Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says

Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says

There are 38083 comments on the Worcester Telegram & Gazette story from Jun 4, 2007, titled Israel's end is near, Ahmadinejad says. In it, Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports that:

TEHRAN, Iran- Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday said the world would witness the destruction of Israel soon, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37735 Feb 4, 2013
Hunglo wrote:
<quoted text>
The US civil war killed between 650,000 and 850,000 or about 2% of the population at the time. In Northern Ireland 3526 people were killed in the "troubles" between 1969 and 2001, about 2% of the population. So far in Syria less than .2% of the population has been killed in a civil war driven not by religion as much as by a desire to overthrow a despotic regime.
See the hostile response to your reasonable post?

These people do not want peace to reign in the world. They would twist and they would turn and they would try every mean to increase the hate and hatred between people.

Instead of bridging the gap and trying to bring people and religions together, they would always try to create discord and increase differences between people.

If you ask what are the similarities between major religions of the world, they would be dumbstruck and would not be able to say anything.

But if you ask them to relate the differences, they would be instantly revived and open their pack of hate and hatred.

You would come to know them as you exchange few posts with them.

I wish you best of luck.
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#37736 Feb 4, 2013


-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

When Will the Killing War in Iran Begin? It Already Has

“Economic sanctions are, at their core, a war against public health.”–The New England Journal of Medicine [1]

By Stephen Gowans
(Contd.)

Uranium enrichment has emerged as point of conflict for two reasons.

First, a civilian nuclear power industry strengthens Iran economically and domestic uranium enrichment provides the country with an independent source of nuclear fuel. Were Iran to depend on the West for enriched uranium to power its reactors, it would be forever at the mercy of a hostile US state. Likewise, concern over energy security being in the hands of an outside power has led Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam and South Korea to insist over US objections that they be allowed to produce nuclear fuel domestically, without sanction. With US nuclear reactor sales hanging in the balance, it appears that their wishes will be respected.[13] Iran will be uniquely denied.

Secondly, uranium enrichment provides Tehran with the capability of developing nuclear weapons quickly, if it should ever feel compelled to. Given Washington’s longstanding hostility to an independent Iran, there are good reasons why the country may want to strengthen its means of self-defense. The hypocrisy of the United States championing counter-proliferation—and only selectively since no one is asking Israel to give up its nuclear weapons, and the United States hasn’t the slightest intention of ever relinquishing its own—reveals the illegitimacy of the exercise.

The reason, then, for waging war on Iran’s public health, a war that intensifies the suffering of the sick and kills cancer, kidney dialysis and other patients, is not because their government has a secret nuclear weapons program —which no one in the US intelligence community believes anyway—but because a developing Iran with independent energy, economic and foreign policies threatens Washington’s preferred world political order—one in which the United States has unchallenged primacy. Primacy is sought, not to satisfy ambitions for power for power’s sake, or to provide ordinary US citizens with economic opportunities at home, or to protect them from dangers that originate abroad, but to secure benefits for the plutocrats who dominate US public policy.

The benefits uniquely accrue to plutocrats: opportunities to squeeze more for themselves from our labor, our land, and our resources and from those of our brethren abroad—the 99% in other lands, with whom we’re linked by a common economic position and interests. If the plutocrats and their loyal political servants in Washington and Brussels have to kill numberless Iranians to secure these benefits, they will. And are.

Stephen Gowans is a writer and political activist who lives in Ottawa, Canada. gowans.wordpress.com He can be reached at: sr.gowans@sympatico.ca
hunter

Norwich, UK

#37738 Feb 5, 2013
Israel is the main problem in the middle east
the jews in Israel treat Palastinian's like shit
They seem to forget how it was in Germany 70 years
ago for them,
But they don't let us forget the holocaust do they,
Keep going on how bad they were treated,
Obviously the nazi's knew then what sort of people
they are!
It's funny how over history no one has tolerated
them.
Lying , Deceitful dirty underhanded scum!
The world would be a lot better place without them.
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#37739 Feb 5, 2013
hunter wrote:
Israel is the main problem in the middle east
the jews in Israel treat Palastinian's like shit
They seem to forget how it was in Germany 70 years
ago for them,
But they don't let us forget the holocaust do they,
Keep going on how bad they were treated,
Obviously the nazi's knew then what sort of people
they are!
It's funny how over history no one has tolerated
them.
Lying , Deceitful dirty underhanded scum!
The world would be a lot better place without them.
Trying to tell Jews the truth?

