PDA

View Full Version : Is the Enemy of Our Enemy Our Friend?



Blutwölfin
Sunday, October 29th, 2006, 08:28 AM
Simple question - but a simple answer? We all know this phrase: "The enemy of your enemy is your friend". But is this statement correct? Your opinions please!

Vingolf
Sunday, October 29th, 2006, 01:39 PM
Simple question - but a simple answer? We all know this phrase: "The enemy of your enemy is your friend". But is this statement correct? Your opinions please!

- "Alliances", common interests, are not equivalent to friendship. American Jews and Afro-Americans do not have a lot in common, but they have traditionally had a common interest in reducing or even eliminating Germanic ethnic self-consciousness.

Moody
Sunday, October 29th, 2006, 01:57 PM
I think on a principled level that we should never take sides with one of our own natural enemies in order to fight another of our enemies.

This is what the USA did with the USSR in WWII, of course. Also it seems that the USA cultivated Muslim terrorists as allies against the USSR too.

In both cases, once their immediate foes had been defeated, their 'allies' became an enemy in that foe's place, rather defeating the object.

So principles must come first. No alliances with enemies, even if they may be covenient at the time.

However, we can take sides with a neutral against an enemy.

By neutral I mean someone who may have different views to us, but is not opposed to us in anyway - i.e., is not an enemy.

So only in the latter case is 'my enemy's enemy' excusable.

Of course, in all alliances there is always an element of payback.

Alizon Device
Sunday, October 29th, 2006, 05:07 PM
I would have posed selection number 2 as
"No, we are not discerning enough in our friendships".

That farce of NPD members wearing Iranian football shirts at the world cup exemplifies my thoughts on this.
Iran, not to mention the whole host of other parties struggling against Israel/America in the Middle East wouldn't bat an eyelid if the relatively small number of European 'right radicals' condemned or condoned what they were doing.

They are fighting for their miserable survival and dying in thousands. What the hell do they care if a few thousand middle-class internet nerds are cheering them on from their sofas?

We're not on the streets in open revolt against our judeo-loving Governments, risking injury and death. If I was a muslim fighting tanks and aircraft in the back streets of Baghdad or the Gaza Strip I wouldn't care what the comfy Europeans thought.

They are in a personal turf war with Israel. That's their problem, I hope they win, but I care as much about them as they do about me.
The only time you will see muslim fighters entering Europe to fight judeo-Yankee tyranny is when fellow brother-muslims are in danger. i.e. Bosnia.

Dagna
Saturday, June 28th, 2008, 09:03 PM
Do you believe in the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Why or why not?

The phrase, The enemy of my enemy is my friend is usually considered a foreign policy doctrine that is commonly used to confront a significant enemy through an intermediary in order to undermine the enemy and in a "cold" manner, as opposed to a "hot", direct confrontation. It's an ancient proverb that means that solely because two parties have a common enemy, they are friends. Often described as an Arab proverb, there is also an identical Chinese proverb and both may be an extension of another Chinese proverb that says, "It is good to strike the serpent's head with your enemy's hand." A historical example of this policy occurred when the Greeks were attacked by the Persians at Thermopylae; the Greek city states put aside their differences and fought the common enemy.

Criticisms

Using a common enemy as the basis for an allegiance is problematic because there are probably very few other areas for common ground, and absent the common enemy, the friends might otherwise be enemies themselves. If the common enemy disappears, the friends might turn on each other. This has been shown before, such as when US - backed militia in Afghanistan fighting the occupying Soviet Union are now one of its greatest enemies. Going further back the same situation happened at the end of the Second World War: without a common enemy, the differences between the USA, the United Kingdom and France and their ally the USSR were no longer accepted because the threat they shared was absent. In many respects, the USSR and the USA posed far greater threats to each other than Nazi Germany ever did. Cartoonist Howard Taylor, using humor toward social critique, condenses the concept into 'Rule 29', "The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_enemy_of_my_enemy_is_my_friend

DanseMacabre
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 08:46 PM
I believe it is flawed to say the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Alliances between foes may be useful to oppose a greater danger. But you should always be prepared for conflict with your "friend" when the greater danger has been vanquished.

Patrioten
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 09:02 PM
We have a saying in Sweden, ensam är stark, alone is strong, and I think it is better to fight your own battles without having to depend on people you barely know or have few things in common with. To rely on strangers to back you up in a potentially critical situation is not a sound strategy. In that case, it is better to go the extra mile yourself and eliminating the element of chance.

