really think that G-d would ever order innocent people killed? If G-d gave an order to wipe out Amalek wholesale, don't you think He knew that every last one of them had chosen evil or would choose evil when at the age of accountability? Do you think he would order people who He knew would repent later on killed?<<

As someone who is a believer, although secular, this is exactly the type of thought that scares me about some religious people.  Do you know that the Arabs are another case of Amelekites?  Are you sure about that?  I don't always oppose killing innocent people.  As I said I would favor hitting targets where terrorists are hiding behind civilians.  I favor the atomic bombs having been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombing of Dresden.  These were tactics needed to defeat a horribly brutal enenmy and not decisions taken lightly.  In fact it is estimated that the atomic bomb saved the lives of a million American soldiers and millions of Japanese who would have been killed in an invasion of the mainland.  I would not rule out Israel using nuclear weapons if the need arose, as supposedly it was contemplated during the Yom Kippur War.  However, this are very thoughtful reluctant decisions to take very brutal steps by civilized people with the understanding that it is an awesome responsibility to cause that level of suffering on innocents.

Again I ask you, would you go into a hospital ward and kill newborn Arab children?  Would you do it personally or just say that it is a good idea while sitting behind the safety of a computer keyboard?  Would you work as a guard at a death camp?  I would not do those things.  On the other hand I would gladly go to Israel to pull the switch at an execution of the sniper who murdered Shellhevet Pass or the moron who gleefully showed his bloody hands after taking part in the murder of the two soldiers, or the woman who lured the teenager to be murdered. 
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Yochai on September 07, 2009, 09:08:47 PM
As I have stated before, it is very problematic to state that the Fakestinians are Amalek, mainly for the fact that there is no such thing as a Fakestinian. 

If they are Amalek, then all Arabs are Amalek, and this too is quite problematic, because Arabs for the most part do not live in Eretz Yisrael, and thus do not warrant to be killed.

Furthermore, an issue like this is something for the Rabbis to decide, and I do not agree with people so simply stating "Arabs are Amalek", unless they are Torah Scholars themselves.

If Arabs are Amalek, this also means they could never live as Gerei Toshav, regardless of whether they are righteous Christians or not.  The fact that it was stated that there are righteous Christian Arabs pretty much would exclude them from being Amalek, as there could be no such Amalekites.

I have been told by more than one Rabbi that the modern Palestinians are more congruent to the Seven nations.  That is, that we are to drive them out of our land, but not in the same manner that Amalekites are to be dealt in.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 07, 2009, 09:17:28 PM
As someone who is a believer, although secular, this is exactly the type of thought that scares me about some religious people.
What I said comes directly from the Bible. G-d's word is perfect, inerrant, and permanent.

Quote
Do you know that the Arabs are another case of Amelekites?  Are you sure about that?  I don't always oppose killing innocent people.
The Arabs are obviously Amalek. Any nation that devotes itself fully to the annihilation of Jewry is Amalek in whatever generation they are in. I think that the Arabs are even worse than the German and Japanese Nazis. How can I say that? You didn't see the Germans and Japanese blowing themselves up just to kill Jews. You didn't see Germans sending their children into the streets to use as human bombs against Jewish children.

Quote
As I said I would favor hitting targets where terrorists are hiding behind civilians.  I favor the atomic bombs having been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombing of Dresden.  These were tactics needed to defeat a horribly brutal enenmy and not decisions taken lightly.
I think the Arab Muslim Nazis are at least as brutal as the German and Japanese Nazis. They deserve everything that they faced and then some.

Quote
In fact it is estimated that the atomic bomb saved the lives of a million American soldiers and millions of Japanese who would have been killed in an invasion of the mainland.
Agreed.

Quote
I would not rule out Israel using nuclear weapons if the need arose, as supposedly it was contemplated during the Yom Kippur War.
I wouldn't do that unless absolutely necessary because what the fallout would do to Jews.

Quote
However, this are very thoughtful reluctant decisions to take very brutal steps by civilized people with the understanding that it is an awesome responsibility to cause that level of suffering on innocents.
Here is the heart of the disconnect that we have, Secular. You are secular; I am religious. I perceive that the facade that our culture has about "human rights" is a pitiful effort that we make to castrate ourselves. There cannot be "human rights" for people who according to Holy Scriptures are sub-human. You can't "murder" a murderer. I derive my whole sense and understanding of right vs. wrong from the Holy Bible. I understand that a literal interpretation of the Word of G-d is not politically correct, but so be it. The great Ravs have said that anyone who is merciful to the cruel, will be cruel to the merciful. I do not think that you would ever willfully be that way but I do want you to see what the implication of this G-dless worldview has been in Israel. Amir Popper was sentenced to life without parole and Dr. Baruch Goldstein (zt"l) would almost certainly have been executed had he lived, and Chaim Ben Pesach is forbidden from setting foot in Israel--but Samir Kuntar and hundreds of other Arab mass murderers have been pardoned and Arik Sharon (yimach schmo) agreed to not capture the killers of Shalhevet Pass and Tali Fahuel (zt"l) as one of the "conditions" of "ending" the Second Intifada.

Quote
Again I ask you, would you go into a hospital ward and kill newborn Arab children?  Would you do it personally or just say that it is a good idea while sitting behind the safety of a computer keyboard?
I don't appreciate you trying to get me to say something wrong. I stated what the Holy Bible teaches on Amalek and that is it. It is not my job to wipe out Amalek. I am a Gentile living in the United States with no connection or authority in Israel whatsoever. It is the job of the leaders of Israel whom G-d has entrusted with the task of reigning the Holy Land. My role in this, at all, is to try to convince average Jews why their Hellenized brainwashing from the Bolshevik government is so very wrong and why it is resulting in national suicide before their eyes. What they decide to do with that, is their decision between them and G-d.

Quote
Would you work as a guard at a death camp?  I would not do those things.
I don't appreciate you saying that, and that never, ever happened anyway. Joshua and the heroic Torah Jews of his generation didn't build death camps for the Nazi Canaanites (as much as those proto-Muslim Nazis deserved it).

Quote
On the other hand I would gladly go to Israel to pull the switch at an execution of the sniper who murdered Shellhevet Pass or the moron who gleefully showed his bloody hands after taking part in the murder of the two soldiers, or the woman who lured the teenager to be murdered. 
Well, think about it. You're already to the right of many typical Israelis just by saying that. The Nazi establishment that rules the Holy Land would call you a fascist, extremist, or racist terrorist for saying just that.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 07, 2009, 09:22:15 PM
If they are Amalek, then all Arabs are Amalek, and this too is quite problematic, because Arabs for the most part do not live in Eretz Yisrael, and thus do not warrant to be killed.
The Vilna Gaon stated that any total enemy of the Jewish people, in any generation, is Amalek for that generation. He meant the so-called "Christian" Europeans when he spoke of Amalek in his time, and the Muslims of today are even more totally evil than they were. There isn't much more of a total enemy of the Jewish people than the Arabs. Your objections here are irrelevant, because (a) those Arabs living in Israel certainly are Amalek, and (b) the vast majority of Eretz Israel is under Arab control right now in the hands of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, etc.

Quote
Furthermore, an issue like this is something for the Rabbis to decide, and I do not agree with people so simply stating "Arabs are Amalek", unless they are Torah Scholars themselves.
The Vilna Gaon is pretty much the biggest Torah Scholar you get.

Quote
If Arabs are Amalek, this also means they could never live as Gerei Toshav, regardless of whether they are righteous Christians or not.  The fact that it was stated that there are righteous Christian Arabs pretty much would exclude them from being Amalek, as there could be no such Amalekites.
G-d gives every human being free will. G-d was willing to consider the existence of righteous people in Sodom, after all (even though there weren't any). If a tiny handful of Amalek chooses not to be Amalek, why shouldn't they be acknowledged?

Quote
I have been told by more than one Rabbi that the modern Palestinians are more congruent to the Seven nations.  That is, that we are to drive them out of our land, but not in the same manner that Amalekites are to be dealt in.
You should ask Chaim about this.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Yochai on September 07, 2009, 09:36:20 PM
It is very interesting that you cite the Gra's opinion on this, which is known to be the most extreme.  Not that this is an issue for me, as I am Jewish, but the Gra stated that Amalek is composed of EVERY Christian and Ishmaelite, and this is not an opinion I agree with, as it would mean that Amalek consists of billions of people, and also denies the existence of righteous Christians.

Rav Kahane did not state that all the Arabs in EY were Amalek, and this is the view I take.

Nonethless, whether or not they are Amalek, they are still a people who are on our land and who we are at war with.  The Rav did not mince words on this issue, and stated that they are to be as all enemies are treated in a Milchemet Mitzvah.

Also, you stated: "If a tiny handful of Amalek chooses not to be Amalek, why shouldn't they be acknowledged?".  This goes against the idea of Amalek, which is something that one cannot choose to be or not be.  This is why we are ordered to kill even the infants of the Amalekites, becuase they are inherently evil, and there could be no such thing as righteous Amalek.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 07, 2009, 09:53:22 PM
I'm not the great Torah Scholar is, Chaim is. I know that the Vilna Gaon is a pretty high and supreme Torah authority though. He has said many times that Arabs are Amalek. You should ask him directly on Ask JTF.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Yochai on September 07, 2009, 10:10:19 PM
I'm not the great Torah Scholar is, Chaim is. I know that the Vilna Gaon is a pretty high and supreme Torah authority though. He has said many times that Arabs are Amalek. You should ask him directly on Ask JTF.

Well, this is the beauty of Judaism.  As they say, two Jews, three opinions.

One does not have to follow anything that any Rabbi said, as long as he is living a Jewish lifestyle.  Differences of philosophy do not in any way mean anybody is wrong or right, as they are all just difference of approaches(Within the law of the Torah.  Granted any non-orthodox opinion means squat)

Chaim may believe that, and he is eons ahead of me in terms of his knowledge of Torah, but I do not hold this opnion.  Of course, my hashkafa is always subject to change, as returning to Teshuva is quite overwhelming, and as one learns more and more, their hashkafa is challenged and moulded.

Regardless, this debate is highly semantical, as it seems to me that both of us agree on the practical action that must be taken, and that our disagreement mainly lies in the framing of the religious aspect of this practical action. 
We both agree that these people must go, and that should a war break out (or already has been going on for 60 years, depending on who you talk to), we shall show them no mercy.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Secularbeliever on September 07, 2009, 10:38:57 PM
We both agree that these people must go, and that should a war break out (or already has been going on for 60 years, depending on who you talk to), we shall show them no mercy. <<

I thought I was taking a hard line until I heard from Bonesfan.  I guess what gives me a secular outlook, is that while I believe in G-d, I don't claim to know what G-d is thinking.  Before I start killing babies I would have to have it demonstrated to me that it is absolutely necessary in ways beyond someone saying that the Arabs deserve the same treatment as the Amalekites based on some Rabbi's reading of the Torah.  I honestly believe with the steps I have suggested there would be no need to engage in indiscriminate killing of civilians.  For instance if we bombed a missile factory during work hours and 30 factory workers died recruiting people to work in those factories would become more difficult for the savages.  If people start to fear the IDF more than they do the Hamas or Fatah it would change things. 

In fact like the Japanese who were saved by the atomic bombing many Arabs would be saved by Israel taking a truly hard line.  In fact liberals should be held accountable for the deaths of civilians in Operation Cast Lead.  Had they not given Gaza to the Arabs, then Hamas would never have come to power, and there would be no Kassams being fired at the Negev.  Had there been a brutal response to the first Kassams there might have been no more fired and fewer Jews and Arabs would have been killed in later fighting.
 