Sure you are a pure Anti Semite.

Wait till you are arrested and sent to GITMO, because that is the BEST PLACE for all Anti Semites in the world.
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#37740 Feb 6, 2013
-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

The Permanent Militarization of America

By AARON B. O’CONNELL

November 06, 2012 "NY Times" -- IN 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office warning of the growing power of the military-industrial complex in American life. Most people know the term the president popularized, but few remember his argument.

In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for a better equilibrium between military and domestic affairs in our economy, politics and culture. He worried that the defense industry’s search for profits would warp foreign policy and, conversely, that too much state control of the private sector would cause economic stagnation.

He warned that unending preparations for war were incongruous with the nation’s history. He cautioned that war and war making took up too large a proportion of national life, with grave ramifications for our spiritual health.

The military-industrial complex has not emerged in quite the way Eisenhower envisioned. The United States spends an enormous sum on defense — over $700 billion last year, about half of all military spending in the world — but in terms of our total economy, it has steadily declined to less than 5 percent of gross domestic product from 14 percent in 1953.

Defense-related research has not produced an ossified garrison state; in fact, it has yielded a host of beneficial technologies, from the Internet to civilian nuclear power to GPS navigation. The United States has an enormous armaments industry, but it has not hampered employment and economic growth. In fact, Congress’s favorite argument against reducing defense spending is the job loss such cuts would entail.

Nor has the private sector infected foreign policy in the way that Eisenhower warned. Foreign policy has become increasingly reliant on military solutions since World War II, but we are a long way from the Marines’ repeated occupations of Haiti, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic in the early 20th century, when commercial interests influenced military action.

Of all the criticisms of the 2003 Iraq war, the idea that it was done to somehow magically decrease the cost of oil is the least credible. Though it’s true that mercenaries and contractors have exploited the wars of the past decade, hard decisions about the use of military force are made today much as they were in Eisenhower’s day: by the president, advised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the National Security Council, and then more or less rubber-stamped by Congress.

Corporations do not get a vote, at least not yet.

But Eisenhower’s least heeded warning — concerning the spiritual effects of permanent preparations for war — is more important now than ever. Our culture has militarized considerably since Eisenhower’s era, and civilians, not the armed services, have been the principal cause.

From lawmakers’ constant use of “support our troops” to justify defense spending, to TV programs and video games like “NCIS,”“Homeland” and “Call of Duty,” to NBC’s shameful and unreal reality show “Stars Earn Stripes,” Americans are subjected to a daily diet of stories that valorize the military while the storytellers pursue their own opportunistic political and commercial agendas.

Of course, veterans should be thanked for serving their country, as should police officers, emergency workers and teachers. But no institution — particularly one financed by the taxpayers — should be immune from thoughtful criticism.