It also depends on whether this "friendship" will result in your side having to make any consessions on your part, to satisfy your temporary ally. If there are any such consessions to be made, and they are deemed too great a sacrifice compared to the benefits gained from uniting under the same banner, then the answer is of course no, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. On the other hand, if you cannot go at it alone and if this cooperation is founded solemnly on a basis of fighting the common enemy, without any catches or demands attached, then the answer is yes.

Veritas Æquitas
Monday, June 30th, 2008, 09:07 PM
I believe that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, otherwise I wouldn't be at this site.. ;)

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 03:26 AM
Do you believe in the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Why or why not? Yes, but only should they be of equal relation. I shall not conspire with a cousin to kill a brother nor shall I conspire with a stranger to kill a cousin.

Gorm the Old
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 03:53 AM
I wish I could remember who said this, but all I can recall is that he was French. "There will never be peace on Earth until we find someone on Mars to fight." :rolleyes:

Matamoros
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 07:51 AM
We have a saying in Sweden, ensam är stark, alone is strong, and I think it is better to fight your own battles without having to depend on people you barely know or have few things in common with. To rely on strangers to back you up in a potentially critical situation is not a sound strategy. In that case, it is better to go the extra mile yourself and eliminating the element of chance.

It also depends on whether this "friendship" will result in your side having to make any concessions on your part, to satisfy your temporary ally. If there are any such concessions to be made, and they are deemed too great a sacrifice compared to the benefits gained from uniting under the same banner, then the answer is of course no, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend. On the other hand, if you cannot go at it alone and if this cooperation is founded solemnly on a basis of fighting the common enemy, without any catches or demands attached, then the answer is yes.

This is my view. "Alone is strong" has always seemed an excellent attitude to me - and any necessary alliances with those who aren't your friends should be treated with the utmost caution.

SouthernBoy
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 08:12 AM
We have a saying in Sweden, ensam är stark, alone is strong, and I think it is better to fight your own battles without having to depend on people you barely know or have few things in common with. I must say that is a very peculiar saying. My experience tells me the opposite is true. Are there many gangs in Sweden?

Matamoros
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 09:35 AM
I must say that is a very peculiar saying. My experience tells me the opposite is true. Are there many gangs in Sweden?
I took "alone" to mean us (a group of like minded individuals) alone, rather than an individual alone. I suppose there could be different interpretations.

Elysium
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 09:44 AM
The enemy of your enemy can be your friend. It depends on how blind you are to your environment and how misled you have been by your true enemy.

Thusnelda
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 09:47 AM
I don´t agree to the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." :)

I´d prefer to say "The enemy of my enemy is not an enemy as long as my enemy hasn´t lost". But what happens afterwards is unclear. There isn´t only "friend" or "enemy", there can also be a neutral status. The acient Romans had a good saying: "Si vis pacem para bellum" ("If you want peace, prepare for war")

Having allies is good but a country should always have means to self-defence in the own backhand. For the case of the cases. *g*

Siebenbürgerin
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 09:50 AM
I don't think so. A concrete example are the Muslims. They are the enemy of the Jews, but they aren't our friends. They too immigrate to Germanic lands and want all sort of privileges. The enemy of my enemy can even by my enemy.

Blood_Axis
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 10:48 AM
I don't think so. A concrete example are the Muslims. They are the enemy of the Jews, but they aren't our friends. They too immigrate to Germanic lands and want all sort of privileges. The enemy of my enemy can even by my enemy.
I was thinking the exact same thing before I read your post ;)

This 'Enemy of My Enemy' theory is somewhat ideologically dangerous as it may lead to paradoxical hybrids such as Nazi-muslims (:D), National-bolshevists and so on.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9d/Natzbols.jpg/200px-Natzbols.jpg:D

I had been among the first to advocate such 'unholly alliances' in the past, until I saw the natural consequences. So, better not. ;)

Elysium
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 11:14 AM
I don't think so. A concrete example are the Muslims. They are the enemy of the Jews, but they aren't our friends. They too immigrate to Germanic lands and want all sort of privileges. The enemy of my enemy can even by my enemy.

I disagree. Jews, or whatever you would like to call those in control, have encouraged them to come to our lands so that we are both distracted. Divide and conquer.

Siebenbürgerin
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 11:22 AM
I disagree. Jews, or whatever you would like to call those in control, have encouraged them to come to our lands so that we are both distracted. Divide and conquer.
How do you explain the Ottoman Empire? Muslims wanted to conquer Europe long before they disputed with the Jews over Israel.