 
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Secularbeliever on September 07, 2009, 11:02:10 PM
I don't appreciate you trying to get me to say something wrong.<<

I am not trying to trap you into saying something, I am trying to get you to think about what you are saying and hopefully realize that it is a huge step involving heinous acts that we as a people will later regret.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Secularbeliever on September 07, 2009, 11:23:56 PM
Amir Popper was sentenced to life without parole and Dr. Baruch Goldstein (zt"l) would almost certainly have been executed had he lived, and Chaim Ben Pesach is forbidden from setting foot in Israel--but Samir Kuntar and hundreds of other Arab mass murderers have been pardoned and Arik Sharon (yimach schmo) agreed to not capture the killers of Shalhevet Pass and Tali Fahuel (zt"l) as one of the "conditions" of "ending" the Second Intifada.<<

Let me try to take these one at a time.  Popper was sentenced to life but his sentence was reduced (for reasons I don't know of) and a Canadian Kahanist woman married him and he had children with her.  He had previously been forcibly discharged by the Army.  When he was caught for murdering the Arabs he initially claimed he was upset over being dumped by his girlfriend and later said the murders were revenge for having been raped by an Arab in his early teens.  He was given a furlough from prison and caused a car accident (he crossed over a divider line and was driving with a license that expired 8 years prior) that killed his wife and one of his children.  The guy has nut and loser written all over him and in my opinion should not be viewed by anyone as a hero.

Goldstein would likely not have been executed if he survived.  I have sympathy for Goldstein, he is my age, an ex Brooklyn JDLer like myself (oddly I had a buddy in the JDL named Goldstein and when this first happened my first thought was that my friend was the shooter).  Goldstein would probably have gotten the same sentence as Yigal Amir or possibly claimed diminished capacity which I think is probably what he was.  I think he was a good guy who snapped over the killings of his friends.  His actions were understandable but not excuseable.

I certainly agree that Chaim should be allowed into Israel and that Kahanists should not be banned.  If we allow Arab parties and Peace Now we cannot fairly ban Kahanists.  That Kuntar is still alive let alone free is just an abomination.

I was not aware that the murderer of Shellhevet Pass was not captured.  I was under the impression that both the sniper as well as the handler were captured.  If what you say is accurate that is beyond awful.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 12:40:13 AM
I thought I was taking a hard line until I heard from Bonesfan.  I guess what gives me a secular outlook, is that while I believe in G-d, I don't claim to know what G-d is thinking.  Before I start killing babies I would have to have it demonstrated to me that it is absolutely necessary in ways beyond someone saying that the Arabs deserve the same treatment as the Amalekites based on some Rabbi's reading of the Torah.  I honestly believe with the steps I have suggested there would be no need to engage in indiscriminate killing of civilians.  For instance if we bombed a missile factory during work hours and 30 factory workers died recruiting people to work in those factories would become more difficult for the savages.  If people start to fear the IDF more than they do the Hamas or Fatah it would change things. 

In fact like the Japanese who were saved by the atomic bombing many Arabs would be saved by Israel taking a truly hard line.  In fact liberals should be held accountable for the deaths of civilians in Operation Cast Lead.  Had they not given Gaza to the Arabs, then Hamas would never have come to power, and there would be no Kassams being fired at the Negev.  Had there been a brutal response to the first Kassams there might have been no more fired and fewer Jews and Arabs would have been killed in later fighting.

There is a difference between the Tojo Japanese and the Arabs, and that is that the latter are even more thoroughly cruel and satanic. The Tojo Japanese were very, very bad, but at least a few of them didn't necessarily go along with the fanaticism of the regime. They lived under a barbaric fascist military dictatorship. By contrast the Arabs DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Hamas. I do not buy it that Hamas is really worse than Fatah, but they are more open about commiting a second Holocaust, and the average Arabs really picked up on that.

I still do not believe there can be any such thing as an "innocent civilian" when it comes to Amalek. Western notions of "human rights" just aren't found anywhere in Scripture and I do believe that someone called "innocent" have better earned that title. By any rational measure of comparison of the Arabs to their ancestors the Hittites or Amorites the Arabs are just as bad in every facet of measurement if not worse. The Amorites burned their children alive as sacrifices to Molech and the Arabs send their children out with dynamite belts into Israeli soldiers as a sacrifice to their demon idol Allah. G-d warned that if Israel did not utterly destroy Amalek that weak Israelites would be tempted by their idolatrous ways and look, what do we have today? Self-hating Israeli youth getting involved in Arab drugs, gangs, and prostitution. If there are any Arabs that are not totally evil they should have the sense to leave now or turn themselves into the IDF and plead for mercy. You and I disagree on the total number of them.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 12:47:14 AM
I am not trying to trap you into saying something, I am trying to get you to think about what you are saying and hopefully realize that it is a huge step involving heinous acts that we as a people will later regret.
The fact that you think Jews will "regret" obeying G-d's commandments regarding the Nazi idolater occupants of their own land shows how horribly perverse and self-hating this generation of secularized Jews has become. If Jews really, truly feel more sorry for satanic Nazi demons than their own heroes who stood up to the Nazi demons (like Popper and Goldstein) that is an abomination worse than any gay orgy in the brothels of Tel Aviv. (By the way, I don't think you are correct about either Goldstein or Popper. Goldstein had very good intelligence that Fatah was planning an ambush at the Cave of the Patriarchs and Popper, if I understand correctly, was mentally scarred by being raped by Arabs as a child. It doesn't matter though, the Bible is clear what to do about Amalek.*)

*My church actually had a sermon about Amalek this summer. G-d made a distinction between garden-variety occupants of the Holy Land and surrounding areas, such as the Moabites (who were idolatrous and wicked, but had not actually raised their hand against the Jews) who were to be expelled from the land and permitted to live, and all-out supremely evil Amalek nations such as the Amorites, who had launched Nazi jihads against the Israelites as they crossed in from Egypt. The latter were to be irrevocably and completely wiped out without exception. Please tell me what is different between modern Arabs and the Amorites.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on September 08, 2009, 01:06:51 AM
Excuse me!?!?! How can any member of Muslim Nazi Amalek be "innocent"? That is a self-hating statement.<<

This is where guys like you totally lose me.  Do you not think there are Arabs who don't care about politics, who would rather not just live quietly?  I know for a fact that such Arabs exist because I have a friend of that sort.  I don't know if this represents 5, 10 or 30% of the Arab world.  It is impossible to know since as long as the savages control that world people are afraid to speak out.  I don't have a problem telling them that they have to make a choice and that standing with the savages might get them killed by us but we need to do a better job of projecting strength so they are more afraid of us than they are of the savages.

So you favor total indiscriminate killing of Arabs, men women, and children?  Would you kill a newborn baby in the hospital?  Would you build death camps for them?  Have you really thought this through?


Wait a minute!        " would you build death camps for them? "
Jews defending themselves against nazi muslims is an absolute must.  How can you ask such a question as that? It is the nazi muslims who will build death camps for the Jews. Remember this: The muslims adore hitler and sell copies of his book mein kamp throughout the Middle East.

I can't speak for Bonesfan, but I can speak for myself and yes, I would not shed one tear for any muslim that is killed in the act of war, and that includes their newborns being killed. You think muslims give a chit about Newborn Jews? Muslims murder them in Pizza parlors while they are still in their Mothers wombs.

Keep in mind we did not start this war, the muslims did.

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on September 08, 2009, 01:27:32 AM
Secular, do you understand what islam is and it's agenda?
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 01:35:43 AM
Wait a minute!        " would you build death camps for them? "
Jews defending themselves against nazi muslims is an absolute must.  How can you ask such a question as that? It is the nazi muslims who will build death camps for the Jews. Remember this: The muslims adore hitler and sell copies of his book mein kamp throughout the Middle East.

I can't speak for Bonesfan, but I can speak for myself and yes, I would not shed one tear for any muslim that is killed in the act of war, and that includes their newborns being killed. You think muslims give a chit about Newborn Jews? Muslims murder them in Pizza parlors while they are still in their Mothers wombs.

Keep in mind we did not start this war, the muslims did.
As usual, Dox is right on. Secularbeliever is completely typical of the mainstream Israeli mindset today. Yes, he wants the Israeli government to crush the terrorists once and for all, and kill their leaders (neither of which either Kadima or Likud is willing to do), but he doesn't understand the Biblical concept of Amalek because he is secular and has been raised with left-wing Western conceptions of civil rights. G-d knows human nature better than current philosophical trends and if He says that Israel better completely eliminate Amalek or else, He knows what He is talking about. You see where 60 years of Israel coddling the Arabs has gotten them to date. Secularbeliever has good intentions, but his answer, which is based upon the worldview he has been raised in, is merely an escalated version of the status quo, rather than the true Scriptural answer.

And as for his comment about "newborn Arabs", I can just say that there is a 100% chance that within two years, these so-called innocent Arab babies will be jumping around on their front lawns when al-Jazeera announces that a Qassam or Katyusha rocket has killed a Jew, singing and hollering and giving candy to all their devilspawn friends in the neighborhood. That's not a human child; that's a demon. Anyone who really wants to make an excuse for such satanic behavior should go see a psychologist for some analysis.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Manch on September 08, 2009, 01:47:26 AM
The fair ratio is 1 to 1000. A proper ratio would be 1 to 10,000. Let me explain - there are hundred time more of our enemies than us, and in order to have a proper deterrent, they have to experience the pain at least 10 times more than we do.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Spectator on September 08, 2009, 01:54:28 AM
My church actually had a sermon about Amalek this summer. G-d made a distinction between garden-variety occupants of the Holy Land and surrounding areas, such as the Moabites (who were idolatrous and wicked, but had not actually raised their hand against the Jews) who were to be expelled from the land and permitted to live, and all-out supremely evil Amalek nations such as the Amorites, who had launched Nazi jihads against the Israelites as they crossed in from Egypt. The latter were to be irrevocably and completely wiped out without exception. Please tell me what is different between modern Arabs and the Amorites.

Bones, Amorites were not Amalek. They were evil, no doubt, and certainly deserved what they got, but they were not Amalek. Amalekites lived in Negev and Amorites lived in present-day Jordan.

Also,  what proof do you have that Arabs are Amalekites? They are Ismaelites, desendants of Ismael, son of Abraham and brother of Isaac. While it is clear (by their Nazi behavior) that many of them have some Amalekite blood, you cannot apply to them all Amalek law.

This does not mean we must not fight against them. They have waged war against us, and we must act accordingly. You are right that hunting for specific terrorists is not sufficient. But Amalek law is inapplicable to them.

My opinion that Israel should act against Arab agressors as the Allies acted against Nazi Germany.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on September 08, 2009, 01:54:50 AM
Bonesfan, I am wondering if Secular truly understands what islam is. It appears from what I read, that he has some reservations about the civilian muslim population, but what I cannot understand is how can he overlook the facts regarding muslims and their daily murderous sprees across the globe and their incessant propanganda against the Jews.

perhaps Secular has some degree of faith toward muslims who claim to be non violent? I know for a fact that muslims are trained from birth to lie to the infidels and their ultimate goal is World dominance. How and why muslims are gaining Global dominance is a question Secular should ask himself.

The evidence is right before his eyes.


                                                              Shalom - Dox

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: briann on September 08, 2009, 02:08:17 AM
Since I am somewhat secular myself, let me give you an alternate way to look at this.

I nor anyone else here, believe that Islam is a religion... just like we wouldnt refer to Naziism or Communism as a religion... so please dont try and look at this issue as a theological one.

Islam, Naziism are ideologies that promote intolerance and hate.  The question then becomes is it apropriate to hate an idiology that teaches hate, and the answer should be a resounding yes.

What level of action or violence is appropriate against Islam???  The same level that was appropriate against the Nazis and Naziism.  Not to kill all that have been brainwashed by it, but to do all we can to destroy the institutions and people that spread the hate.  It has to be a process of de-Islamification.  This is a fight of good against evil, not one religion against another.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Spectator on September 08, 2009, 02:12:04 AM
Since I am somewhat secular myself, let me give you an alternate way to look at this.

I nor anyone else here, believe that Islam is a religion... just like we wouldnt refer to Naziism or Communism as a religion... so please dont try and look at this issue as a theological one.

Islam, Naziism are ideologies that promote intolerance and hate.  The question then becomes is it apropriate to hate an idiology that teaches hate, and the answer should be a resounding yes.

What level of action or violence is appropriate against Islam???  The same level that was appropriate against the Nazis and Naziism.  Not to kill all that have been brainwashed by it, but to do all we can to destroy the institutions and people that spread the hate.  It has to be a process of de-Islamification.  This is a fight of good against evil, not one religion against another.