w wman uk

Chatham, UK

#37741 Feb 6, 2013
hunter wrote:
Israel is the main problem in the middle east
the jews in Israel treat Palastinian's like shit
They seem to forget how it was in Germany 70 years
ago for them,
But they don't let us forget the holocaust do they,
Keep going on how bad they were treated,
Obviously the nazi's knew then what sort of people
they are!
It's funny how over history no one has tolerated
them.
Lying , Deceitful dirty underhanded scum!
The world would be a lot better place without them.
We all know the palistinian gangsta leadership are lying , Deceitful dirty underhanded scum! Geting wealthy on wages their arab sponcers pay them.
No wonder you and mug are so kissy kissy as fellow hitler worshipers, whens the wedding?
Whats not funny is the filthy hatred that is promoted in the unholy koran the total waste of lives that this hatefull cult is causing.
TheReligionofPeace.com Presents:
Is the Quran Hate Propaganda?
What the Holiest Book of Islam Really says about Non-Muslims
Introduction
Why the Violence? Why the Indifference?
On September 25, 2002, a group of armed Muslims in Karachi, Pakistan entered the office of a Christian charity, tied seven workers to chairs and then brutally murdered them. According to Muslim witnesses, the Islamists "showed no haste. They took a good 15 minutes in segregating the Christians and making sure that each one of their targets received the most horrific death."
The killing of non-Muslim humanitarian workers by devout followers of Islam occurs quite often. While there is rarely any celebration on the part of other Muslims, neither is there much outrage expressed by a community renowned for its peevishness.
While rumors of a Quran desecration or a Muhammad cartoon bring out deadly protests, riots, arson and effigy-burnings, the mass murder of non-Muslims generally evokes yawns. In the eleven years following 9/11 nearly 20,000 acts of deadly Islamic terrorism were perpetrated, yet all of them together fail to provoke the sort of outrage on the part of most Muslims that the mere mention of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo inspires.
This critical absence of moral perspective puzzles many Westerners, particularly those trying to reconcile this reality with the politically-correct assumption that Islam is like other religion.
w wman uk

Chatham, UK

#37742 Feb 6, 2013
The Judeo-Christian tradition preaches universal love and unselfishness, so it is expected that the more devout Muslims would be the most peaceful and least dangerous... provided that Islam is based on the same principles.
But beneath the rosy assurances from Muslim apologists that Islam is about peace and tolerance lies a much darker reality that better explains the violence and deeply-rooted indifference. Quite simply, the Quran teaches supremacy, hatred and hostility.
Consider the elements that define hate speech:
Drawing a distinction between one’s own identity group and those outside it
Moral comparison based on this distinction
Devaluation or dehumanization of other groups and the personal superiority of one's own
The advocating of different standards of treatment based on identity group membership
A call to violence against members of other groups
Sadly, and despite the best intentions of many decent people who are Muslim, the Quran qualifies as hate speech on each count.
The holiest book of Islam (61% of which is about non-Muslims) draws the sharpest of distinctions between Muslims (the best of people, 3:110) and non-believers (the worst of creatures, 98:6). Praise is lavished on the former while the latter is condemned with scorching generalization. Far from teaching universal love, the Quran incessantly preaches the inferiority of non-Muslims, even comparing them to vile animals and gloating over Allah's hatred of them and his dark plans for their eternal torture. Naturally, the harsh treatment of non-believers by Muslims is encouraged as well.
So, what does the Quran, believed by Muslims to be the literal and eternal word of Allah, really say about non-Muslims?
I would recomend even a dull kuffar like you should read the koran realise the are talking about you dip shite.
w wman uk

Chatham, UK

#37743 Feb 6, 2013
Muhammad's Own Words
Prophet of Doom was written to expose what Islam’s founder had to say about himself, his ambition, religion, and god. Before you use or criticize these quotes, please read this overview from the author. For those who are serious about the study of Islam, be sure to read the source material appendix, entitled Islam's Dark Past.
Fighting
Qur'an:9:88 "The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah's Cause."
Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."
Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed."
Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."
Ishaq:325 "Muslims, fight in Allah's Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious."
Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah."
Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."
Ishaq:324 "He said,'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'"
Qur'an:9:14 "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them."
Ishaq:300 "I am fighting in Allah's service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah's war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good."
Ishaq:587 "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace."
Qur'an:8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding."
Ishaq:326 "Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there are twenty good fighters they will defeat two hundred for they are a senseless people. They do not fight with good intentions nor for truth."
Bukhari:V4B52N63 "A man whose face was covered with an iron mask came to the Prophet and said,'Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first?' The Prophet said,'Embrace Islam first and then fight.' So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said,'A Little work, but a great reward.'"
w wman uk

