All UAE wants is the F35 Jets

[Quasar44]

Sunni and I agree 100 percent on US policy
We disagree only on Israel

Quasar, spend a minute and read about these orthodox Jews. ...

Neturei Karta - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Without the IDF : they would be killed in days

 

[José]

Originally posted by Esay
The White race is on decline everywhere now. Look at Europe. It is just the second size of the coin to where liberalism, humanism and capitalism (great ideas per se) can lead when reaching the point of absurd.

Every society has an ideology according to which it lives, even if someone thinks there isn't any. What ideology does the West have now? In short - hedonism. Which is a self-destruction for the society.

Good contribution, Esay... a thoughtful, philosophical one.

But let me bring the discussion back to more "concrete" terms.

Let me just clarify one important point...

At the very least, America's political leaders bear half of the blame for the destruction of America's racial makeup.

Congress was overwhelmingly anglo in the 50's and 60's when America redefined itself as a multiracial country through a series of changes in immigration laws conceived, presented and heavily supported by american Jews and their political representatives.

They had a duty to reject the 1965 Immigration Act put forth by jewish american congressman Emanuel Celler.

The american public opposed any change in the immigration laws by a large margin.

Johnson and Congress failed miserably to represent the will of the american people, their boss, their employer, the ones who paid their salaries.

They betrayed the trust the american people placed in them and their betrayal will never be forgotten.

So I will never put 100% of the blame for the destruction of America's racial composition on the shoulders of the american jewish community because it would be a tremendous injustice.

Perhaps not even 50% but this is open for debate.

 

[José]

The colossal blame of the gentile political representatives of the american people must be recognized outloud as a matter of fairness, of basic justice.

But the fact remains that without the presence of millions of askhenazis living in the Greater New York region and elsewhere in the United States and the political representatives like Celler that they kept electing for decades on end, America's racial composition would never have been destroyed.

My fellow jewish members of the Board will have to forgive me but I'm just stating the truth.

 

[Picaro]

Congress was overwhelmingly anglo in the 50's and 60's when America redefined itself as a multiracial country through a series of changes in immigration laws conceived, presented and heavily supported by american Jews and their political representatives.

They had a duty to reject the 1965 Immigration Act put forth by jewish american congressman Emanuel Celler.

The american public opposed any change in the immigration laws by a large margin.

Johnson and Congress failed miserably to represent the will of the american people, their boss, their employer, the ones who paid their salaries.

They betrayed the trust the american people placed in them and their betrayal will never be forgotten.

So I will never put 100% of the blame for the destruction of America's racial composition on the shoulders of the american jewish community because it would be a tremendous injustice.

Perhaps not even 50% but this is open for debate.

It's a mixed bag, yes. Here is a conservative Rabbi discussing why some Jews will vote 'liberal's while being personally racist themselves.



Jewish Review: In your article on ?The Forgotten Humanism of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch? you ask a series of questions about how Jews ought to relate to the predominately gentile societies in which they live. How Jews ought to relate to gentile and secular culture, traditions, customs and art, and also how Jews ought to relate to individual gentiles. Without necessarily answering ?yes? or ?no? to these questions, what is some of the wisdom which the Torah tradition has had with respect to these issues. What are some of the approaches that have been taken?


Rabbi Schiller: The approaches have been very divergent. The approach that we've seen throughout the Eastern European experience was largely one of isolation both imposed by the gentile society and also self‑imposed. That approach has been, by and large, continued in western societies by significant numbers of Orthodox Jews. They view gentile society simply as the arena in which they can pursue their own Jewish agenda, and they have very little interest in that society except insofar as it can help them pursue that agenda in indirect ways. Now there have been other approaches throughout historyGerman orthodoxy attempted a different approach, as did Italian Jews during the Renaissance and the Spanish Jews, although they too fell prey to certain provincialisms...


Jewish Review: Fall prey?


Rabbi Schiller: That's a wrong term. I don't want to pre‑judge the issue and say that it is necessarily the wrong approach to be parochial. I'm talking essentially about an approach that would have Jews weigh all societal questions on one scale of ?how will this effect Jews?, and should have very little, or a vastly secondary, concern for the wider society in and of itself.? This parochial view is found in both religious and secular Jews, but it originally stems from the notion that the gentile is himself secondary in the eyes of the creator.


Jewish Review: So parallel to our sociological questions of how the Jew should behave in gentile society is a metaphysical question about the very status of the gentile. What is the nature of the gentile's soul?