I completely agree.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Manch on September 08, 2009, 02:15:26 AM
as far as killing arab children, who they are growing up as? Why my children should suffer from the hands of these ghouls?
(http://www.holyland-inc.net/israel-politics/baby-bomber.jpg)

Now, Kahanism doesn't advocate killing of any arabs - rabbi Kahane famously said that when Kahane is a PM, no arabs will be killed, because there will be no arabs in Israel. This is the only sane policy!
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Manch on September 08, 2009, 02:21:51 AM
What level of action or violence is appropriate against Islam???  The same level that was appropriate against the Nazis and Naziism.  Not to kill all that have been brainwashed by it, but to do all we can to destroy the institutions and people that spread the hate.  It has to be a process of de-Islamification.  This is a fight of good against evil, not one religion against another.

The probelm with your logic is that Islam is a way of life, nazism wasn't - islam have roots in human psyche of 1,300 years, nazism had only 12 years! Whereas enlightened German people where able relatively easy and, I must say, with a sense of relief to shrug off their nazi nightmare, primitive islamic savages will not be able to do so with their islamic death cult. How can you make such a superficial comparison!? Bones is 100% right - these are amalekites and should all be defeated in spirit and in the body. We should help their remnants to transform and leave their death cult.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 09:17:16 AM
The probelm with your logic is that Islam is a way of life, nazism wasn't - islam have roots in human psyche of 1,300 years, nazism had only 12 years! Whereas enlightened German people where able relatively easy and, I must say, with a sense of relief to shrug off their nazi nightmare, primitive islamic savages will not be able to do so with their islamic death cult. How can you make such a superficial comparison!? Bones is 100% right - these are amalekites and should all be defeated in spirit and in the body. We should help their remnants to transform and leave their death cult.
First off--to all of those who say that Arabs are not Amalek, Amorites are not Amalek, etc.--remember that like Edom, Amalek is a spiritual concept with many possible constituent members depending on the era, not one singular race. ANY nation that devotes itself fully to the murder of Jewry at any given time is Amalek. G-d would not have told the Israelites to completely wipe out the Amorite Nazis (who were very similar to today's Fakestinians) if they weren't Amalekites.

As for helping the remnants of Islam to "transform and leave their death cult", I have mixed feelings about that. I'm all for trying, I'm just not sure if it will do any good. Jonah preached to the Ninevites and they did in fact repent, for a generation, but they were less fanatically evil than today's Muslims. There are Christian missionaries today who focus on the Islamic world (albeit not many). Obviously I wish them nothing but the very best of luck, and applaud them for their fearlessness in spreading the Gospel, but barring an enormous miracle, I don't see them having lots of success with these demons.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Spectator on September 08, 2009, 10:42:02 AM
G-d would not have told the Israelites to completely wipe out the Amorite Nazis (who were very similar to today's Fakestinians) if they weren't Amalekites.

No. It was necessary to wipe out Amorites because it was another special commandment. G-d told about it separately. The same thing with the commandment to destroy Canaanites.  It has nothing to do with Amalek except the fact all the three nations were extremely evil. But each one in its own way.

Therefore you cannot apply Amalek law on Arabs. G-d didn't say they all must be destroyed, so that's it. Neither you can't prove they all descend from Amalek.

Torah is the absolute truth so every idea, even a very good one, should be weighed against it, and not vice versa.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: IsraeliGovtAreKapos on September 08, 2009, 10:58:04 AM
בס"ד
One after one.

Quote
I know we had an earlier thread where I was in the minority in not favoring the indiscriminate murder of Arabs such as in the cases of Baruch Goldstein and Ami Popper.  I considered it a good and spirited discussion.  However, now I would like to discuss cases where I feel we need much more force in defense of ourselves and our nation.
The case of Baruch Goldstein ZTVK"L HY"D was a self-defense action. The Arabs who were praying at this evil mosque were planning to capture a number of Jews from the so-called Ha'Rovah Ha'Yehudi of Hebro and maybe even murder them G-D forbid.
I find nothing morally wrong with mironic non-macro+civilian actions against Arabs and Muslims, after all, living them alive IS morally wrong. The thing is that such actions are not effective in the macro level.

Quote
If we know of a training camp where suicide bombers are being trained it should be attacked with air power.  Now just to be clear we know they have kids as young as 5 training in such places.  I don't mean to be callous but since they are heading to martyrdom, we can get them their wish (or their parents' wish) early.  In fact I would favor targeted assassinations of anyone who sends their children to such places.  If it discourages others from doing so and keeps these savages from breeding more martyrs so much the better.
That's actually more ignorance in Islam than a good plan. While Judaism (I believe you're Jewish?) sanctifies life, Islam in its basic sanctifies death (wether the Muslim is a Shi'ite, Sunni, Su'ffi, Mallucki, etc). Look at Afghanistan. The Soviet bombed the weck outta the "Mujahideen" training camps and that didn't really help, the war is global and according to the most famous and acceptable preach of Hassan Al-Bannah, in a situation/time when the Islamic State ("Caliphate") is not avaliable/occupied by "Kuffars", the "commandament of Jihad" goes to every single Muslim, whether a boy, a girl, a camel, a kid, an old lady.

Quote
If we know of a factory where Kassams or suicide belts are being manufactured they shoudl be hit by the air force and not in the middle of the night when nobody is there.  Hit them during peak activity.  If the word gets out that these are very dangerous places to work, so much the better.
That's actually what we were trying to do in Lebanon 3 years ago, it was NOT effective since we didn't define our enemy, and it's not terrorist but Islam as its own.
The solution for the Gazan problem is a Dresden bombing number 2, I wanna see the Muslim version of this:
(http://www.haayal.co.il/images/1659.jpg)
CEO TOUT.
Quote
Parades for Hamas, suicide bombers, etc. should be viewed as target rich environments.  Maybe not bombing with killing entire crowds (although I would not rule that out), but certainly snipers where available to take out the leaders of such groups.
Not only those but also Muslim houses, buildings, prayers, mosques, well u got the point didn't u?
Quote
No brainer, if terrorists hide behind civilians they do not get a free pass as a result.  Again I do not favor killing innocent civilians and would to some degree bend over backwards to avoid killing them, but if they allow terrorists to hide among them they need to know they are taking on risk and that it is their responsibility to avoid the risk, not ours to risk our children's lives so they can do so.
That's one of the problems the Western people have. They think of how "moral" you can get by avoiding killing "innocent civillians" no matter how and what, even at the cost of your own soldier's murder. That's more pathetic than moral, the ones who comes to slay you (a Muslim/Pan-Arabist in this case), slay him first, ceo tout, just the internet version of the so-called "Just war".
The point is, Islam is our enemy not only from the military side of view. It's our cultural and demographic enemy either.
Quote
Stop persecuting Jews for self defense.  A major apology for Daniel Pinner who might have shot an Arab who was coming after him with aggression.  A medal for Avri Ran who lives without a fence or gate among hostile Arabs but beats the snot out of those who endanger him.  That is the model of how Jews should live in Eretz Yisrael, make their enemies afraid, not hide behind gates and guards.
It'd be much easier to do so when we wouldn't be "morally afraid" of doing such "immoral" things like slaying mini-terrorists, that is not a cowardly act but a brave act, a brave spiritual act, overcoming our Alteroist brainwash that we have 24/7 non-stop from our mass-media, those children are as bad as their fathers and mothers.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Yochai on September 08, 2009, 10:58:11 AM
G-d would not have told the Israelites to completely wipe out the Amorite Nazis (who were very similar to today's Fakestinians) if they weren't Amalekites.

No. It was necessary to wipe out Amorites because it was another special commandment. G-d told about it separately. The same thing with the commandment to destroy Canaanites.  It has nothing to do with Amalek except the fact all the three nations were extremely evil. But each one in its own way.

Therefore you cannot apply Amalek law on Arabs. G-d didn't say they all must be destroyed, so that's it. Neither you can't prove they all descend from Amalek.

Torah is the absolute truth so every idea, even a very good one, should be weighed against it, and not vice versa.

I have been trying to explain this already.  In the Torah, there is a clear distinction made between the Amorites and the Amalekites.  In the Torah, the Amalekites were not an idea, but an actual tribe, an actual group of people.  The commandment to destroy the seven nations was a separate commandment, and the fighting between Israel and the Amorites and Israel and Amalek were two different occurrences, in different parts of ERetz Yisrael.

Whether or not there is a possibility that Arabs might descend from Amalek, I don't know how one can so surely talk about them with the absolute sureness that they are Amalek.

Furthermore, there is no reason to call Muslims idolatrous, as it goes against what any respected Rabbi has said, most of all the Rambam.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 11:28:22 AM
I have been trying to explain this already.  In the Torah, there is a clear distinction made between the Amorites and the Amalekites.  In the Torah, the Amalekites were not an idea, but an actual tribe, an actual group of people.
No, many respected Ravs have said Amalek is a greater concept that encompasses all Jew-haters. It is not just one specific race.

Quote
The commandment to destroy the seven nations was a separate commandment, and the fighting between Israel and the Amorites and Israel and Amalek were two different occurrences, in different parts of ERetz Yisrael.
"Amalek" is the same thing as "Nazi". There was a literal Amalek and literal Nazis, but today we recognize all Jew-hating anti-Semites as Nazis in addition to the original Germans. By your definition black Jew-haters like Farrakhan or for that matter Arab Muslim Jew-haters are not "Nazis" because they aren't Germans from between 1933 and 45.

Quote
Whether or not there is a possibility that Arabs might descend from Amalek, I don't know how one can so surely talk about them with the absolute sureness that they are Amalek.
Their religion is certainly descended from the Molech-worship of the original Amalekites, but that's besides the point. If the Germans, who were much farther removed from original Amalek, have been considered Amalek by many great Ravs, then how much more the Arabs, which are far more evil and are racially and religiously much more closely related?

Quote
Furthermore, there is no reason to call Muslims idolatrous, as it goes against what any respected Rabbi has said, most of all the Rambam.
This only applies to the case where a Jew's life is in danger, as "Allah" can be interpreted as the Arabic name for G-d, but Allah, who is actually Sin the Canaanite moon gd,  is clearly a false gd by any definition. You can't use later rabbinic interpretation where it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't (like when it comes to defining Amalek).
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 11:33:55 AM
No. It was necessary to wipe out Amorites because it was another special commandment. G-d told about it separately. The same thing with the commandment to destroy Canaanites.  It has nothing to do with Amalek except the fact all the three nations were extremely evil. But each one in its own way.

Therefore you cannot apply Amalek law on Arabs. G-d didn't say they all must be destroyed, so that's it. Neither you can't prove they all descend from Amalek.

Torah is the absolute truth so every idea, even a very good one, should be weighed against it, and not vice versa.
The problem with your interpretation is that taken to its logical conclusion, it almost makes Torah obsolete. By your standard Jews shouldn't bother fighting Arabs at all because G-d didn't specifically tell the Jews to fight them, because they did not live in the Holy Land at that time. G-d's Word is inerrant, unchanging, inflexible, and permanently applicable to all situations. The Bible doesn't discuss German Nazis either; does that mean that they weren't Amalek or worth killing?

There are lots of Bible-hating leftists who believe that what Holy Scripture teaches on sexual morality should be tempered with our "modern" knowledge of the so-called "gay gene" and other such nonsense. I know you aren't saying that but you are treading dangerously close to that sort of mindset when you say that we can't treat Arabs as Amalek because G-d didn't give a specific command regarding them in that day and age. Scripture constantly must be applied to situations that did not literally exist when G-d revealed it, and changing times and situations are no excuse at all to discard it or arbitrarily decide it does not apply anymore.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: muman613 on September 08, 2009, 11:40:16 AM
No. It was necessary to wipe out Amorites because it was another special commandment. G-d told about it separately. The same thing with the commandment to destroy Canaanites.  It has nothing to do with Amalek except the fact all the three nations were extremely evil. But each one in its own way.

Therefore you cannot apply Amalek law on Arabs. G-d didn't say they all must be destroyed, so that's it. Neither you can't prove they all descend from Amalek.