Chatham, UK

#37744 Feb 6, 2013
Bukhari:V4B53N386 "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:'Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.'"
Muslim:C34B20N4668 "The Messenger said:'Anybody who equips a warrior going to fight in the Way of Allah is like one who actually fights. And anybody who looks after his family in his absence is also like one who actually fights."
Qur'an:9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place."
Qur'an:9:123 "Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you."
Qur'an:8:72 "Those who accepted Islam and left their homes to fight in Allah's Cause with their possessions and persons, and those who gave (them) asylum, aid, and shelter, those who harbored them - these are allies of one another. You are not responsible for protecting those who embraced Islam but did not leave their homes [to fight] until they do so." [Another translation reads:] "You are only called to protect Muslims who fight."
Muslim:C9B1N31 "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the Messenger and in all that I have brought."
Bukhari:V9B84N59 "Whoever says this will save his property and life from me.'"
Qur'an:8:73 "The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah's religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah's Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid - these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise)."
Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us."
Qur'an:48:16 "Say (Muhammad) to the wandering desert Arabs who lagged behind:'You shall be invited to fight against a people given to war with mighty prowess. You shall fight them until they surrender and submit. If you obey, Allah will grant you a reward, but if you turn back, as you did before, He will punish you with a grievous torture."
No wonder the middle east is so messed up if the murhumna feed this dog shite to their kids.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#37745 Feb 6, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Trying to tell Jews the truth?
Sure you are a pure Anti Semite.
Wait till you are arrested and sent to GITMO, because that is the BEST PLACE for all Anti Semites in the world.
I don't think you understand the history of the term "antisemite" and why it's used that way.
jim

United States

#37746 Feb 7, 2013
hunter wrote:
Israel is the main problem in the middle east
the jews in Israel treat Palastinian's like shit
They seem to forget how it was in Germany 70 years
ago for them,
But they don't let us forget the holocaust do they,
Keep going on how bad they were treated,
Obviously the nazi's knew then what sort of people
they are!
It's funny how over history no one has tolerated
them.
Lying , Deceitful dirty underhanded scum!
The world would be a lot better place without them.
YOU MUST BE ANOTHER MISGUIDED, UNEDUCATED LAD, WHO KNOWS ABSOLUTLY NOTHING ABOUT THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD OF THE BIBLE , not the anti-semitic god allah, but THE ONE AND ONLY GOW OF THE ISRAELITES,, I can understand how easy it is for people like you to be told the same lie day after day any finally beliveing it , it like a terible diease, and it really easy ! Hate! US CHRISTIANS HAVE KILLED MORE JEWS THAN YOU MUZZLIMS EVER DID, AND IM SO ASHAMED THAT THE CHURCH BELIVED THE SAME LIES YHAT YOU MUZZLIMS NOW BELIEVE, HOW VERY AWFULL, ALL I KNOW TO TELL YOU IS WHEN I EXCEPTED JESUS INTO MY HEART, IS THAT HE REALLY LIVES, AND HE IS THE KINDEST MOST LOVING GOD YOU WILL EVER KNOW, I HOPE NOW AND PRAY THAT ALL MUZZLIMS EXCEPT JESUS AS YOUR PERSONAL SAVIOR, GOD BLESS YOU AND ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND YOU MUST AST JESUS TO HELP YOU TO LOVE EVERYONE, VENGENCE IS MINE SAYS THE LORD, YOU WERE NOT MADE TO HATE, IT ONLY CORRUPTS GOOD CHARACTEr, good night my brother and Jesus truely saves and loves you with a love I hope you soon know there is no other love like the love of Jesus
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37747 Feb 7, 2013
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think you understand the history of the term "antisemite" and why it's used that way.
What I know that Western people have very "fertile minds" when coining New Phrases.

They choose the "Most difficult" part (i.e. hiding their true intentions) in the Title Itself. I shall give you some examples:

A. Alcohol Imbibing: Which is a bad thing with lots and lots of negative qualities was termed as "Drinking" which was used for drinking water. That was to lessen the "guilt" they changed it to "drink" which every one does.

B. Narcotics: They were bad things and caused lot of problems in the society. To lessen the "guilt" they changed their names to "drugs" which is commonly used for medicine. Now this harmless word is soiled for eternity.