Rabbi Schiller: I'm afraid that not enough attention has been paid to this question. There is, for example, a machlochis rishonim, on whether a Christian is oved Avodah Zorah (an idol worshipper), whether the trinity is Avodah Zorah (idol worship). Now the Meiri maintains that it isn't and others say that for a gentile it's not Avodah Zorah, but whatever our answer, we're not really facing what our answer entails. If Christianity is, as many maintain, Avodah Zorah, does this mean that the millions and millions of Catholics and Protestants who have lived for the past 2000 years have no share in haolam haba (the world to come)? Is that what we're saying about these millions of sincere, pious people? In reality we often don't assess the status of the gentile as if he himself had any intrinsic value. We always seem to be applying to him criteria that are relevant to us, but do not define either his objective or subjective status. Let's say, for arguments sake, that Christianity is Avodah Zorah, does that then mean that God judges the gentile as an idol worshipper or is he at least a tinok shenishba (a captive, innocent child)? In other words, why should the Christian be any worse than the tinok shenishba that the Rambam talks about in perek gimel of Hilkhot Mamarim where he says that the Karaim (Karaites) descendants are all like ?captive children.? Now seemingly the Protestant and the Catholic shouldn't be any worse off than the Karaim, but again, there has been very little attention paid to these questions .


Jewish Review: Some people would say that there is no need to pay attention to such questions.


Rabbi Schiller: Well, in what sense to do you mean ?need?. If you mean ?can I live my daily life without answering this question?? the answer is ?yes,? but it's not that simple, because the answers we give to these questions have tremendous political and social implications. In other words, can we live ethically in societies while not caring about them? What are the implications for anti‑semitism? If we hold to the notion that the gentile is secondary for God are we not in fact embracing a philosophy that is the fulfillment of every accusation that the anti‑semites have made about us? We might respond that the upshot of this view is that we should all leave our host societies and become Zionists, but even that doesn't help us because once you arrive in Israel you have to deal with the Palestinians and the Arab people. So you really can't escape the question of ?who are these gentiles and what are they doing here??

...


Rabbi Schiller: Well, in what sense to do you mean ?need?. If you mean ?can I live my daily life without answering this question?? the answer is ?yes,? but it's not that simple, because the answers we give to these questions have tremendous political and social implications. In other words, can we live ethically in societies while not caring about them? What are the implications for anti‑semitism? If we hold to the notion that the gentile is secondary for God are we not in fact embracing a philosophy that is the fulfillment of every accusation that the anti‑semites have made about us? We might respond that the upshot of this view is that we should all leave our host societies and become Zionists, but even that doesn't help us because once you arrive in Israel you have to deal with the Palestinians and the Arab people. So you really can't escape the question of ?who are these gentiles and what are they doing here??


Now, take the question of military service: should a Jew serve in the armies of the gentile nations he is living in? Should he try to get out of such service? try to get into it? If the answer is that he should try to get out of it or refuse to serve or lie his way out of it, then is the Jew a citizen? Should the gentile view him as a citizen. Should the Jew be granted equal rights if he is unwilling to make equal sacrifices? So I think you can't escape the practical implications of these questions.

....


Jewish Review: Could you comment on the contradiction which Rabbi Kahane has drawn between the Israeli state and democracy, or between the philosophy of Judaism and majority rule?


Rabbi Schiller: Kahane has asked a very simple question. He asks: if we believe in absolute truth how can we believe in majority rule? He's also asked another question, and that is whether a society which has a vision for itself (and in this particular case a religious vision, but I think this also applies to ethnic and cultural visions as well) allow for what I call ?1789? or French revolutionary political rights? This is a very big problem and I don't think that Jews have (confronted) or answered it honestly. On the one hand, for the past three or four hundred years of world history we have been in the forefront of those movements that have championed majority rule, pluralism, and ?bill of rights? type, 1789 rights. Yet when we get to Eretz Yisrael and we have our own country we're all of a sudden saying ?No, we don't believe in simple majority rule. We believe that a nation has the right to preserve its own identity.? Now, would we extend that right to Englishmen, to Frenchmen, to Germans, to Americans? I think Kahane is asking great questions. His answer is (and I'm just quoting him here from memory) that there are no nationalisms except Jewish nationalism.? Now that might be an answer, and if you follow the really hard line traditionalist approach the answer would be that there really are no other nationalisms in God's sight. All other nationalisms are a sham. So, when we're Jews in Western Europe and America we try to be liberal, pluralist and tolerant in order to protect ourselves, but not because we think societies ought to be that way in order to be healthy societies. We think healthy societies are non‑pluralistic, but when you're living amongst those ?crazy goyim? who can kill you at every turn you advocate political rights and pluralism.