Torah is the absolute truth so every idea, even a very good one, should be weighed against it, and not vice versa.
The problem with your interpretation is that taken to its logical conclusion, it almost makes Torah obsolete. By your standard Jews shouldn't bother fighting Arabs at all because G-d didn't specifically tell the Jews to fight them, because they did not live in the Holy Land at that time. G-d's Word is inerrant, unchanging, inflexible, and permanently applicable to all situations. The Bible doesn't discuss German Nazis either; does that mean that they weren't Amalek or worth killing?

There are lots of Bible-hating leftists who believe that what Holy Scripture teaches on sexual morality should be tempered with our "modern" knowledge of the so-called "gay gene" and other such nonsense. I know you aren't saying that but you are treading dangerously close to that sort of mindset when you say that we can't treat Arabs as Amalek because G-d didn't give a specific command regarding them in that day and age. Scripture constantly must be applied to situations that did not literally exist when G-d revealed it, and changing times and situations are no excuse at all to discard it or arbitrarily decide it does not apply anymore.

And only Torah sages are able to determine what Hashem meant when he said Amalek. I agree that we don't know at this time exactly who is Amalek, though the signs are clear that the Muslims are possibly now combined Ishmaelite and Amelekite blood.

It is easy for a non-Jew to sit there and make pronouncements like this but they do not know what goes into deciding questions like this...

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Spectator on September 08, 2009, 11:40:59 AM
I have been trying to explain this already.  In the Torah, there is a clear distinction made between the Amorites and the Amalekites.  In the Torah, the Amalekites were not an idea, but an actual tribe, an actual group of people.
No, many respected Ravs have said Amalek is a greater concept that encompasses all Jew-haters. It is not just one specific race.

They said that Amalek as nation no longer exists because it has assimilated with the other nations. That is why there are devoted Jew-haters in every nation. But because of the fact  there are also people in those nations who are NOT the descendants of Amalek, you are NOT allowed to exterminate them.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 11:45:31 AM
That's actually what we were trying to do in Lebanon 3 years ago, it was NOT effective since we didn't define our enemy, and it's not terrorist but Islam as its own.
The solution for the Gazan problem is a Dresden bombing number 2, I wanna see the Muslim version of this:
(http://www.haayal.co.il/images/1659.jpg)
CEO TOUT.

Excellent points, Ron, but there is a fundamental difference between the German Nazis and the Arab Muslim Nazis. The latter are worse. Yes, the German Nazis were fanatically evil and almost 99% of them did support their fuhrer, but they didn't have the same level of complete and utter "religious" programming as the Arab Muslim killbots. Germany by and large was a post-religious nation that was primarily secular/postmodernist/Nietschean in spirit, with quite a bit of Jew-hating so-called "Christianity" thrown in for good measure in pockets (but it was clearly waning) and, at least in the higher echelons of the NSDAP, some pretty extensive Asatru or Odinist paganism. Nazism was not unified by a singular religious conviction the way all of pan-Arabia is by Islam. Since most Germans did not have deep religious convictions to the bone for their National Socialism, they could have some sense bombed into them (and that is what incidents like Dresden did). They could be persuaded by force to quit their quest for Lebensraum and act like civilized human beings via the strategic application of force. Dresden took the fire out of them pretty thoroughly.

On the other hand, any solution that leaves any Arabs standing will not be sufficient. Their culture thrives on martyrdom and wholesale extermination, even if they are the ones getting wiped out. They have an orgasm at the romantic thought of themselves and their kids becoming shahids for Allah. This is why not a one must be left standing--or at a very minimum, within the land of Israel. They are much worse than the kamikaze Japanese--which was a restricted and limited phenomenon seen in certain parts of the Japanese air force--because the whole entire Arab population--women, children, the elderly--live, drink, breathe, and sleep "holy shahidism". There is no greater honor in Islamic culture than to be a shahid, whether that means being a suicide bomber or simply having being killed in battle by the "infidel". If an Israeli bomb kills 500 Arab devil-worshippers, those that remain standing will joyously celebrate their journey to Paradise. When an American bomb killed 500 German Nazis, the surviving Germans around them realized that they were losing the war. That's a pretty big distinction.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 11:50:37 AM
It is easy for a non-Jew to sit there and make pronouncements like this but they do not know what goes into deciding questions like this...
Yes, Muman, I'm not Jewish and I acknowledged that--it's not my job to go out and kill Amalek, obviously--but I do have a literal faith in the Bible and I don't believe any of it can ever be obsolete. Whenever our Western upbringing conflicts with Scripture, the latter is always correct. Whenever our pathetic brainwashing tries to tell us that murderous animals have the same "rights" that you and I do, both my common sense and the Holy Word of G-d tell me that that is nonsense.

Most Jews in Israel are secular and don't even know what Amalek means, let alone why it must utterly be destroyed. Most average Israelis are like Secularbeliever (and he would be rather right-of-center even); they want the Israeli government to crush the terrorists, which it never will, but don't grasp either the reality of Islam or what Torah teaches about warfare against Nazis, because their Bolshevik establishment has deliberately hid this from them their entire lives.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Yochai on September 08, 2009, 11:53:06 AM
Quote
No, many respected Ravs have said Amalek is a greater concept that encompasses all Jew-haters. It is not just one specific race.

I did not deny that, I simply stated the original meaning in the Torah when referring to the Amorites. That is, that the Amalekites were a specific group and the Amorites were not Amalekites.  And for that, I have never heard a Rabbi say otherwise.  But maybe I am wrong, but I have never heard or read such a thing, seeing that the torah states that the two groups lived in completely different parts of EY.

Quote
Their religion is certainly descended from the Molech-worship of the original Amalekites, but that's besides the point. If the Germans, who were much farther removed from original Amalek, have been considered Amalek by many great Ravs, then how much more the Arabs, which are far more evil and are racially and religiously much more closely related?

Well, a perfect example of what you just said is Rav Kahane.  Rav Kahane referred to the Germans as Amalek on more than one occasion, but did not believe the Arabs to be so.  This is a perfect example of one who sees Germans as Amalek, but not Arabs.

Quote
This only applies to the case where a Jew's life is in danger, as "Allah" can be interpreted as the Arabic name for G-d, but Allah, who is actually Sin the Canaanite moon gd,  is clearly a false gd by any definition. You can't use later rabbinic interpretation where it suits you and ignore it where it doesn't (like when it comes to defining Amalek).

This is is in direct conflict with the rulings of the Rambam, the Rif, and the Ran.  They made no exceptions when they stated that Islam in NOT Avoda Zara, without exceptions.  When something is as putrid as Islam, there is no reason to attribute false beliefs to it, especially when they go against the decisions of some of the greatest poseks, especially ones who lived amongst Muslims and were able to make the right psak on their religion.

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Spectator on September 08, 2009, 11:53:57 AM
No. It was necessary to wipe out Amorites because it was another special commandment. G-d told about it separately. The same thing with the commandment to destroy Canaanites.  It has nothing to do with Amalek except the fact all the three nations were extremely evil. But each one in its own way.

Therefore you cannot apply Amalek law on Arabs. G-d didn't say they all must be destroyed, so that's it. Neither you can't prove they all descend from Amalek.

Torah is the absolute truth so every idea, even a very good one, should be weighed against it, and not vice versa.
The problem with your interpretation is that taken to its logical conclusion, it almost makes Torah obsolete. By your standard Jews shouldn't bother fighting Arabs at all because G-d didn't specifically tell the Jews to fight them, because they did not live in the Holy Land at that time. G-d's Word is inerrant, unchanging, inflexible, and permanently applicable to all situations. The Bible doesn't discuss German Nazis either; does that mean that they weren't Amalek or worth killing?

No Bones, I didn't say that Jews shouldn't fight Arabs. Arabs have waged war to extreminate us or at least drive us out of the Land of Israel. That is why we are OBLIGED to fight them and we don't need to wait for a specific terror act or a provocation to start. As our Sages say, "if there's one who rose up to kill you, kill him FIRST". But this doesn't mean ALL OF THEM should be destroyed. On the other hand, we don't need to prove someone is Amalek to have war with him.

As Muman said, only Torah sages are able to determine what Hashem meant when he said Amalek. Not you or me.

We must be accurate in Torah definitions and judgments. It is LAW, not poetry or political agenda.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 12:00:42 PM
I did not deny that, I simply stated the original meaning in the Torah when referring to the Amorites. That is, that the Amalekites were a specific group and the Amorites were not Amalekites.  And for that, I have never heard a Rabbi say otherwise.  But maybe I am wrong, but I have never heard or read such a thing, seeing that the torah states that the two groups lived in completely different parts of EY.
At this day and age this is a matter of semantics. Both were ancient Semitic peoples who had a very similar savage "religion" that they used as justification to embark on an ancient Shoah against the Jews as they left Egypt. The Amorites were Amalek in the spiritual sense and today's Arabs are even worse, as they are more organized and have more ability to carry out a Holocaust.

Quote
Well, a perfect example of what you just said is Rav Kahane.  Rav Kahane referred to the Germans as Amalek on more than one occasion, but did not believe the Arabs to be so.  This is a perfect example of one who sees Germans as Amalek, but not Arabs.
He didn't say they weren't Amalek. He couldn't actually say that the Arabs were Amalek--which would mean that they all should be killed--for legal reasons. He was blacklisted in Israel just for saying that they should be removed. He had to make some concessions to political reality. If he had said that they were Amalek and all should be killed, he would have been locked up forever.

Quote
This is is in direct conflict with the rulings of the Rambam, the Rif, and the Ran.  They made no exceptions when they stated that Islam in NOT Avoda Zara, without exceptions.  When something is as putrid as Islam, there is no reason to attribute false beliefs to it, especially when they go against the decisions of some of the greatest poseks, especially ones who lived amongst Muslims and were able to make the right psak on their religion.
This is getting very technical and nitpicky. I think I understand what you mean--they said that Islam couldn't be Avodah Zarah because it is a monotheism. That doesn't mean that it is idolatrous. The penalty for any Jew that converts to idolatry is death, either in this life or the world to come. No Torah posek would ever argue that a Jew who converts to the abominable false religion of Islam is still to be counted within the Jewish assembly or has any place in the World to Come.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: muman613 on September 08, 2009, 12:05:16 PM
I did not deny that, I simply stated the original meaning in the Torah when referring to the Amorites. That is, that the Amalekites were a specific group and the Amorites were not Amalekites.  And for that, I have never heard a Rabbi say otherwise.  But maybe I am wrong, but I have never heard or read such a thing, seeing that the torah states that the two groups lived in completely different parts of EY.
At this day and age this is a matter of semantics. Both were ancient Semitic peoples who had a very similar savage "religion" that they used as justification to embark on an ancient Shoah against the Jews as they left Egypt. The Amorites were Amalek in the spiritual sense and today's Arabs are even worse, as they are more organized and have more ability to carry out a Holocaust.

Quote
Well, a perfect example of what you just said is Rav Kahane.  Rav Kahane referred to the Germans as Amalek on more than one occasion, but did not believe the Arabs to be so.  This is a perfect example of one who sees Germans as Amalek, but not Arabs.
He didn't say they weren't Amalek. He couldn't actually say that the Arabs were Amalek--which would mean that they all should be killed--for legal reasons. He was blacklisted in Israel just for saying that they should be removed. He had to make some concessions to political reality. If he had said that they were Amalek and all should be killed, he would have been locked up forever.

Quote
This is is in direct conflict with the rulings of the Rambam, the Rif, and the Ran.  They made no exceptions when they stated that Islam in NOT Avoda Zara, without exceptions.  When something is as putrid as Islam, there is no reason to attribute false beliefs to it, especially when they go against the decisions of some of the greatest poseks, especially ones who lived amongst Muslims and were able to make the right psak on their religion.
This is getting very technical and nitpicky. I think I understand what you mean--they said that Islam couldn't be Avodah Zarah because it is a monotheism. That doesn't mean that it is idolatrous. The penalty for any Jew that converts to idolatry is death, either in this life or the world to come. No Torah posek would ever argue that a Jew who converts to the abominable false religion of Islam is still to be counted within the Jewish assembly or has any place in the World to Come.