Ossi
Tuesday, July 1st, 2008, 11:25 AM
I disagree. Jews, or whatever you would like to call those in control, have encouraged them to come to our lands so that we are both distracted. Divide and conquer.
NONSENSE. This philosophy that Muslims are a "lesser evil" is unfounded. Islam is an expansionist religion by definition. Read the Qu'ran and you'll see it for yourself. Islam means submission. The Muslims want to submit the "unbelievers", they believe in Jihad. The mosques are signs of their domination in our countries.

Maelstrom
Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008, 05:30 AM
I've pomdered this question myself for some time and come to the following conclusion:

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend, but rather a close (business) associate. :p

Elysium
Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008, 06:22 AM
NONSENSE. This philosophy that Muslims are a "lesser evil" is unfounded. Islam is an expansionist religion by definition. Read the Qu'ran and you'll see it for yourself. Islam means submission. The Muslims want to submit the "unbelievers", they believe in Jihad. The mosques are signs of their domination in our countries.

No. If you fight Muslims, Jews will further divide you and will destroy you one at a time. If we both fought against Jews (Bankers, Elite, etc.), they would no doubt lose. Then we can settle our disputes in an environment without intervention from incredibly clever elites.

Ossi
Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008, 09:15 AM
No. If you fight Muslims, Jews will further divide you and will destroy you one at a time. If we both fought against Jews (Bankers, Elite, etc.), they would no doubt lose. Then we can settle our disputes in an environment without intervention from incredibly clever elites.
Naivity at its best. Making any kind of alliance with the Muslims would mean submission. i.e. accepting their kind in our countries, granting them more "rights". The Muslims in this city scare away and rape our women. Have you seen the Muslims in Europe rallying and threatening us with holocausts? Germans shouldn't ally themselves with such scum, we have enough of them in our country, we need LESS, not MORE.

Dagna
Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008, 11:21 AM
No. If you fight Muslims, Jews will further divide you and will destroy you one at a time. If we both fought against Jews (Bankers, Elite, etc.), they would no doubt lose. Then we can settle our disputes in an environment without intervention from incredibly clever elites.
The Muslims have literally terrorized America. Do you suggest we ally with the people who caused this? And do not tell me it is a Jewish conspiracy.

http://www.echonews.com/736/images/world_trade_centre.jpg

Gorm the Old
Wednesday, July 2nd, 2008, 03:20 PM
Islam is not a "lesser evil" than ANYTHING. Ossi has just repeated what I have said so often that I sometimes wonder if anybody is out there. ISLAM IS THE ENEMY, not only of Christianity and Western culture, but of EVERY other culture and EVERY other religion.

Don't believe me. Don't believe Ossi. READ THE QUR'AN ! It's all there. If you're not a Muslim, you're an infidel and every able-bodied male Muslim is obliged to make war on you.

Don't let any Muslim apologist tell you that jihad is a personal struggle against heresy and sin. That's NOT what the Qur'an says ! JIHAD IS WAR ON INFIDELS. These days, Islam has found an insidious alternative to conquest by arms: conquest by immigration.

Even if Judaism were an enemy [which I am not convinced that it is] which would be the lesser evil ? There are about 100 times as many Muslims as Jews in the world. Islam is expanding rapidly, Judaism is not. Which would be the real threat ?

Moody
Wednesday, September 10th, 2008, 07:47 AM
Simple question - but a simple answer? We all know this phrase: "The enemy of your enemy is your friend". But is this statement correct? Your opinions please!

Whilst I believe this to be correct only in some cases, as I said above, we must also look at the other [mirror] formula: "The friend of my enemy is my enemy."

This is an even more difficult one, as we do not want to 'divide our friends and unite our enemies', so to speak, as our enemies often have friends in common with us and vice versa.

I am also minded of that other maxim: 'keep your friends close but your enemies even closer'.

Kurt Steiner
Sunday, February 7th, 2010, 03:38 PM
An enemy who wants to make common cause against a greater enemy is welcome as long as his blood debt is the same or greater than that of my own tribe.
The prime element of maneuver is to strike the weakened enemy at his vulnerable time and place (Center of gravity that we have learned in our temporary alliance)

Before Germany invaded Poland, Poland was a dictatotrship that mudered inncocent German citizens. Its true that they owed a blood debt. But it is also true that the planned Soviet conquest of Europe would have to traverse Poland on its way to Germany. The goal then was a temporary alliance with Poland until the war with the USSR was won.
Germany should have courted the Poles. Assisted them in developing a 2 million-man army. Help them with their Eastern defenses, minefields and antitank fronts.
Then when the reds attacked, the Soviet fronts that reached Germany would be greatly weakened and Germany's 100 Panzer Divisions and 200 semi-motorized infantry divisions would strike the enemy with an onslaught that would cause the fall of Moscow AND THE ERADICATION OF sTALINISM.
Of course, there are other possibilities. It was strategically wrong to give the Soviets a border with Germany.

