angelo wrote:I'm very late to this thread, and have read a good part of it, but not all of it, so this may have already been mentioned, but were there any orthodox Jews among the perpetrators of 9/11 ? Not that I'm claiming one religion is superior above the other, just saying.

Although the title of the thread mentions Orthodox Jews, from subsequent discussion I'm pretty sure we've agreed that the OP was meaning the Ultra-Orthodox. These are people who have fought for exemption from military service on the grounds that they should be studying and praying in yeshivas. And so I would be surprised if they believed in that kind of terrorism.

Which of course does not mean that there aren't Jewish extremists. There are extremists of every variety. But to answer your question, I think all of the conspirators in the 9/11 attacks were Muslim extremists.

angelo wrote:I just read through this thread rather quickly, but I can see Nora as the calming voice among the antagonists here. I think Scot as usual for him went slightly overboard. Whether he deserved to be banned is not up to me, and I have no opinion on the matter.

Scot is suspended, not banned.

Varangian wrote:

angelo wrote:I just read through this thread rather quickly, but I can see Nora as the calming voice among the antagonists here. I think Scot as usual for him went slightly overboard. Whether he deserved to be banned is not up to me, and I have no opinion on the matter.

Scot is suspended, not banned.

My mistake in wording.

angelo wrote:I'm very late to this thread, and have read a good part of it, but not all of it, so this may have already been mentioned, but were there any orthodox Jews among the perpetrators of 9/11 ? Not that I'm claiming one religion is superior above the other, just saying.

IIRC, one of the insalubrious legends surrounding 9/11 is that "no Jews worked in the WTC that day", which of course is a lie and blatant conspiratorialism. I do not remember the number, I have seen it, but a very substantial number of Jews perished with the towers.

The point been that although tiny in number, the orthodox Jews unlike muslim fundamentalist/extremists have very few suicide bombers, or have caused terrorist attacks that left hundreds dead and many more injured in many parts of the Western world.

I think it was the Libyan leader Gaddaffi who once said that muslims need not make war with the West, that through immigration islam would prevail. Extremist views not harboured by orthodox Jews.

angelo wrote:
I think it was the Libyan leader Gaddaffi who once said that muslims need not make war with the West, that through immigration islam would prevail. Extremist views not harboured by orthodox Jews.

Surely immigration can't be considered an 'extremist' view? Otherwise both our ancestors could be labelled extremist? For when our ancestors immigrated to the US/Australia they took their views with them.

The words Gadaffi used were extreme and offensive, not the immigration itself. Anti Western views he had at the time may I add. Osama bin Laden also an extremist made many threats, and carried out many of them. My point been I don't ever recall an orthodox Jew causing mayhem like these examples.

I think one of the reasons is that Jews don't look to recruit new members. They don't want to dominate the world, they just want Jerusalem.

angelo wrote:The words Gadaffi used were extreme and offensive, not the immigration itself. Anti Western views he had at the time may I add. Osama bin Laden also an extremist made many threats, and carried out many of them. My point been I don't ever recall an orthodox Jew causing mayhem like these examples.

There were some plans made for terrorist attacks against Germany after WW2, but these were made by non-religious holocaust victims, who had been driven into a strongly nationalistic Jewish ideology by their experiences. In the Israeli conflict for independence, religious Jews seldom participated, and during the early days of Israeli independence, religious Jews on several occasions prevent secular Jewish soldiers from carrying out massacres on Muslims.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:The words Gadaffi used were extreme and offensive, not the immigration itself. Anti Western views he had at the time may I add. Osama bin Laden also an extremist made many threats, and carried out many of them. My point been I don't ever recall an orthodox Jew causing mayhem like these examples.

There were some plans made for terrorist attacks against Germany after WW2, but these were made by non-religious holocaust victims, who had been driven into a strongly nationalistic Jewish ideology by their experiences. In the Israeli conflict for independence, religious Jews seldom participated, and during the early days of Israeli independence, religious Jews on several occasions prevent[ed] secular Jewish soldiers from carrying out massacres on Muslims.

Citations needed.

Oldskeptic wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:

angelo wrote:The words Gadaffi used were extreme and offensive, not the immigration itself. Anti Western views he had at the time may I add. Osama bin Laden also an extremist made many threats, and carried out many of them. My point been I don't ever recall an orthodox Jew causing mayhem like these examples.