Actually any Jew who converts to Christianity or Islam is still a Jew and can, upon Teshuva, be considered Jewish... The Jewish soul is Jewish even when it is sinning...

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Spectator on September 08, 2009, 12:07:21 PM
It is easy for a non-Jew to sit there and make pronouncements like this but they do not know what goes into deciding questions like this...
Yes, Muman, I'm not Jewish and I acknowledged that--it's not my job to go out and kill Amalek, obviously--but I do have a literal faith in the Bible and I don't believe any of it can ever be obsolete. Whenever our Western upbringing conflicts with Scripture, the latter is always correct. Whenever our pathetic brainwashing tries to tell us that murderous animals have the same "rights" that you and I do, both my common sense and the Holy Word of G-d tell me that that is nonsense.

Here I agree with you 100%! Holy Word of G-d will never be obsolete! I don't give a damn what leftists or "humanists" say about this or that Torah rule.

Our disagreement with you is about the correct and accurate understanding of G-d' will, not about appeasing Bolshevik establishment.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 12:14:11 PM
No Bones, I didn't say that Jews shouldn't fight Arabs. Arabs have waged war to extreminate us or at least drive us out of the Land of Israel. That is why we are OBLIGED to fight them and we don't need to wait for a specific terror act or a provocation to start. As our Sages say, "if there's one who rose up to kill you, kill him FIRST". But this doesn't mean ALL OF THEM should be destroyed. On the other hand, we don't need to prove someone is Amalek to have war with him.

As Muman said, only Torah sages are able to determine what Hashem meant when he said Amalek. Not you or me.

We must be accurate in Torah definitions and judgments. It is LAW, not poetry or political agenda.
To begin with, 99% of Israeli Jews have not ever been privy to this debate we are now having. They have never had it presented to them, because this very discussion is illegal in Israel. It's against the law to suggest that Arabs should be killed in Israel, but Muslim Nazi sheiks and imams can say that Jews are pigs and rats and apes that deserve death from the minarets of their filthy mosques right in the heart of Jerusalem...

Anyhow, enough with that. The bottom line is that Jews need to learn what the Torah teaches about warfare with Nazis rather than what castrated Western philosophy does. Israeli Jews do not understand that Islam is 100% evil to the core and that anyone who believes in it must, by definition, seek the murder of all non-Muslims, and especially Jews. They have never been taught that and barring us, they never will be.

As a Gentile, I don't have the same concept of rabbinic authority that Jews do, but I do take Scripture literally, and many great Ravs do state what is plainly obvious from Scripture--that Arabs are Amalek. HaRav Meir Kahane zt"l said that the Germans were Amalek; the Arabs are much worse--therefore, by product of simple inference and deduction, they must also be Amalek. G-d said that every last Amalekite must be destroyed and not pitied lest they continue to pose a mortal threat to Israel. If ten Arabs, let's say "harmless" ones like a mother and her nine hideous children, are left standing and allowed to stay in Israel, as soon as they are old enough their mother will strap C4 to them, dress them like Jewish children, and send them out into a kindergarten or hospital to carry on Allah's work. If they are completely disarmed so that there is absolutely no way that they can kill a single Jew, they will still do their best to murder Jews spiritually through dawa (proselytizing for Islam) or moral degeneracy like gambling (i.e. the Jericho casino), drugs, prostitution/pornography, or through intermarriage (Muslims are allowed to take Jewish and Christian spouses). All of the above are seen in Israel today all the time.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: The One and Only Mo on September 08, 2009, 12:15:10 PM
Wipe out all enemies. :nuke:
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: muman613 on September 08, 2009, 12:17:47 PM
Wipe out all enemies. :nuke:

What is your definition of enemy?

Torah does not teach this "Wipe out all enemies", quite the opposite...

We are supposed to unload the donkey of our enemy when we see them struggling under their load... In this definition of enemy is someone who we don't like because of our own personal reasons... Maybe our enemy is someone who cuts us off on the freeway, or takes the last cookie from the cookie jar...

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 12:18:11 PM
Actually any Jew who converts to Christianity or Islam is still a Jew and can, upon Teshuva, be considered Jewish... The Jewish soul is Jewish even when it is sinning...
Yeah, I know what you are saying. They are still halachically Jewish even if they have completely abandoned Judaism for another religion and can still repent.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: The One and Only Mo on September 08, 2009, 12:18:32 PM
Wipe out all enemies. :nuke:

What is your definition of enemy?

Torah does not teach this "Wipe out all enemies", quite the opposite...

We are supposed to unload the donkey of our enemy when we see them struggling under their load... In this definition of enemy is someone who we don't like because of our own personal reasons... Maybe our enemy is someone who cuts us off on the freeway, or takes the last cookie from the cookie jar...



You know who the enemy is. THAT enemy.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: muman613 on September 08, 2009, 12:20:33 PM
Wipe out all enemies. :nuke:

What is your definition of enemy?

Torah does not teach this "Wipe out all enemies", quite the opposite...

We are supposed to unload the donkey of our enemy when we see them struggling under their load... In this definition of enemy is someone who we don't like because of our own personal reasons... Maybe our enemy is someone who cuts us off on the freeway, or takes the last cookie from the cookie jar...



You know who the enemy is. THAT enemy.

You mean THAT enemy? Well, we should work hard to eliminate him... But I have heard that he will only be truly wiped out on judgement day. We need a little enemy to keep us motivated... He will be wiped out...

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 12:22:30 PM
What is your definition of enemy?

Torah does not teach this "Wipe out all enemies", quite the opposite...

We are supposed to unload the donkey of our enemy when we see them struggling under their load...
I know completely what you refer to, but there are enemies and there are Enemies. Christianity teaches the same thing regarding enemies (lowercase E)--that we are to turn the other cheek and not seek revenge. What is meant here is people that we have personal quarrels and feuds with in our daily lives, not Nazi nations that are seeking our murder.

Quote
In this definition of enemy is someone who we don't like because of our own personal reasons... Maybe our enemy is someone who cuts us off on the freeway, or takes the last cookie from the cookie jar...
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.


Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Spectator on September 08, 2009, 12:29:06 PM
Anyhow, enough with that. The bottom line is that Jews need to learn what the Torah teaches about warfare with Nazis rather than what castrated Western philosophy does. Israeli Jews do not understand that Islam is 100% evil to the core and that anyone who believes in it must, by definition, seek the murder of all non-Muslims, and especially Jews. They have never been taught that and barring us, they never will be.

This is a very good conclusion. I wish every Jew in Israel (and not only in Israel) read it. Only Torah can give the right advice.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 02:53:00 PM
You need to get rid of secularism for this to happen.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: The One and Only Mo on September 08, 2009, 06:09:13 PM
Oh Mumanala, We had an argument like this when I first joined. I said all evil Arabs who want to kill Jews should be killed. Most of the people agreed with me, a few agreed with you. I see where you're coming from, obviously, however, I have friends in the tzahal, and friends who were in the tzahal, and I wouldn't want them getting killed protecting some random Arab kids. With all that we know about terrorists, it's ridiculous to value one of their lives over the lives of our Jewish brothers and sisters. I have family and friends in Eretz Hakadosh, and I'd rather terrorists get killed before they have a chance to do any damage. Sorry if I care about Jews more than Arabs.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: briann on September 08, 2009, 07:21:50 PM
What level of action or violence is appropriate against Islam???  The same level that was appropriate against the Nazis and Naziism.  Not to kill all that have been brainwashed by it, but to do all we can to destroy the institutions and people that spread the hate.  It has to be a process of de-Islamification.  This is a fight of good against evil, not one religion against another.

The probelm with your logic is that Islam is a way of life, nazism wasn't - islam have roots in human psyche of 1,300 years, nazism had only 12 years! Whereas enlightened German people where able relatively easy and, I must say, with a sense of relief to shrug off their nazi nightmare, primitive islamic savages will not be able to do so with their islamic death cult. How can you make such a superficial comparison!? Bones is 100% right - these are amalekites and should all be defeated in spirit and in the body. We should help their remnants to transform and leave their death cult.

What?  You dont know your history!

Naziism WAS a way of life for all youth in Germany from 33-45. (Like Islam is today).  Thats the way Hitler had always wanted it.  As soon as you were old enough to understand the spoken word, you were put it Nazi youth leagues, Hitler Youth, Hitler female youth, etc.  German teachers would complain that so much of a child's time was spent learning National Socialism, that children were neglecting more crucial core academics.  (Sounds familar?).  Everything was mandatory, 8-5pm, 12 months out of the year, and kids would spend more time being brainwashed, then they would being at their own home.

Part of how he and Goebells would erase any remnant of  Judeo-Christianity from Germany, was to not even give children the chance to worship aynthing other than Mein Kampf. This is what made many God-fearing parents in Germany very fearful, as their children were starting to place Hitler above God.  This is why Anti-Nazification was so crucial for the youth.  Because they were brainwashed beyond recognition.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: cjd on September 08, 2009, 07:57:27 PM
What level of action or violence is appropriate against Islam???  The same level that was appropriate against the Nazis and Naziism.  Not to kill all that have been brainwashed by it, but to do all we can to destroy the institutions and people that spread the hate.  It has to be a process of de-Islamification.  This is a fight of good against evil, not one religion against another.

The probelm with your logic is that Islam is a way of life, nazism wasn't - islam have roots in human psyche of 1,300 years, nazism had only 12 years! Whereas enlightened German people where able relatively easy and, I must say, with a sense of relief to shrug off their nazi nightmare, primitive islamic savages will not be able to do so with their islamic death cult. How can you make such a superficial comparison!? Bones is 100% right - these are amalekites and should all be defeated in spirit and in the body. We should help their remnants to transform and leave their death cult.

What?  You dont know your history!

Naziism WAS a way of life for all youth in Germany from 33-45. (Like Islam is today).  Thats the way Hitler had always wanted it.  As soon as you were old enough to understand the spoken word, you were put it Nazi youth leagues, Hitler Youth, Hitler female youth, etc.  German teachers would complain that so much of a child's time was spent learning National Socialism, that children were neglecting more crucial core academics.  (Sounds familar?).  Everything was mandatory, 8-5pm, 12 months out of the year, and kids would spend more time being brainwashed, then they would being at their own home.

Part of how he and Goebells would erase any remnant of  Judeo-Christianity from Germany, was to not even give children the chance to worship aynthing other than Mein Kampf. This is what made many G-d-fearing parents in Germany very fearful, as their children were starting to place Hitler above G-d.  This is why Anti-Nazification was so crucial for the youth.  Because they were brainwashed beyond recognition.

What you say is very true ..... Some years ago I read the Goebells diary and he was very precise in documenting his programs for indoctrinating the people as minister of information. I have a neighbor who was in the Hitler Youth and even to this day you can tell she is not quite right.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 08:09:22 PM
What?  You dont know your history!

Naziism WAS a way of life for all youth in Germany from 33-45. (Like Islam is today).  Thats the way Hitler had always wanted it.  As soon as you were old enough to understand the spoken word, you were put it Nazi youth leagues, Hitler Youth, Hitler female youth, etc.  German teachers would complain that so much of a child's time was spent learning National Socialism, that children were neglecting more crucial core academics.  (Sounds familar?).  Everything was mandatory, 8-5pm, 12 months out of the year, and kids would spend more time being brainwashed, then they would being at their own home.

Part of how he and Goebells would erase any remnant of  Judeo-Christianity from Germany, was to not even give children the chance to worship aynthing other than Mein Kampf. This is what made many G-d-fearing parents in Germany very fearful, as their children were starting to place Hitler above G-d.  This is why Anti-Nazification was so crucial for the youth.  Because they were brainwashed beyond recognition.
I disagree that Nazism was as pervasive and complete as Islam.

Yes, all of the above is true--that National Socialists executed a very methodical and thorough modern brainwashing program. Nobody doubts that it was effective. Still, at its core Nazism was an evil secular ideology like Bolshevism. It was based in postmodern Nietschean German philosophy, not any one religion (well, Odinism to some extent, but the majority of the German people weren't devout Odinists). The term "anti-Semitism" in fact was coined to differentiate modern, secular Jew-hatred from the earlier theological Jew-hatred that so-called Christianity, from the likes of Luther, had promoted.