Drottin
Friday, April 9th, 2010, 08:37 PM
An enemy of your enemy is not a friend. Be careful with these, they can quickly turn against you also. Always keep an eye on them.

Lothar
Wednesday, April 14th, 2010, 03:53 AM
I disagree. Jews, or whatever you would like to call those in control, have encouraged them to come to our lands so that we are both distracted. Divide and conquer.

In my studies of religions, a religious person usually does not do anything to promote their own destruction.
Islam is a religion bent on the absolute destruction of the Jews.
as this Hadith will show
Volume 4, Book 52, Number 177:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour(last day) will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 791:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The Jews will fight with you, and you will be given victory over them so that a stone will say, 'O Muslim! There is a Jew behind me; kill him!' "

I find it hard to believe that even the elite jews would want to manipulate this two edged sword (Islam), as on the one edge, yes they may destroy European culture. The other edge insures there own destruction as well.

Halfr
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010, 03:44 PM
Completely contextual. But generally: No.

Mouse Shadow
Wednesday, May 26th, 2010, 04:03 AM
I think that age old adage should be changed now to this;

"The enemy of my enemy, should be used."

'Used', meaning to expend, waste, degrade.

Meaning we have no emotional attachments to anyone beyond our race. Because anyone who is an enemy of us isn't 'brain-wise' normal. We are kind people, so anyone who isn't kind we shouldn't waste our efforts on them. Instead they are just tools. After all, enemies are enemies.

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, May 26th, 2010, 06:21 AM
I think that age old adage should be changed now to this;

"The enemy of my enemy, should be used."

'Used', meaning to expend, waste, degrade.

Meaning we have no emotional attachments to anyone beyond our race. Because anyone who is an enemy of us isn't 'brain-wise' normal. We are kind people, so anyone who isn't kind we shouldn't waste our efforts on them. Instead they are just tools. After all, enemies are enemies.

Interesting Take on that, I find that many times the kindness of Germanic people is generally repaid with Evil. If you take WW2 as an example, it was white Germanic that did most of the fighting, in the US Armed Forces against the Germans.

As a repayment we got the 1960‘s Marxist Hippie Revolution. Which has been steady whittling down our freedoms and constitutional law to where we are today.

Basically today the US or USSA is in the same position Russia was in in the 1980's.

We are run by a small wealthy group of global elite, who are wealthy, largely Jewish, and communist, just as the Bolsheviks were in the USSR.

Had we stayed out of WW2 the Germans would have finished off Marxism.

frippardthree
Wednesday, May 26th, 2010, 08:02 AM
I think on a principled level that we should never take sides with one of our own natural enemies in order to fight another of our enemies.

This is what the USA did with the USSR in WWII, of course. Also it seems that the USA cultivated Muslim terrorists as allies against the USSR too.

So principles must come first. No alliances with enemies, even if they may be covenient at the time.

However, we can take sides with a neutral against an enemy.

I think that I would have to agree with Moody, but sadly there are very few Governments today, which operate solely on morality and principles.

I would have to say that the enemy of our enemy is not always our friend. Our hisory shows that time and time again, different sets of foes have temporarily joined together, in order to combat a common enemy. These were alliances out of necessity and convenience, but not out of friendship. This pretty much sums up many of the United States' miltary alliances of the 20th century.

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, June 1st, 2010, 04:09 PM
I would say the enemy of of our enemy IS our enemy.

Meaning from a racial perspective they are both Semitics, only with a different religion.

Also one point to make is the Islamic Immigrants/Illegals were in fact, and have in fact, been supported by the same Rothschild globalist as a demographic weapon against Germanic countries.

So in spite of the "War on Terrorism" the fact remains that that is mostly a war to see which Semitic group will rule the world, and has nothing to do with a declining Germanic Population.

Gary in TX
Tuesday, June 1st, 2010, 06:25 PM
I would have to say no.

They might be and they could be friendly, but they might actually end up hating your guts as much as they do your common enemy. Plus that doesn't imply that they're like you at all.

Kind of like how Hitler and the 3rd Reich allied itself with Japan. Not exactly a good move at all and it wasn't to Germany's ultimate benefit.