There were some plans made for terrorist attacks against Germany after WW2, but these were made by non-religious holocaust victims, who had been driven into a strongly nationalistic Jewish ideology by their experiences. In the Israeli conflict for independence, religious Jews seldom participated, and during the early days of Israeli independence, religious Jews on several occasions prevent[ed] secular Jewish soldiers from carrying out massacres on Muslims.

Citations needed.

Göran Rosenberg's Det Förlorade Landet (available in French as L'Utopie Perdue, dunno if there's an English translation) interviews soldiers, terrorists, revolutionaries, a bunch of ex-zionists and current zionists. Rosenberg has been a Zionist in his younger years, but now rejects Zionism, and is not religious. His book is a fairly serious criticism of Zionism. One of the sources regarding religious Jews hindering the army from massacring Palestinians was quite angry about it, thinking what the religious people did was wrong and unpatriotic.

A more scholarly volume that doesn't refer to those particular incidents, but does give a more general picture of to what extent Judaism has inspired violence is Robert Eisen's The Peace and Violence of Judaism from the Bible to Modern Zionism. This book even assumes that the reader *knows* that early Zionism - pretty much all the way up to WW2 - was almost entirely secular. The only notable exception was Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook and his adherents. Kook had to come up with an explanation for how Zionism can be a good thing, when the adherents of it by and large were secular, irreligious (and even anti-religious) Jews (pp. 147-150ish). His explanation was that every jew - whether religious or not - does strive for the higher good, so although they're destructive in their heresy and apostasy, they're also (unconsciously) constructive in their zeal for Jewish settlement in the land. "According to Kook, this understanding of secular Zionism was also confirmed by talmudic sources claiming that the messiah would come in a time of moral decline, brazenness and apostasy. For Kook, the secular Zionist movement seemed to fit this description precisely."
... Kook's ideas did not become popular. After his death, his son Tsevi Yehudah further developed this theology. It started gaining ground after the six-day war. Now, the book also summarizes some terrorist plots by Jewish groups (religious ones) in the 1980s, mind you in direct response to rather identical terrorist plots carried out by palestinians. The authorities stopped (most of) these plots. That's decades after the events I referred to, though.

The plan to kill millions of Germans can be found in The Avenger: A Jewish War Story, by Rich Cohen.

Do you ask for sources just to vent your distrust of what I say, or do you ask out of genuine desire to check these things out.

The difference here is that this act of savagery was condemned by the Israeli government as well as orthodox Jews.
I distinctly remember Palestinian muslims dancing in the streets of Lebanon as the news of 9/11 reached the Middle East.

Ah well, I remember seeing muslim authorities condemning 9/11 and I remember seeing a documentary where jewish extremists applauded the Patriarch's Cave murderer.

There is no difference between Islam and Judaism in that both can be used to justify whatever you want to justify with them.

You know why?

Because:

1. Humans are basically the same whatever religion they belong to. Or can you show some genetic differences between muslims and jews that would influence their behaviour?

2. Both Islam and Judaism are not coherent systems but offer a wide variety of partially contradictory ideas to pick and choose from. While followers of the faith will see their interpretation of the religion as consistent and true(TM), an objective examination reveals that there is no consistent form of either Judaism or Islam.


The idea that Islam is somehow intrinsically worse than other religions was born by several groups in order to achieve certain political agendas. Any rational observer should after some examination see the basic faults of this idea.

NineBerry wrote:Ah well, I remember seeing muslim authorities condemning 9/11 and I remember seeing a documentary where jewish extremists applauded the Patriarch's Cave murderer.

There is no difference between Islam and Judaism in that both can be used to justify whatever you want to justify with them.

You know why?

Because:

1. Humans are basically the same whatever religion they belong to. Or can you show some genetic differences between muslims and jews that would influence their behaviour?

2. Both Islam and Judaism are not coherent systems but offer a wide variety of partially contradictory ideas to pick and choose from. While followers of the faith will see their interpretation of the religion as consistent and true(TM), an objective examination reveals that there is no consistent form of either Judaism or Islam.


The idea that Islam is somehow intrinsically worse than other religions was born by several groups in order to achieve certain political agendas. Any rational observer should after some examination see the basic faults of this idea.