Since Nazism was based in secularism and relatively few Germans were devoutly religious, it did not have the same level of soul-gripping power that Islam does. When the Allies finally crushed Germany into the ground, the German civilians and remaining soldiers did not persist in a messianic fantasy or resort to mass martyrdom for a lost cause. They got the hint when Allied tanks rolled into Berlin that the fight was over and that they had no choice but pretend to be civilized human beings. Their hearts may not have changed but they stopped being active Nazis.

We all know that Muslims react substantially differently in these circumstances, because they believe Allah is on their side and that they are unstoppable.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: briann on September 08, 2009, 08:33:44 PM
What?  You dont know your history!

Naziism WAS a way of life for all youth in Germany from 33-45. (Like Islam is today).  Thats the way Hitler had always wanted it.  As soon as you were old enough to understand the spoken word, you were put it Nazi youth leagues, Hitler Youth, Hitler female youth, etc.  German teachers would complain that so much of a child's time was spent learning National Socialism, that children were neglecting more crucial core academics.  (Sounds familar?).  Everything was mandatory, 8-5pm, 12 months out of the year, and kids would spend more time being brainwashed, then they would being at their own home.

Part of how he and Goebells would erase any remnant of  Judeo-Christianity from Germany, was to not even give children the chance to worship aynthing other than Mein Kampf. This is what made many G-d-fearing parents in Germany very fearful, as their children were starting to place Hitler above G-d.  This is why Anti-Nazification was so crucial for the youth.  Because they were brainwashed beyond recognition.
I disagree that Nazism was as pervasive and complete as Islam.

Yes, all of the above is true--that National Socialists executed a very methodical and thorough modern brainwashing program. Nobody doubts that it was effective. Still, at its core Nazism was an evil secular ideology like Bolshevism. It was based in postmodern Nietschean German philosophy, not any one religion (well, Odinism to some extent, but the majority of the German people weren't devout Odinists). The term "anti-Semitism" in fact was coined to differentiate modern, secular Jew-hatred from the earlier theological Jew-hatred that so-called Christianity, from the likes of Luther, had promoted.

Since Nazism was based in secularism and relatively few Germans were devoutly religious, it did not have the same level of soul-gripping power that Islam does. When the Allies finally crushed Germany into the ground, the German civilians and remaining soldiers did not persist in a messianic fantasy or resort to mass martyrdom for a lost cause. They got the hint when Allied tanks rolled into Berlin that the fight was over and that they had no choice but pretend to be civilized human beings. Their hearts may not have changed but they stopped being active Nazis.

We all know that Muslims react substantially differently in these circumstances, because they believe Allah is on their side and that they are unstoppable.

That is not true about it being secular.  It was Pagan and obssesed with mysticism at its core, NOT secular.  Before 1932, nearly all the high members of the Nazi party were pagans.  Naziism was completely intertwined with mysticism and tuetonic pagan gods, etc. 

Himler was the craziest.  He was certain that he could revive a mythical race with super god-like powers. He DID have expeditions all across the globe to look for mythical Teutonic god-like race with special powers, E.S.P., etc. (Indiana Jones was sorta right).  In many ways it is like the Nation of Islam, obsessed with race and hate, but ALSO, using mysticism and superstition to justify it.

It was of course, all nonsence, and guess what.... So is ISLAM!!!!!

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: The One and Only Mo on September 08, 2009, 08:42:38 PM
What?  You dont know your history!

Naziism WAS a way of life for all youth in Germany from 33-45. (Like Islam is today).  Thats the way Hitler had always wanted it.  As soon as you were old enough to understand the spoken word, you were put it Nazi youth leagues, Hitler Youth, Hitler female youth, etc.  German teachers would complain that so much of a child's time was spent learning National Socialism, that children were neglecting more crucial core academics.  (Sounds familar?).  Everything was mandatory, 8-5pm, 12 months out of the year, and kids would spend more time being brainwashed, then they would being at their own home.

Part of how he and Goebells would erase any remnant of  Judeo-Christianity from Germany, was to not even give children the chance to worship aynthing other than Mein Kampf. This is what made many G-d-fearing parents in Germany very fearful, as their children were starting to place Hitler above G-d.  This is why Anti-Nazification was so crucial for the youth.  Because they were brainwashed beyond recognition.
I disagree that Nazism was as pervasive and complete as Islam.

Yes, all of the above is true--that National Socialists executed a very methodical and thorough modern brainwashing program. Nobody doubts that it was effective. Still, at its core Nazism was an evil secular ideology like Bolshevism. It was based in postmodern Nietschean German philosophy, not any one religion (well, Odinism to some extent, but the majority of the German people weren't devout Odinists). The term "anti-Semitism" in fact was coined to differentiate modern, secular Jew-hatred from the earlier theological Jew-hatred that so-called Christianity, from the likes of Luther, had promoted.

Since Nazism was based in secularism and relatively few Germans were devoutly religious, it did not have the same level of soul-gripping power that Islam does. When the Allies finally crushed Germany into the ground, the German civilians and remaining soldiers did not persist in a messianic fantasy or resort to mass martyrdom for a lost cause. They got the hint when Allied tanks rolled into Berlin that the fight was over and that they had no choice but pretend to be civilized human beings. Their hearts may not have changed but they stopped being active Nazis.

We all know that Muslims react substantially differently in these circumstances, because they believe Allah is on their side and that they are unstoppable.

That is not true about it being secular.  It was Pagan and obssesed with mysticism at its core, NOT secular.  Before 1932, nearly all the high members of the Nazi party were pagans.  Naziism was completely intertwined with mysticism and tuetonic pagan gods, etc. 

Himler was the craziest.  He was certain that he could revive a mythical race with super G-d-like powers. He DID have expeditions all across the globe to look for mythical Teutonic G-d-like race with special powers, E.S.P., etc. (Indiana Jones was sorta right).  In many ways it is like the Nation of Islam, obsessed with race and hate, but ALSO, using mysticism and superstition to justify it.

It was of course, all nonsence, and guess what.... So is ISLAM!!!!!



Yeah, and it's this "nonsense" that is threatening to destroy us all.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Debbie Shafer on September 08, 2009, 11:04:55 PM
The difference in Islam, (The Subhumans)  and Christians and Jews is sanity.  Some muslims are totally evil, and are drawn in by Satan.  They will never give any of us a chance to survive, make no mistake about it.  Be prepared to defend yourselves and your families.  There is no compassion or love for Israel or the West in this race.  You do what you have to do to survive!
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks on September 08, 2009, 11:22:00 PM
That is not true about it being secular.  It was Pagan and obssesed with mysticism at its core, NOT secular.  Before 1932, nearly all the high members of the Nazi party were pagans.  Naziism was completely intertwined with mysticism and tuetonic pagan gods, etc. 

Himler was the craziest.  He was certain that he could revive a mythical race with super G-d-like powers. He DID have expeditions all across the globe to look for mythical Teutonic G-d-like race with special powers, E.S.P., etc. (Indiana Jones was sorta right).  In many ways it is like the Nation of Islam, obsessed with race and hate, but ALSO, using mysticism and superstition to justify it.

It was of course, all nonsence, and guess what.... So is ISLAM!!!!!
You are correct but average Germans were not devoted Odinists. Some flirted with it but by and large it was a phenomenon of the NSDAP elites. Nazism had to have some cross-board appeal (i.e. quasi-Christian theological arguments and, especially, plenty of quasi-scientific secular arguments about the Jewish "race"). There was no singular, unified Nazi religion across the Reich. There were Nazi devout Lutherans, Nazi secular Lutherans, Nazi devout Catholics, Nazi secular Catholics, Nazi atheists/agnostics, and Nazi pagans. It was integrated to different religious traditions in varying degrees and various levels of success. The overwhelming majority of the German public ate it up, of course, but more than anything else it was all about German nationalism and "scientific" secular anti-Semitism, in other words, eugenicism.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: muman613 on September 08, 2009, 11:22:38 PM
The difference in Islam, (The Subhumans)  and Christians and Jews is sanity.  Some muslims are totally evil, and are drawn in by Satan.  They will never give any of us a chance to survive, make no mistake about it.  Be prepared to defend yourselves and your families.  There is no compassion or love for Israel or the West in this race.  You do what you have to do to survive!

This is not surprising... Satan is sent to test us. The greater the Soul, the greater the test. We should take a little comfort in knowing that Satan cannot test us more than we are capable of surviving. We need to rise up, as we learn in our repentence, to the challenge which Satan has placed before us. The Jewish people operate on many levels, one such level is the level individual versus national challenges. We are being challenged as a nation... I hope that the Rabbis in the conservative and Orthodox shuls out there will give strength to Israel. The Rabbis I have watched most recently have certainly been exhibiting much more Zionism and support for Aliyah to Israel.

As we listen to the call of the Shofar in a little over a week from now {10 more days!} let us remember why we are in shul. We are there to give praise to the Awesome, Great, and Strong King {HA MELECH!}. We praise him and we sing to him and we regret not loving him more during the year. Rosh Hashanna is a time for Simcha {Joy} and yet we are also being judged by the Master of the Universe, the Holy One Blessed is he! We are happy to be judged. We should be happy that the King has come out to the field to be with us.

It is a wonderful balancing act that we try to perform. Trepidation, fear, and anxiety fill the week. We try to ask forgiveness from those who we have done wrong to. We get white clothes, or some a Kittel,  so that we can be wrapped in white, the color of purity, as we are going before the King. There are so many wonderful things we do as we prepare for this period... There is the famous minhag of eating Apples and Honey as a sign for a good and sweet year. There are signs such as eating the head of the fish, and not the tail... Eating pommegranets because they are rumoured to have 613 seeds.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/2879017013_635accc9b5.jpg) (http://www.ishs.org/news/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/pomegranate.jpg)

We blow the Shofar on Rosh Hashanna to drive away the Satan. According to Talmudic sources, the Satan is confused for a moment when the Shofar is blown on the day of Rosh Hashana... This year we will wait till Sunday {Rosh Hashanna starts on Friday night through Saturday this year} to hear the Shofar... But when we hear those 100 blasts of the Shofar we should tremble a bit, we should feel the strength enter our souls, we should grow inside...

So in conclusion... I would like to say that while I agree that Islam is a manifestation of Satan it is also true that Satan is in my home. Satan is everywhere where the challenge exists... So the answer to defeating Satan is the same. We work on ourselves, to become better people, and then we will be able to have more control over the Satan. We will be able to see the enemy for who it is. Right now the majority of Jews and Christians have their eyes blinded by the allure of the Western physicality. Some are blinded by false ideologies invented by men during the early years of the church... Some are blinded by invented religions such as reform 'judaism'.

Let us strengthen ourselves, our families, our extended families, our neighborhoods, and eventually we will strengthen our country.

May all JTFers read my words and make a complete teshuva so that we can celebrate in Jerusalem with Moshiach!

Tricks of the Satan : http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/News.aspx/1375

http://www.shemayisrael.co.il/parsha/eylevine/5764roshhashanah.htm



Sorry for continuing this post, I hope someone finds it interesting...

http://www.ou.org/shabbat_shalom/article/mm_accuser1

Quote
A theme which we encounter repeatedly in the mitzva of Shofar is "confusing the accuser" (Satan). For instance:

1. The gemara tells us that we blow the shofar on Rosh HaShana both sitting and standing "in order to confuse the accuser" (Rosh HaShana 16b).

2. In the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon and in Machzor Vitry, this is given as one reason for the wide variety of different shofar calls we sound on the holiday.

3. The Tur (OC 581) gives it as one reason for blowing the shofar every day in Elul;

4. While the Maharil gives it as a reason why we stop sounding the shofar on the last day before Rosh HaShana.

Let us study the simple meaning and some deeper insights of this concept.

The word satan in the Bible seems to mean merely "opponent". For instance, the angel who obstructs Bilaam's progress is described as a satan (Bamidbar 22:22), and the captains of the Philistines are afraid that if David fights by their side he will not be an ally but rather a satan, an opponent (Shmuel I 29:4).