Jewish Review: Kahane's view might be that since the gentiles have no legitimate nationalism their society should be democratic and pluralistic?


Rabbi Schiller: That's probably his position. But I don't think Kahane thinks about it very much. He's like everybody else in that he's not really seriously asking, for example, what a Catholic in Spain should want from his realm.? We don't spend very much time as Jews thinking what a goy should be doing as a goy.


Jewish Review: You've said that for the religious right, and I suppose you are also speaking, for example, about the Gush Emunim in Israel, that gentiles are seen as largely a means whereby God punishes, tests or protects the Jews. The gentile's personal destiny is not only secondary to ours, but in some sense, part of our own destiny. Is this a philosophy that is clearly articulated?


Rabbi Schiller: Yes, definitely. Any standard Yeshivah or Chasidische place, or your West Bank Zionists would all say that quite clearly.


Jewish Review: Yet you also argue that Jewish commitments on the left are an extension of a philosophy which places little or no value on the gentile, and are actually self serving commitments. How is this so?


Rabbi Schiller: Not always, just sometimes. Take, for example, Jewish involvement in the civil rights movements. Ask a Jew why he was in favor of civil rights and very often he'll come up with something like the following rationale: ?We could be next!? In fact recently there was a press report on Le Pen's movement in France which reported that French Jews are opposing Le Pen because they are afraid that after the Arabs they'll be next. Now this feeling is often subconscious and I'm not saying that there weren't also many Jews who were idealistic about their politics, but the question is did the Jew really feel that a white Protestant southerner should have an integrated society? Or did the Jew really feel that for our own political agenda their ought to be an integrated society. Would the Jews have wanted integration with the blacks if the southern whites were Jewish Orthodox?


Jewish Review: Perhaps the liberal Jews were sincere?


Rabbi Schiller: Many were, and the insincerity of others was largely subconscious. But as far as liberal Jews are concerned I think that we're seeing a split on that issue today. The sincere liberals are continuing on with Tikkun and things like that, but those who were full of baloney now support Commentary and Public Interest. Let's take the Tikkun people. Are they really serious? I can't believe that they really want the demographic/racial extinction of European man. Demographic trends seem to show that within the next century America will essentially be a third world nation. Does the Jewish liberal really welcome that? I think they may say they welcome that because they live in suburbia. Do they really believe that all nations, peoples and cultures should be obliterated in an egalitarian world? I don't know what they want. They're stuck because they took the notions of democracy and human rights so seriously.


Jewish Review: Do you feel that we as Orthodox Jews cannot take such notions seriously in this country?


Rabbi Schiller: The only way you can take these ideas seriously is something along the lines of a certain segment of Orthodox Catholic thinking that has evolved since Vatican II, and the ?Declaration on Religious Liberty?. John Paul II was a good illustration of this kind of thinking. I'm talking about John Courtney Murray's famous book We Hold These Truths and the National Review‑type Catholic. Somehow they feel that God gave man dignity and that dignity means that he must have the rights of the French Revolution. Now, of course, Catholic traditionalists have opposed this, but I think this is the only way we can put liberalism and traditional religion together: The dignity of man entitles him to certain rights and even if these rights subvert the Orthodoxy of others they must somehow be respected. It's an ?iffy? proposition.


Jewish Review: Even if these rights subvert Jewish Orthodoxy?


Rabbi Schiller: That's the only way you could possibly do it. You'd have to say that the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly, etc. are so intrinsically linked to the dignity of man that no coercive force should ever be allowed to interfere with them in any way. I think many Modern Orthodox Jewish thinkers who don't think too critically, would say something like this: that the Bill of Rights is one of the greatest things on the earth. If you asked a Rabbi Rackman or a Sol Roth about what their metaphysical (or theological) underpinning for their view on this is I don't know what they would say. It's rather nice. It's a friendly sort of thing. But can you really defend it in the end? I've studied at great length this controversy in the Catholic church for the past 25 years. I've been obsessed with it and I think the anti‑Vatican II traditionalists are on very sound ground on this ?freedom? question. They're the ones who can maintain a consistency in their Catholic faith (and I'm afraid it seems true in a Jewish context as well). But I must say that I am far more concerned with uncovering the tension between liberal democratic thought and Orthodox religion than I am in resolving it.

Repeated again, for emphasis:

"Jewish Review: Perhaps the liberal Jews were sincere?