C. Sodomy and Lesbianism: These people were always looked down in the society as weirds and criminals. To "lessen" the guilt they started calling themselves "Gay". This beautiful English word was solied for ever by these Criminals.

One hundred years back if you call some one as "gay" he would feel that as an honor, now if you call some one as "gay" he might take an offense.

Then they devised another term "Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" to give and impression that these are two sides of same coin and there is not much difference if you choose any of them.

D. Women Exploitation: They wanted to exploit beauty and labor of women. So they started a new Phrase "Women Liberalization" . When some one comes under its spell, she gets mesmerized.

In guise of being in the false "assumption" that she has become "equal" to men, they become a plaything of men.

Their body is on sale and every man has a :right" to feast on their beauty and the lesser they wear the "More liberated" they become. No item can be sold (from a tooth pick to an Airplane) unless you put the picture of a naked or semi-naked women on its cover.

If that is freedom then what is "Slavery"? She is burdened with double the work. In office and in house!!

I can give you hundreds of example like this where they coined "less offensive phrases" to lessens the guilt of actions and make them "more acceptable"

So in light of above, I see nothing strange for them coining a new Term like "Anti Semitism" in place of Anti Jew so that people might be "Cowed" by this strange term and think they are doing something worth while.

And what is strange that when we tell them the truth and ask them to change this term, they become more defensive and continue to use and propagate this phrase.
Gary

Westerville, OH

#37750 Feb 8, 2013
Not worried in the least what Ahmadinejad, the false prophet, says. More concerned about what he does.
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#37751 Feb 8, 2013
Gary wrote:
Not worried in the least what Ahmadinejad, the false prophet, says. More concerned about what he does.
If Ahmadinezad says that "he is a prophet", then he must be false, because no prophet shall come into the world after the last and final prophet came into the world 1400 years back.

But if you are using this word as "pun" then it is OK. He made prediction based on Universal law that "any nation based on injustice, tyranny and mischief" has a very short leash of life and the present Zionist, Materialistic and Atheist state controlled by Ashkenazi Jews in Isreal is all that qualities personified.

It does not need a prophet to predict its doom in near future.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37752 Feb 8, 2013
-

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/arti...

The Permanent Militarization of America

By AARON B. O’CONNELL

Contd.

Like all institutions, the military works to enhance its public image, but this is just one element of militarization. Most of the political discourse on military matters comes from civilians, who are more vocal about “supporting our troops” than the troops themselves. It doesn’t help that there are fewer veterans in Congress today than at any previous point since World War II. Those who have served are less likely to offer unvarnished praise for the military, for it, like all institutions, has its own frustrations and failings. But for non-veterans — including about four-fifths of all members of Congress — there is only unequivocal, unhesitating adulation. The political costs of anything else are just too high.


For proof of this phenomenon, one need look no further than the continuing furor over sequestration — the automatic cuts, evenly divided between Pentagon and nonsecurity spending, that will go into effect in January if a deal on the debt and deficits isn’t reached. As Bob Woodward’s latest book reveals, the Obama administration devised the measure last year to include across-the-board defense cuts because it believed that slashing defense was so unthinkable that it would make compromise inevitable.

But after a grand budget deal collapsed, in large part because of resistance from House Republicans, both parties reframed sequestration as an attack on the troops (even though it has provisions that would protect military pay). The fact that sequestration would also devastate education, health and programs for children has not had the same impact.

Eisenhower understood the trade-offs between guns and butter.“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed,” he warned in 1953, early in his presidency.“The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.”

He also knew that Congress was a big part of the problem.(In earlier drafts, he referred to the “military-industrial-Congressi onal” complex, but decided against alienating the legislature in his last days in office.) Today, there are just a select few in public life who are willing to question the military or its spending, and those who do — from the libertarian Ron Paul to the leftist Dennis J. Kucinich — are dismissed as unrealistic.

The fact that both President Obama and Mitt Romney are calling for increases to the defense budget (in the latter case, above what the military has asked for) is further proof that the military is the true “third rail” of American politics. In this strange universe where those without military credentials can’t endorse defense cuts, it took a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Mike Mullen, to make the obvious point that the nation’s ballooning debt was the biggest threat to national security.

MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37753 Feb 8, 2013
Uncritical support of all things martial is quickly becoming the new normal for our youth. Hardly any of my students at the Naval Academy remember a time when their nation wasn’t at war. Almost all think it ordinary to hear of drone strikes in Yemen or Taliban attacks in Afghanistan. The recent revelation of counterterrorism bases in Africa elicits no surprise in them, nor do the military ceremonies that are now regular features at sporting events. That which is left unexamined eventually becomes invisible, and as a result, few Americans today are giving sufficient consideration to the full range of violent activities the government undertakes in their names.

Were Eisenhower alive, he’d be aghast at our debt, deficits and still expanding military-industrial complex. And he would certainly be critical of the “insidious penetration of our minds” by video game companies and television networks, the news media and the partisan pundits. With so little knowledge of what Eisenhower called the “lingering sadness of war” and the “certain agony of the battlefield,” they have done as much as anyone to turn the hard work of national security into the crass business of politics and entertainment.

Aaron B. O’Connell, an assistant professor of history at the United States Naval Academy and a Marine reserve officer, is the author of “Underdogs: The Making of the Modern Marine Corps.”
© 2012 The New York Times Company
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#37754 Feb 8, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
What I know that Western people have very "fertile minds" when coining New Phrases.
They choose the "Most difficult" part (i.e. hiding their true intentions) in the Title Itself. I shall give you some examples:
A. Alcohol Imbibing: Which is a bad thing with lots and lots of negative qualities was termed as "Drinking" which was used for drinking water. That was to lessen the "guilt" they changed it to "drink" which every one does.
B. Narcotics: They were bad things and caused lot of problems in the society. To lessen the "guilt" they changed their names to "drugs" which is commonly used for medicine. Now this harmless word is soiled for eternity.
C. Sodomy and Lesbianism: These people were always looked down in the society as weirds and criminals. To "lessen" the guilt they started calling themselves "Gay". This beautiful English word was solied for ever by these Criminals.
One hundred years back if you call some one as "gay" he would feel that as an honor, now if you call some one as "gay" he might take an offense.
Then they devised another term "Homosexuality" and "Heterosexuality" to give and impression that these are two sides of same coin and there is not much difference if you choose any of them.
D. Women Exploitation: They wanted to exploit beauty and labor of women. So they started a new Phrase "Women Liberalization" . When some one comes under its spell, she gets mesmerized.
In guise of being in the false "assumption" that she has become "equal" to men, they become a plaything of men.
Their body is on sale and every man has a :right" to feast on their beauty and the lesser they wear the "More liberated" they become. No item can be sold (from a tooth pick to an Airplane) unless you put the picture of a naked or semi-naked women on its cover.
If that is freedom then what is "Slavery"? She is burdened with double the work. In office and in house!!
I can give you hundreds of example like this where they coined "less offensive phrases" to lessens the guilt of actions and make them "more acceptable"
So in light of above, I see nothing strange for them coining a new Term like "Anti Semitism" in place of Anti Jew so that people might be "Cowed" by this strange term and think they are doing something worth while.
And what is strange that when we tell them the truth and ask them to change this term, they become more defensive and continue to use and propagate this phrase.
You didn't understand at all.

The term isn't analogous to any kind of phrase substitution as you claim -- it started because, in Europe, Jews were seen as outsiders, more Arab than European, and so they were claimed to be unequal to Europeans. Jews were often called Semites. IE, that is the origin of the word.

http://books.google.com.mx/books...

You, on the other hand, have no evidence to support the etymology behind those words other than personal conjecture and your right wing ideology.
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#37755 Feb 9, 2013
ADVOCATE wrote:
You didn't understand at all.

The term isn't analogous to any kind of phrase substitution as you claim -- it started because, in Europe, Jews were seen as outsiders, more Arab than European, and so they were claimed to be unequal to Europeans. Jews were often called Semites. IE, that is the origin of the word.

http://books.google.com.mx/books ...

You, on the other hand, have no evidence to support the etymology behind those words other than personal conjecture and your right wing ideology.
Ans.