But many times we find it has a more specific meaning: an angel who is specially designated by God to act as a prosecuting attorney when He judges men (Zekharya 3:2, Iyov 1,2). Although God already knows all of our thoughts and actions, Divine judgment is described to us in Scripture as following equitable and transparent procedures, with advocates making claims and counterclaims, in order to educate us that this judgment it is not arbitrary but rather fair and balanced.

In the Talmud, we find an additional dimension: Satan is sometimes presented not merely as an accuser, but also as a tempter, someone who confronts our righteousness with trials in order to test us.

While we certainly try to avoid Satan and his judgment and adhere stead- fastly to the mitzvot, the Gemara also teaches us that we have to respect his mission which is after all a necessary part of the administration of justice in the world. When the sage Palemo cursed Satan, Satan came to embarrass him and then rebuked him for his curses. It's enough to ask Hashem to keep Satan far away; it's not necessary to curse him (Kidushin 81b).

Let's return to confusing Satan by blowing the shofar. The Ran brings an explanation related to the idea of Satan as tempter, identified with "the evil urge": The stirring sound of the shofar instills awe in the listeners and subdues their urges and temptations.

But most commentators seem to associate "confusing Satan" with the idea of Satan as accuser. For example, Rashi writes that sounding the shofar when the congregation is both sitting and standing impresses him with our devotion to the mitzvot; the result is that he is timid in his accusations. Tosafot explains that when he hears the persistence of the shofar (because it is blown so often) he will think that he is hearing the shofar of the final Redemption, when his job comes to an end (because righteousness will reign) (Rashi, Tosafot and Ran on Rosh HaShana 17b).

The Maharil (a Rishon who wrote a compendium of customs) gives a slightly different explanation: The shofar announces the day of judgment, which enables Satan to know when he is summoned to "court" to present his case against men. But when the shofar is blown so many times, he may become confused and "miss his court date". Of course Satan is a loyal public servant and will keep coming back each time the shofar is blown in Elul, but then the shofar is omitted on Rosh HaShana eve and he may conclude that the case is over and he can just pack up.

Satan has shown himself to be a remarkably devoted and resourceful functionary, and it is probably not so easy to fool him. But we also must remember that his function is not to cause us suffering, but rather to create accountability in the world in order to motivate us to righteousness.

When we hear the shofar in Elul, it's not only Satan who remembers that judgment day is approaching; we ourselves are reminded. We allow ourselves to be fooled into seeing the Prosecutor right away; thus we subdue our urges (as the Ran states) and are stirred to repentance. When we hear the shofar blast numerous times and ways on Rosh HaShana, staying in shul hours beyond what we are accustomed yet without impatience, we are astounded at our own devotion to mitzvot; this truly silences the accuser. (As we find in Rashi.) When we reach Rosh HaShana in a state of perfect repentance, we may find that our righteousness is so complete that we don't win our case, we actually find it dismissed "for lack of public concern". After all, the purpose of the judgment itself is only to give an incentive for right conduct; when we find ourselves independently motivated to act rightly the trial is superfluous and the prosecutor can go home. (As we find in Tosafot and the Maharil.)

The various customs of blowing the shofar have the effect of "tricking" us into preparing for judgment well in advance; thus we find ourselves well prepared on the Days of Awe and the prosecution will be muted and confused.

Rabbi Asher Meir is the author of the book Meaning in Mitzvot, distributed by Feldheim. The book provides insights into the inner meaning of our daily practices, following the order of the 221 chapters of the Kitzur Shulchan Arukh.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: muman613 on September 09, 2009, 12:01:32 AM
I realize my post was completely off topic...

Sorry...

My opinion on-topic is that we need to rise up against our enemy and fight him on every front. If the arab israelis are not happy, then can be sent back to where they came from... I am all for that...

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Kahane-Was-Right BT on November 02, 2009, 07:42:23 AM
It is very interesting that you cite the Gra's opinion on this, which is known to be the most extreme.  Not that this is an issue for me, as I am Jewish, but the Gra stated that Amalek is composed of EVERY Christian and Ishmaelite, and this is not an opinion I agree with, as it would mean that Amalek consists of billions of people, and also denies the existence of righteous Christians.

Where do you get this from?   Billions of people?   No righteous christians?   This is the Gra?   What Gra are you quoting here?   As far as I know, the Vilna Gaon said that any nation that makes war against Israel has taken on the identity of Amalek.   That would include the Nazis yemach shemam, and now today the Arab Fakestinians who openly declared war and committed acts of war time and time again.   Where do you get billions of people from that, and why would that include all the non Jews who never made war on us?
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Dr. Dan on November 02, 2009, 08:14:24 AM
Excuse me!?!?! How can any member of Muslim Nazi Amalek be "innocent"? That is a self-hating statement.<<

This is where guys like you totally lose me.  Do you not think there are Arabs who don't care about politics, who would rather not just live quietly?  I know for a fact that such Arabs exist because I have a friend of that sort.  I don't know if this represents 5, 10 or 30% of the Arab world.  It is impossible to know since as long as the savages control that world people are afraid to speak out.  I don't have a problem telling them that they have to make a choice and that standing with the savages might get them killed by us but we need to do a better job of projecting strength so they are more afraid of us than they are of the savages.

So you favor total indiscriminate killing of Arabs, men women, and children?  Would you kill a newborn baby in the hospital?  Would you build death camps for them?  Have you really thought this through?




I would leave it at this, secular believer:

We have the right to kill those who are going to or planning to kill us.  You did spell that out on the initial post.

All other enemy NON-combatants who are living quietly in Israel...well, they should be asked to leave...and JTF's motto is to pay them to leave...not force them out violently.

There are some who want to do that..but JTF is a moderate organization..not a militant extremist one.

And if an Arab in Israel who wasn't Jewish wanted to stay, one of two things:  he is forced out...OR he is allowed to stay, but not as an equal citizen with voting rights etc...since ISrael is a JEwish state..there is only one state...and if the non Jewish Arab wanted rights to vote etc, then he can go to one of the arab countries to do that.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Dr. Dan on November 02, 2009, 08:54:47 AM
Best to say the following:  When there is a war, better NOT to put your own troops in danger when trying to avoid civilians of the enemy's side.  Right now, we are in a war. 


בס"ד
One after one.

Quote
I know we had an earlier thread where I was in the minority in not favoring the indiscriminate murder of Arabs such as in the cases of Baruch Goldstein and Ami Popper.  I considered it a good and spirited discussion.  However, now I would like to discuss cases where I feel we need much more force in defense of ourselves and our nation.
The case of Baruch Goldstein ZTVK"L HY"D was a self-defense action. The Arabs who were praying at this evil mosque were planning to capture a number of Jews from the so-called Ha'Rovah Ha'Yehudi of Hebro and maybe even murder them G-D forbid.
I find nothing morally wrong with mironic non-macro+civilian actions against Arabs and Muslims, after all, living them alive IS morally wrong. The thing is that such actions are not effective in the macro level.

Quote
If we know of a training camp where suicide bombers are being trained it should be attacked with air power.  Now just to be clear we know they have kids as young as 5 training in such places.  I don't mean to be callous but since they are heading to martyrdom, we can get them their wish (or their parents' wish) early.  In fact I would favor targeted assassinations of anyone who sends their children to such places.  If it discourages others from doing so and keeps these savages from breeding more martyrs so much the better.
That's actually more ignorance in Islam than a good plan. While Judaism (I believe you're Jewish?) sanctifies life, Islam in its basic sanctifies death (wether the Muslim is a Shi'ite, Sunni, Su'ffi, Mallucki, etc). Look at Afghanistan. The Soviet bombed the weck outta the "Mujahideen" training camps and that didn't really help, the war is global and according to the most famous and acceptable preach of Hassan Al-Bannah, in a situation/time when the Islamic State ("Caliphate") is not avaliable/occupied by "Kuffars", the "commandament of Jihad" goes to every single Muslim, whether a boy, a girl, a camel, a kid, an old lady.

Quote
If we know of a factory where Kassams or suicide belts are being manufactured they shoudl be hit by the air force and not in the middle of the night when nobody is there.  Hit them during peak activity.  If the word gets out that these are very dangerous places to work, so much the better.
That's actually what we were trying to do in Lebanon 3 years ago, it was NOT effective since we didn't define our enemy, and it's not terrorist but Islam as its own.
The solution for the Gazan problem is a Dresden bombing number 2, I wanna see the Muslim version of this:
(http://www.haayal.co.il/images/1659.jpg)
CEO TOUT.
Quote
Parades for Hamas, suicide bombers, etc. should be viewed as target rich environments.  Maybe not bombing with killing entire crowds (although I would not rule that out), but certainly snipers where available to take out the leaders of such groups.
Not only those but also Muslim houses, buildings, prayers, mosques, well u got the point didn't u?
Quote
No brainer, if terrorists hide behind civilians they do not get a free pass as a result.  Again I do not favor killing innocent civilians and would to some degree bend over backwards to avoid killing them, but if they allow terrorists to hide among them they need to know they are taking on risk and that it is their responsibility to avoid the risk, not ours to risk our children's lives so they can do so.
That's one of the problems the Western people have. They think of how "moral" you can get by avoiding killing "innocent civillians" no matter how and what, even at the cost of your own soldier's murder. That's more pathetic than moral, the ones who comes to slay you (a Muslim/Pan-Arabist in this case), slay him first, ceo tout, just the internet version of the so-called "Just war".
The point is, Islam is our enemy not only from the military side of view. It's our cultural and demographic enemy either.
Quote
Stop persecuting Jews for self defense.  A major apology for Daniel Pinner who might have shot an Arab who was coming after him with aggression.  A medal for Avri Ran who lives without a fence or gate among hostile Arabs but beats the snot out of those who endanger him.  That is the model of how Jews should live in Eretz Yisrael, make their enemies afraid, not hide behind gates and guards.
It'd be much easier to do so when we wouldn't be "morally afraid" of doing such "immoral" things like slaying mini-terrorists, that is not a cowardly act but a brave act, a brave spiritual act, overcoming our Alteroist brainwash that we have 24/7 non-stop from our mass-media, those children are as bad as their fathers and mothers.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Dr. Dan on November 02, 2009, 09:24:29 AM
with this being said...it's easy to talk about killing....i'm sure it's much harder to do when faced with a choice to do it in real life.



Oh Mumanala, We had an argument like this when I first joined. I said all evil Arabs who want to kill Jews should be killed. Most of the people agreed with me, a few agreed with you. I see where you're coming from, obviously, however, I have friends in the tzahal, and friends who were in the tzahal, and I wouldn't want them getting killed protecting some random Arab kids. With all that we know about terrorists, it's ridiculous to value one of their lives over the lives of our Jewish brothers and sisters. I have family and friends in Eretz Hakadosh, and I'd rather terrorists get killed before they have a chance to do any damage. Sorry if I care about Jews more than Arabs.

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: Dr. Dan on November 02, 2009, 09:31:38 AM
I have to agree with CF to a certain extent that the current Islamics are worse than the Nazis of yesteryear...but with that being said, it also depends on the idealism of the world.  If Nazis of yesterday existed today with today's world's idealism, they wouldn't be able to murder 6 million Jews in death camps..the world today would be against that type of obvious genocide.

Why are the Islamics today worse than the Nazis of yesterday?  Because Nazis didn't breed like wildfire and have oil money...Islamics have grown to huge numbers basically by breeding and using Gd and religion as a means to hate and destroy righteousness.  The Nazis had no god.

and unfortunately before the Nazis 2000 years ago, it was those who used Christianity to kill innocent Jews...again the use of religion and Gd to kill righteousness.

Quite frankly, come to think of it, it's a moot point.  Every generation has Amalekites...nazis, islamics, fake christians, whatever, that want to annhiliate righteousness and the Jewish existence...and wherever it is, we have to fight it and kill before it kills us (Gd forbid) if we can.


What?  You dont know your history!