Rabbi Schiller: Many were, and the insincerity of others was largely subconscious. But as far as liberal Jews are concerned I think that we're seeing a split on that issue today. The sincere liberals are continuing on with Tikkun and things like that, but those who were full of baloney now support Commentary and Public Interest. Let's take the Tikkun people. Are they really serious? I can't believe that they really want the demographic/racial extinction of European man. Demographic trends seem to show that within the next century America will essentially be a third world nation. Does the Jewish liberal really welcome that? I think they may say they welcome that because they live in suburbia. Do they really believe that all nations, peoples and cultures should be obliterated in an egalitarian world? I don't know what they want. They're stuck because they took the notions of democracy and human rights so seriously."

http://www.thejewishreview.org/articles/?id=182

... and more at the link. Maybe this helps show why some practicing Jews like those in the ACLU for instance have such 'contradictory' positions re American and Europeans cultures and are 'liberal' re policies for others while having entirely different policies for themselves and in Israel. Reminds me of that old Yiddish joke re if you listen to two Jews arguing at the bus stop you will hear three opinions.

 

[Picaro]

The colossal blame of the gentile political representatives of the american people must be recognized outloud as a matter of fairness, of basic justice.

But the fact remains that without the presence of millions of askhenazis living in the Greater New York region and elsewhere in the United States and the political representatives like Celler that they kept electing for decades on end, America's racial composition would never have been destroyed.

My fellow jewish members of the Board will have to forgive me but I'm just stating the truth.

Well, the wish lists of big and small ag businesses and other employers played a bigger role, they love criminal illegal aliens as well as lots of desperate immigrants they can abuse at will. In any event the Liberal New York Jewish academics who became the teachers and educators that for three generations made New York public schools the envy of the world shot themselves in the foot, since they were the first ones the left wing radicals tossed out on the streets when they got their quota systems implemented in city jobs categories, so I'm sure many regretted that.

 

[esalla]

Why is the F35 ?? Bad

The F35 was engineered to be vertical takeoff and landing and as such not need an aircraft carrier as other jets do, the F35 can actually do this supposedly with no payload and with very low fuel which renders the jet useless for combat, this is a failure and an expensive piece of krap which is why it is being sold to everyone. Shit we would sell this to the Russians and Chinese but they already have better

 

[esalla]

Sunni and I agree 100 percent on US policy
We disagree only on Israel

Quasar, spend a minute and read about these orthodox Jews. ...

Neturei Karta - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do orthodox Jews cut off their daughters vaginas like Muslims do?

 

[ESay]

Originally posted by Esay
The White race is on decline everywhere now. Look at Europe. It is just the second size of the coin to where liberalism, humanism and capitalism (great ideas per se) can lead when reaching the point of absurd.

Every society has an ideology according to which it lives, even if someone thinks there isn't any. What ideology does the West have now? In short - hedonism. Which is a self-destruction for the society.

Good contribution, Esay... a thoughtful, philosophical one.

But let me bring the discussion back to more "concrete" terms.

Let me just clarify one important point...

At the very least, America's political leaders bear half of the blame for the destruction of America's racial makeup.

Congress was overwhelmingly anglo in the 50's and 60's when America redefined itself as a multiracial country through a series of changes in immigration laws conceived, presented and heavily supported by american Jews and their political representatives.

They had a duty to reject the 1965 Immigration Act put forth by jewish american congressman Emanuel Celler.

The american public opposed any change in the immigration laws by a large margin.

Johnson and Congress failed miserably to represent the will of the american people, their boss, their employer, the ones who paid their salaries.

They betrayed the trust the american people placed in them and their betrayal will never be forgotten.

So I will never put 100% of the blame for the destruction of America's racial composition on the shoulders of the american jewish community because it would be a tremendous injustice.

Perhaps not even 50% but this is open for debate.

What you wrote above is the consequences rather than the cause. The people who were making the decisions clearly saw the trend. Roughly at the same time the West European countries were opening their doors to immigrants from former colonies or elsewhere - West Germany for the Turks and the UK for India and Pakistan, as examples. It was a common trend.

 

[toastman]

Now answer my question -which one empire that went against us we didn't watch fall in humiliation?

Don't flatter yourself Shlomo.
Historically, every empire that has risen eventually fell.
Regardless if they were infected with jews or not. ...

I would say that the empire of Palestine might fall, by they are not even a state
Even though the entire Middle East is infected with Muslims .

 

[toastman]

Quasar44
see what I've told You about Sunni?
Easily triggered, predictable like a clock.

Actually, Shlomo, you are the one who got all bent out of shape. ...

Priceless...

Is that why You blame every inter-Muslim war on Israel?

Every time Muslims commit atrocities , he blames Jews. He can’t handle the fact that the people of the religion he follows are responsible for so much. chaos and destruction around the world .

 

[toastman]

For you Sunni Man

List of Islamist terrorist attacks - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org