What happened because of ignorance is past, my point is when you are told of the mistake, why still continue with the wrong wording?

After all so many old slang and phases are removed and new ones added, in the same way, now is the high time you change this misleading "Anti Semitism" and replace it with "Anti Jew" or "Anti Zionism" or "Anti Isreal".. or Anti Isreal / USA / Europe" etc.

Instead of justifying the stupidity of your grandfathers / great grandfathers for not understanding what is Semitism and who are Semites in the world… you should be taking corrective action.

Or may be you are "planning" to "remove all other Semites from the world so that only Jews / Zionists" are left in the world?

You would be planning to kill about 1.5 Billion people on this earth, just to support this "wrong definition" of your fathers/ grandfathers?

Does it looks OK to you?

Are you Devils advocate?

PS:

What I wrote about "drinks" "Drugs" "Gay" "Women Lib." Was not based on either left wing or right wing view point.

It was from a common man's point of view, who has seen these beautiful English world being misused and "forced" to convey meanings totally opposite to what they were designed for.

And it has been done purposely and careful and by people who gave lot of thoughts as to how to lessen the guilt.

The same people who devised such terms as "Islamic Terrorism"!!
Gary

Westerville, OH

#37756 Feb 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
If Ahmadinezad says that "he is a prophet", then he must be false, because no prophet shall come into the world after the last and final prophet came into the world 1400 years back.
But if you are using this word as "pun" then it is OK. He made prediction based on Universal law that "any nation based on injustice, tyranny and mischief" has a very short leash of life and the present Zionist, Materialistic and Atheist state controlled by Ashkenazi Jews in Isreal is all that qualities personified.
It does not need a prophet to predict its doom in near future.
Actually, you are expressing your opinion from a Muslim standpoint with which I seriously disagree. Israel is THE chosen nation here on Earth and Zionism will be fulfilled in the coming times in the form of more land and "the apple" of God's eyes and limitless Grace. So the conclusion here is that what Ahmadinejad is saying is both meaningless and false.
w wman uk

UK

#37757 Feb 9, 2013
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Ans.
What happened because of ignorance is past, my point is when you are told of the mistake, why still continue with the wrong wording?
After all so many old slang and phases are removed and new ones added, in the same way, now is the high time you change this misleading "Anti Semitism" and replace it with "Anti Jew" or "Anti Zionism" or "Anti Isreal".. or Anti Isreal / USA / Europe" etc.
Instead of justifying the stupidity of your grandfathers / great grandfathers for not understanding what is Semitism and who are Semites in the world… you should be taking corrective action.
Or may be you are "planning" to "remove all other Semites from the world so that only Jews / Zionists" are left in the world?
You would be planning to kill about 1.5 Billion people on this earth, just to support this "wrong definition" of your fathers/ grandfathers?
Does it looks OK to you?
Are you Devils advocate?
PS:
What I wrote about "drinks" "Drugs" "Gay" "Women Lib." Was not based on either left wing or right wing view point.
It was from a common man's point of view, who has seen these beautiful English world being misused and "forced" to convey meanings totally opposite to what they were designed for.
And it has been done purposely and careful and by people who gave lot of thoughts as to how to lessen the guilt.
The same people who devised such terms as "Islamic Terrorism"!!
Them problem for radical islam is that more people are reading the koran it shows the hated and vengence for people that dont want accept the teaching of the pedophile prophet. Let women decide what they want to do how dare some represed homosexial iman dictate what they should or shouldnt do. You are the devils advocate continualy apologising for the harm the radical islofachiests are causing.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 4 min Quivering lip Lib... 51,473
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 42 min realtime 693,106
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr 2018 Exclusive 619,863
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 hr 2018 Exclusive 991,835
__TRUMP Creating Worst Harm to ISRAEL__ 1 hr 2018 News 1
Missing Teen - Brittany Crenshaw (Aug '12) 5 hr Denise moody 24
How many MILLIONS of MEXICAN MEN R N in U.S. IL... 8 hr Doctor REALITY 6
More from around the web