Naziism WAS a way of life for all youth in Germany from 33-45. (Like Islam is today).  Thats the way Hitler had always wanted it.  As soon as you were old enough to understand the spoken word, you were put it Nazi youth leagues, Hitler Youth, Hitler female youth, etc.  German teachers would complain that so much of a child's time was spent learning National Socialism, that children were neglecting more crucial core academics.  (Sounds familar?).  Everything was mandatory, 8-5pm, 12 months out of the year, and kids would spend more time being brainwashed, then they would being at their own home.

Part of how he and Goebells would erase any remnant of  Judeo-Christianity from Germany, was to not even give children the chance to worship aynthing other than Mein Kampf. This is what made many G-d-fearing parents in Germany very fearful, as their children were starting to place Hitler above G-d.  This is why Anti-Nazification was so crucial for the youth.  Because they were brainwashed beyond recognition.
I disagree that Nazism was as pervasive and complete as Islam.

Yes, all of the above is true--that National Socialists executed a very methodical and thorough modern brainwashing program. Nobody doubts that it was effective. Still, at its core Nazism was an evil secular ideology like Bolshevism. It was based in postmodern Nietschean German philosophy, not any one religion (well, Odinism to some extent, but the majority of the German people weren't devout Odinists). The term "anti-Semitism" in fact was coined to differentiate modern, secular Jew-hatred from the earlier theological Jew-hatred that so-called Christianity, from the likes of Luther, had promoted.

Since Nazism was based in secularism and relatively few Germans were devoutly religious, it did not have the same level of soul-gripping power that Islam does. When the Allies finally crushed Germany into the ground, the German civilians and remaining soldiers did not persist in a messianic fantasy or resort to mass martyrdom for a lost cause. They got the hint when Allied tanks rolled into Berlin that the fight was over and that they had no choice but pretend to be civilized human beings. Their hearts may not have changed but they stopped being active Nazis.

We all know that Muslims react substantially differently in these circumstances, because they believe Allah is on their side and that they are unstoppable.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: nessuno on November 02, 2009, 10:39:18 AM
What level of action or violence is appropriate against Islam???  The same level that was appropriate against the Nazis and Naziism.  Not to kill all that have been brainwashed by it, but to do all we can to destroy the institutions and people that spread the hate.  It has to be a process of de-Islamification.  This is a fight of good against evil, not one religion against another.

The probelm with your logic is that Islam is a way of life, nazism wasn't - islam have roots in human psyche of 1,300 years, nazism had only 12 years! Whereas enlightened German people where able relatively easy and, I must say, with a sense of relief to shrug off their nazi nightmare, primitive islamic savages will not be able to do so with their islamic death cult. How can you make such a superficial comparison!? Bones is 100% right - these are amalekites and should all be defeated in spirit and in the body. We should help their remnants to transform and leave their death cult.

What?  You dont know your history!

Naziism WAS a way of life for all youth in Germany from 33-45. (Like Islam is today).  Thats the way Hitler had always wanted it.  As soon as you were old enough to understand the spoken word, you were put it Nazi youth leagues, Hitler Youth, Hitler female youth, etc.  German teachers would complain that so much of a child's time was spent learning National Socialism, that children were neglecting more crucial core academics.  (Sounds familar?).  Everything was mandatory, 8-5pm, 12 months out of the year, and kids would spend more time being brainwashed, then they would being at their own home.

Part of how he and Goebells would erase any remnant of  Judeo-Christianity from Germany, was to not even give children the chance to worship aynthing other than Mein Kampf. This is what made many G-d-fearing parents in Germany very fearful, as their children were starting to place Hitler above G-d.  This is why Anti-Nazification was so crucial for the youth.  Because they were brainwashed beyond recognition.

What you say is very true ..... Some years ago I read the Goebells diary and he was very precise in documenting his programs for indoctrinating the people as minister of information. I have a neighbor who was in the Hitler Youth and even to this day you can tell she is not quite right.
Harmonicat? :crazy:   She's not quite right? :D 
Just kidding. 
She scares the dickens out of me.  :fright:
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: VladTheImpaler on November 02, 2009, 10:47:35 AM
I agree with  MO23888. :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :camel: :nuke: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :fist: :usa: :israel: :usa+israel: :serbia: :fireworks: :fireworks: :fireworks: :celebrate: ^-^ :dance: :dance: :dance: :::D
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: New Yorker on November 02, 2009, 11:35:21 AM
I agree with  MO23888. :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :camel: :nuke: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :soldier: :fist: :usa: :israel: :usa+israel: :serbia: :fireworks: :fireworks: :fireworks: :celebrate: ^-^ :dance: :dance: :dance: :::D

I'll second that!  :soldier:
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on November 02, 2009, 11:53:06 AM
The only option is to kill your enemy, or be killed. Right?

Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: VladTheImpaler on November 02, 2009, 02:29:57 PM
Right republicandox.
Quote
The best form of defence is attack
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: GoIsraelGo! on November 02, 2009, 03:08:42 PM
Right republicandox.
Quote
The best form of defence is attack


Too bad the anti war liberals cannot see this logic.

I can't help but wonder if the liberal logic is fueled by some sort of retarted rebellion born from ignorance?


                                                       Shalom - Dox
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: AsheDina on November 02, 2009, 03:23:02 PM
Did you read that Bible verse that I gave you? I know that you are secular as indicated by your username, but do you really think that G-d would ever order innocent people killed? If G-d gave an order to wipe out Amalek wholesale, don't you think He knew that every last one of them had chosen evil or would choose evil when at the age of accountability? Do you think he would order people who He knew would repent later on killed?<<

As someone who is a believer, although secular, this is exactly the type of thought that scares me about some religious people.  Do you know that the Arabs are another case of Amelekites?  Are you sure about that?  I don't always oppose killing innocent people.  As I said I would favor hitting targets where terrorists are hiding behind civilians.  I favor the atomic bombs having been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombing of Dresden.  These were tactics needed to defeat a horribly brutal enenmy and not decisions taken lightly.  In fact it is estimated that the atomic bomb saved the lives of a million American soldiers and millions of Japanese who would have been killed in an invasion of the mainland.  I would not rule out Israel using nuclear weapons if the need arose, as supposedly it was contemplated during the Yom Kippur War.  However, this are very thoughtful reluctant decisions to take very brutal steps by civilized people with the understanding that it is an awesome responsibility to cause that level of suffering on innocents.

Again I ask you, would you go into a hospital ward and kill newborn Arab children?  Would you do it personally or just say that it is a good idea while sitting behind the safety of a computer keyboard?  Would you work as a guard at a death camp?  I would not do those things.  On the other hand I would gladly go to Israel to pull the switch at an execution of the sniper who murdered Shellhevet Pass or the moron who gleefully showed his bloody hands after taking part in the murder of the two soldiers, or the woman who lured the teenager to be murdered. 
As someone who is a believer, although secular,

So, you pick and choose HOW you wish to serve G-d?
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: New Yorker on November 02, 2009, 03:52:27 PM
Did you read that Bible verse that I gave you? I know that you are secular as indicated by your username, but do you really think that G-d would ever order innocent people killed? If G-d gave an order to wipe out Amalek wholesale, don't you think He knew that every last one of them had chosen evil or would choose evil when at the age of accountability? Do you think he would order people who He knew would repent later on killed?<<

As someone who is a believer, although secular, this is exactly the type of thought that scares me about some religious people.  Do you know that the Arabs are another case of Amelekites?  Are you sure about that?  I don't always oppose killing innocent people.  As I said I would favor hitting targets where terrorists are hiding behind civilians.  I favor the atomic bombs having been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the firebombing of Dresden.  These were tactics needed to defeat a horribly brutal enenmy and not decisions taken lightly.  In fact it is estimated that the atomic bomb saved the lives of a million American soldiers and millions of Japanese who would have been killed in an invasion of the mainland.  I would not rule out Israel using nuclear weapons if the need arose, as supposedly it was contemplated during the Yom Kippur War.  However, this are very thoughtful reluctant decisions to take very brutal steps by civilized people with the understanding that it is an awesome responsibility to cause that level of suffering on innocents.

Again I ask you, would you go into a hospital ward and kill newborn Arab children?  Would you do it personally or just say that it is a good idea while sitting behind the safety of a computer keyboard?  Would you work as a guard at a death camp?  I would not do those things.  On the other hand I would gladly go to Israel to pull the switch at an execution of the sniper who murdered Shellhevet Pass or the moron who gleefully showed his bloody hands after taking part in the murder of the two soldiers, or the woman who lured the teenager to be murdered. 
As someone who is a believer, although secular,

So, you pick and choose HOW you wish to serve G-d?

Far better than the so called "Orthodox" Neturei Karta, traitorous enemies of Jews and Israel.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: AsheDina on November 02, 2009, 03:58:49 PM
We should all play dead, and hopefully the sweet Muslims will believe us...
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: ~Hanna~ on November 02, 2009, 04:15:48 PM
Right now, I wish I could go beat up a bunch of witches... >:(
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: muman613 on November 02, 2009, 05:06:16 PM
Right now, I wish I could go beat up a bunch of witches... >:(
(http://endofbench.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/feetpopping.jpg)
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: IsraeliGovtAreKapos on November 02, 2009, 07:55:56 PM
                                                     ×‘ס"ד                           
That's actually what we were trying to do in Lebanon 3 years ago, it was NOT effective since we didn't define our enemy, and it's not terrorist but Islam as its own.
The solution for the Gazan problem is a Dresden bombing number 2, I wanna see the Muslim version of this:
(http://www.haayal.co.il/images/1659.jpg)
CEO TOUT.

Excellent points, Ron, but there is a fundamental difference between the German Nazis and the Arab Muslim Nazis. The latter are worse. Yes, the German Nazis were fanatically evil and almost 99% of them did support their fuhrer, but they didn't have the same level of complete and utter "religious" programming as the Arab Muslim killbots. Germany by and large was a post-religious nation that was primarily secular/postmodernist/Nietschean in spirit, with quite a bit of Jew-hating so-called "Christianity" thrown in for good measure in pockets (but it was clearly waning) and, at least in the higher echelons of the NSDAP, some pretty extensive Asatru or Odinist paganism. Nazism was not unified by a singular religious conviction the way all of pan-Arabia is by Islam. Since most Germans did not have deep religious convictions to the bone for their National Socialism, they could have some sense bombed into them (and that is what incidents like Dresden did). They could be persuaded by force to quit their quest for Lebensraum and act like civilized human beings via the strategic application of force. Dresden took the fire out of them pretty thoroughly.

On the other hand, any solution that leaves any Arabs standing will not be sufficient. Their culture thrives on martyrdom and wholesale extermination, even if they are the ones getting wiped out. They have an orgasm at the romantic thought of themselves and their kids becoming shahids for Allah. This is why not a one must be left standing--or at a very minimum, within the land of Israel. They are much worse than the kamikaze Japanese--which was a restricted and limited phenomenon seen in certain parts of the Japanese air force--because the whole entire Arab population--women, children, the elderly--live, drink, breathe, and sleep "holy shahidism". There is no greater honor in Islamic culture than to be a shahid, whether that means being a suicide bomber or simply having being killed in battle by the "infidel". If an Israeli bomb kills 500 Arab devil-worshippers, those that remain standing will joyously celebrate their journey to Paradise. When an American bomb killed 500 German Nazis, the surviving Germans around them realized that they were losing the war. That's a pretty big distinction.


1.) Nazis had their own version for Shahidism (or "Velhalla", for the German and other "Aryan" murderes).
2.) Not true, it has been proven that outrageous monstrous power used against Muslims had success in scaring them, Genghis Khan (and his friends to "war crimes against Muslims", Jan Sovieski the third, king and queen Ferdinand and Isabela of Spain, Godfrey of Bouillon, Richard the lionheart, Slobodan Milošević, Vlad the third "the impaler", the Knights Templar, Knights Hospitaller, the American marine corps in the start of the 19th century to their mistake, the KGB against the Iranian para-military division aka Hezbollah, the Russians in the battle of Grozny, etc etc etc etc) didn't get the nickname A-Maloun for nothing.
Title: Re: What is appropriate levels of violence toward our enemy
Post by: ~Hanna~ on November 02, 2009, 09:32:28 PM
 :laugh:
Right now, I wish I could go beat up a bunch of witches... >:(
(http://endofbench.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/feetpopping.jpg)