I agree, all religions are basically the same that they believe in some higher power, and that there are true nut cases in all denominations, including the so-called peaceful Hindu religion.

I do not agree with the statements that Jewish men treat their women better. The basic tenants of both faiths are in agreement about women. Islam was created by the descendants of the jews. The jews do not allow 'foreign women' thus they exiled them. They blamed their 'foreign wives' for things they did wrong. Thus they only treat 'jewish women' well and anyone else is considered 'concubine' and not worthy of the same rights as the jewish women. The Islamic faith believes this also-but they believe they are of the correct 'male lineage' of jews anmd thus the men 'are part of the chosen seed'. That's the difference. It is really sad because both believe they are of the same ancestors and are thus 'chosen' SEED. The Kingdom of Israel killed the children of their CONCUBINES to keep the foreign women under control. It has nothing to do with anything but ancestor worship and their own 'pharonic lineage' from the Hyksos dyansty. Hyksos Dynasty is not that old. Thus as far as I am concerned they are both Extremely SCAREY INSTITUTIONS.

No Jewish patriarch or prophet had sex with an under age girl as far as I aware. Muhammad had a nine year old wife.

iris wrote:I do not agree with the statements that Jewish men treat their women better. The basic tenants of both faiths are in agreement about women. Islam was created by the descendants of the jews. The jews do not allow 'foreign women' thus they exiled them. They blamed their 'foreign wives' for things they did wrong. Thus they only treat 'jewish women' well and anyone else is considered 'concubine' and not worthy of the same rights as the jewish women. The Islamic faith believes this also-but they believe they are of the correct 'male lineage' of jews anmd thus the men 'are part of the chosen seed'. That's the difference. It is really sad because both believe they are of the same ancestors and are thus 'chosen' SEED. The Kingdom of Israel killed the children of their CONCUBINES to keep the foreign women under control. It has nothing to do with anything but ancestor worship and their own 'pharonic lineage' from the Hyksos dyansty. Hyksos Dynasty is not that old. Thus as far as I am concerned they are both Extremely SCAREY INSTITUTIONS.

To what extent can we assume Biblical Judaism and modern (even ultra-orthodox) Judaism are the same? No matter what the Bible's stances are on things, modern forms of Judaism to a large extent derive from talmudic times instead, and even then there's been a lot of changes going on.

Also, Islam doesn't generally believe muslims are the true descendants of the Jews (although they believe Arabs are descendants of Ismael, and also that Ismael is the son of Abraham to which the promises were inherited or whatever) - the majority of Muslims are not Arabic.

Whether there's any notable relation between Judaism and the Hyksos is not established, and the only source for such a claim in antiquity is Josephus - 1500+ years later. It's likely he just made that connection up.

Regarding intermarriage, orthodox Judaism forbids both men and women from intermarrying, but accept the offspring of Jewish females as Jewish regardless of the father's ethnicity/religion. Islam permits Muslim men from marrying women of other people of the book - that is, Jewish and Christian females. Muslim females are not permitted that freedom in sharia. So there are differences there. The idea Judaism goes for is something like 'children are more likely to inherit their mother's religion than their father's, on account of women doing most of the child-rearing', whereas the Islamic point of view probably is something like 'the father can decide for his children, hence this way all offspring of Muslim men can be ensured to be Muslims, and all offspring of Muslim women will be restricted to families where the father is Muslim as well so no children are lost to Christians or Jews by intermarriage'. Slightly different dynamics there, both are of course somewhat suspect dynamics, but still. Differences exist.

angelo wrote:No Jewish patriarch or prophet had sex with an under age girl as far as I aware. Muhammad had a nine year old wife.

That is basically where the difference ends. The jews are more subtile. They actually do manage to get the women believe that they have total freedom which of course is not true.

Today ofcourse the waters are very mudded by the liberal jews who the orthodox say are not jews.
In islam a liberal muslim organisation has not appeared. There has been no schism along those lines plenty on other lines though which has clearly manifest itself in countries in the middle east.

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Today ofcourse the waters are very mudded by the liberal jews who the orthodox say are not jews.

This they do not say!

(Except re: the converts, for whom they consider the standards of conversion in reform to be too lax).